In Stretching Your Limits, someone asked the channeled entity Bashar about Orion. His response led me, tangentially, to a new interest in Ayn Rand. You see, at this late date, past the midpoint of my life, I finally get it. In the chart of Ayn Rand, I see the eternal validity of evil, the direct line from Trump’s America to ancient Orion.
I finally get that one can be a highly accomplished spirit with a negative intent from the very beginning. It’s not necessarily a thing where people live dark lives because they went wrong and will eventually get it. No, some people are very satisfied with the miserable lives they lead. I didn’t believe it could be nature that perverted people thusly, only nurture. Oh, what a naive goober I am. There really can be a child born a demon. Ladies and gentlemen, Ayn Rand.
To paraphrase his many talks on the subject, millions of years ago, the Orion star system was the proverbial giant oak tree from which little acorns like Hitler and Pol Pot fell. As nasty as the violence and genocide has been on our planet, they are only the tail-end ripple of the tsunami of evil that was ancient Orion. To hear Bashar describe it, ancient Orion was multiple planets, all raging with the worst sort of behavior, on an unimaginable scope and scale, for a very long time. The center of all of this negativity was said to be the planet Huva.
In Stretching Your Limits, Bashar gives the physical location of the long-destroyed Huva as approximately where Mintaka is now. That got me wondering about its reflection in my own chart. Lo and behold, I have a prominent Mintaka conjunction. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I’ve personally been subjected to a sort of violence that should not even exist. Go figure.
I saw an article by Clinical Psychologist Bruce Levine about the psychology of Ayn Rand, with some details about her personal life. As I was reading about her controlling, aggressive interpersonal behaviors, I could only imagine her Pluto had run amok. Intrigued by the article, I pulled up her chart. Why yes, Rand has quite an ugly, prominent Pluto, conjunct Mintaka, adding extremity to a harsh T-square. Bit of a nasty triple word score, if you will.
Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten by Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation — Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street — on him.
What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: “Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,” she wrote, gushing that Hickman had “no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”
This echoes almost word for word Rand’s later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: “He was born without the ability to consider others.”
The Orion struggle was largely about narcissism that raged unchecked for far too long, plumbing new depths of depravity. The connection here to the malefic Pluto has dire connotations. Pluto can be seen as a sort of outer wall of our solar system. Unevolved Pluto can be seen as one whose nature is to push others to/through the outer wall of human experience. Among other things, Pluto is the locus of selfishness, and where violence (pitch or catch) is shown in a chart. It’s not a pretty combo platter, especially with her other chart factors.
Aside from being in that T-square at what you could call the Apex of Evil, I note that her Venus is in her Gauquelin sector at the Midheaven, a potential indicator of fame or notoriety. (Check out Oprah’s Aldebaran Midheaven – new heights of fame.) Venus in astrology is just like the goddess Venus, or the tarot card The Empress. It shows the native’s ability to love and be loved. The link above describes it as “love and money,” because it’s about the physical, material life, the home, and being supported.
A planet within 10 degrees of the Midheaven is like a spotlight on the life, in this case Venus. Rand is quite well known. Books and articles are written about her love life. It’s reflective, but it’s not exactly what she’s famous for.
In her chart, I see the Venus Midheaven as more of a “pertinent negative,” or something we would expect to see, and don’t. In a broader sense, she’s famous for the non-expression of love, represented by Venus. Interesting that one can be famous for not having something, but that’s what drove her career. Dr. Levine’s article does a great job of showing how what I will describe below as her severely afflicted Venus/Moon played out not only in her life, but in society.
I say her Venus is severely afflicted, despite being exalted in the very last seconds of Pisces, because of her aspect patterns, specifically the Pluto-amped T-square. It’s like Venus (her ability to love and be loved) is standing between Uranus (the Weirdo) and Neptune (the Subconscious), both of whom are punching each other and elbowing her face. Her T-square is brutal, severely destabilizing Venus. Rand has Neptune as both the host of and a participant in this assault on her love. Neptune is about escapism, illusion, and universal truths, among other things. Rand was a known abuser of amphetamines and cigarettes, consistent with a debilitated Neptune.
Venus is a lower octave of Jupiter, and here is in the 9th house, which he rules; however as Rand’s Jupiter is in Aries and does not interact with Venus, she is without her benefactor in this chart. Add to this melee the fact that next to Jupiter, also punching at Venus separate from the T-square, is Pluto/Mintaka. It’s kind of like Boston Bruins v. Venus.
Rand’s Jupiter is also in direct conflict with what I think of as her Beast of Capricorn, agitating her Moon/Mercury/Pallas complex. Her internal world must have been a deeply grim place of both raging fire and intense pressure. I don’t see any evidence of joy, only extreme defiance and the satisfaction of conquest.
At the risk of Sean Spicer-ing myself, I think that past a certain point of ill will, the only real difference is scope, scale, and motivation. The main difference between Hitler or Christopher Columbus and, say, Ariel Castro, is what the individual’s fantasies are and how big they’d like it all to be, divided by how capable they are personally.
In Hitler’s chart I can clearly see deep feelings (even with his also Capricorn Moon). From comparing the charts, I believe Hitler was motivated by excessive feelings that he couldn’t process, whereas Rand was born to not feel things. She hated feelings, especially love. Her chart shows that being by design, by personal preference rather than a result of childhood tragedy.
When we have an afflicted Venus, the natural remedy for that would be something like a happy Moon — an easygoing, loving nature — or maybe a well-aspected Ceres, the Earth Mother, could help balance such a personality. Maybe a strong 7th house Juno with a wonderful Cancer partner, someone who brings out their loving potential. I would hope to see evidence of some personal trait that helps a wounded person feel loved, some ability to feel grateful, or at least want to, something to soften the edges. Rand has barbed wire where a pillow should be.
Understand that no matter how fiercely she might argue the fact, Rand’s Moon — her moods and feelings — moved constantly, as all of ours do, as the Moon itself does. That emotional variability, our tendency to stay in motion, may be challenging, but it is what keeps us from snapping under pressure. We may think we’d like to be mighty redwoods, standing our ground for a millennium, never having to budge. But remember, for every such tree there are at least 1,000 knuckleheads with chainsaws. Change can be good.
Rand’s Moon and Pallas Athena are on the same degree (21 Capricorn), and applying, like conjoined twins. So when Rand’s ability to love and be loved (Venus) is threatened — as it constantly is by Uranus and Neptune in the T-square (plus Pluto/Mintaka just because of her karma) — she has only her beleaguered Moon for emotional support. Beleaguered is not a mood I would try to put Pallas Athena in if I were feeling blue, and I suspect Ayn Rand stayed in it all her life. Head-chopping is a go-to problem-solving move, especially with Mercury (her intellect and communication) one degree away, acting as the third head of Cerberus. Ayn Rand, as shown in this chart, was who Mr. Spock would be if he developed just enough emotion to experience hatred.
Adding Mercury to that mix helps her keep her focus purely cerebral, caulk up any tiny little crack that may have existed in the giant wall around her heart. So her general thought processes, as well as her feelings, moods, and strategic initiative, are also deep in the home of Saturn — limiting, cold, authoritarian, the punisher, he who threshes, he who calls for payment, the one who makes you wait, the one who sweats the details and makes you sweat them, too. Saturn/Capricorn are all about personal stability and accrual, eliminating personal vulnerabilities.
Also Capricorn is the Moon’s detriment, opposite her natural home in Cancer. As a general rule of thumb that I learned in Secrets From A Stargazer’s Notebook, one can know what to expect from the world by observing the Moon’s sign in the natal chart, part of its accidental dignity. When your Moon is in its own sign, it’s your turn to receive. When it’s in the opposite sign, it’s your turn to give. Debbi Kempton-Smith calls them red light/green light days in the above book. This can be seen as lucky/unlucky days, when things are liable to either go your way or not, when the wheel is turning toward you or away from you. When your Moon is in its own sign, you are the pigeon. When it’s in the opposite sign, you’re the statue.
With the Moon in its detriment in Capricorn, Rand was born in what could be called the red-light/bad luck/not your turn to win/you must give position, because again, of its accidental dignity. Rand was born having cornered herself emotionally into a never-win situation. Of course there’s no such thing as a one-sided coin. So where there’s a never-win, there’s an always-win — and of course the wild card, which is the rim that they share. But that’s an evolved viewpoint which would not have been evident to someone with Rand’s curriculum vitae. She was no Helen Keller.
When the Moon got back around to the part of life where she would normally be entitled to receive (its home in her natal chart, Capricorn), it was paradoxically in its own natural “you must give” position. As I see it, taking when it’s your turn to give is the definition of sin. You can do it, as long as karma doesn’t concern you. Selfishness is an insidious vice for the Capricorn Moon.
There is an amazing paradox here, and thus an enormous opportunity for transformation and mass transmutation. Rand was actually born with a very Plutonian, zero-sum, angel-or-devil set of options. Her vertex is directly opposite her Pluto, which was directed at society like a fire hose in the 11th house.
She was fully equipped to be the exact opposite of who she was. There is a transformative, transcendent part of Pluto where anything is possible, there are no outer limits. It can be awesome outside the box. But you have to get past all the anger and desire for revenge, the lust for blood and treasure. You not only have to stop wanting them, you have to be sorry for having taken so much of them. Rand did have circuitry inside her mind that could have balanced beautifully, had she toggled it in the other direction.
Based on what I know of her and the chart above, I’m sorry she didn’t rise to the challenge of the lovely paradox she created. Her emotional self was not unlike a person who is born blind, but to emotion rather than visual stimuli. She was like lactose-intolerant, but with feelings of humanity rather than milk. She may never have hated anything more than the part of her I describe herein as the Moon or Venus. She could have flipped that over and been truly astonishing. Too bad she would’ve hated Harriet Tubman so much, she would’ve helped poor Ayn understand.
The other key thing about the particular way Rand’s Moon/Pallas/Mercury conjunction operates is shown in her philosophy. Rand had grossly conflated her own personal moods (the Moon) with her ability to recognize larger patterns and project clarity, as represented by Pallas Athena, with her head made of a cut diamond. The two are conjoined twins in her chart, and Mercury makes it something of a triplet, or perhaps in her case a Cerberus. Rand had basically fused her own personal and sexual needs with her intellect/writer and inner Pallas Athena. Her whims were sold to her collective members as “pure logic,” and people bought it because internally, Rand wasn’t lying. She has the chart of someone who truly does believe herself to be the arbiter of objectivity, the axis Creation revolves around.
Ayn Rand is like nails on my psychic chalkboard, so I really don’t know that much about her. Dr. Levine’s description of her personal romantic world — her affair with Branden and also her marriage — are a natural outgrowth not only of the above Venus/Pluto/Moon factors, but her unique Sun in Aquarius in the 7th house. They all felt the sting of her controlling Pluto. They all feared her, which was her version of love. And they were the prototype, the seeds, for what she hoped to accomplish — and largely did — in society. How much would she have loved Trump, and his version of Obamacare?
There is no one fulcrum to her madness, as there is with Hitler. Rand has more like a circuit between the Sun, the T-square, and the Moon/Pallas/Mercury. There’s an episode of The Simpsons where a doctor heals Mr. Burns, and that throws him out of whack, because he has all his diseases balanced inside like a Jenga tower. Rand has the emotional version of this in her chart. A little bit of good health or balance would throw this entire consciousness into chaos. Rand has multiple factors, all perfectly calibrated to each other to create something that psychologically rolls like an egg. She could have been an avatar, with the enormous spiritual paradox shown in her chart, had she chosen to shore up her infrastructure with the massive resources at hand. She could’ve had the joy of learning to roll like a ball. But that was not her choice.
Rand had, in her Collective, a cult of personality. From her vast writings, it is clear she believed herself to be the embodiment of logic itself, the actual bellwether by which one can determine whether something is objective or subjective. If it works for Rand, it’s logical. If she doesn’t get it, it’s emotional/weak. That was a very clear rule in her dealings, even from the little I’ve read about her. She directed her acolytes in the matters of their marriages, too, sometimes instructing them to divorce — and having them comply! At any rate, if you were looking for said arbiter, she was perfect for the job. She selected the perfect fabric to cut herself from, with that costume in mind.
Her tiny little seventh house is all squashed down into 13o of Aquarius — less than half a normal house size. Strikingly, there’s only one thing happening there: the Sun! And in astrology the Sun is the individual’s core expression of will, their reason for coming to Earth in the first place, their EGO. Because Aquarius is a “duplicated sign” in her chart, the Aquarian (co-ruled by Saturn and Uranus) impersonality and iconoclasm are prominent themes. Because of her oddball houses, Aquarius is almost like a moat around her Sun.
What I see here is someone who is committed to their own will and ego in a way that is seldom seen. Yet with her Sun in the 7th, in his detriment, a complete union with another is something she wants more than anything. She might never be okay without it. Yet marriage is bullshit for her, because it was created before she was born to define it “rationally.” And she really was potentially one of the least emotional or cuddly people on Earth. Love was her Kryptonite. Had she developed a tolerance for it early on, been dipped in it a few times, things could gone differently. But I don’t think so. I get that she really prefers it this way, even now.
Rand had literally conflated her own needs and desires (the Sun) with the general mechanism of the human race (Aquarius). Her Descendant, the heart of her personal commitment in life, was tiny. Like a wall safe, her tiny 7th house is deep in her enhanced sense of detachment, and contains the only thing she’s truly committed to: the Sun, her own ego. She has it squirreled away where there would normally be a marriage, in a sort of fortified bunker. There was no challenging her on any of this. That’s what inspires people about her. She didn’t have the courage of her convictions, she WAS her convictions. Her troubled Neptune, especially in the 12th house, would have permitted her to gloss over anything inconvenient, completely block out awareness of any personal issues, externalize any and all societal impacts. She was probably alcohol-friendly. [Come to find out she was quite the speed freak, hm.]
Rand’s philosophy collapses in the 7th house, and here’s why. The 7th house Sun normally indicates someone who really needs to be partnered, and I think Rand is no exception to this. Her marriage sounded utterly miserable (at least for him) from the above article. She seemed to have the classic Borderline Personality Disorder quality of “I hate you, don’t leave me.” I imagine her husband living not unlike the Grinch’s dog. For all her talk of pure rationale, and answering only to herself, as genuinely as she felt those things, she had a raging need to merge with another. She had extreme ego boundary issues, truly not knowing where she ended and everything else began.
Counter this withLeo, the other duplicated sign, on the Ascendant, and you have someone who has no idea how much they expect to be noticed and praised. First of all the Sun is ruling the Leo Ascendant from the other side of the chart. Again, the duplicated signs are areas of extra focus. In this case it’s the Sun/Leo with its huge ego, willfulness, demand for attention, high standards, and leadership self-image. She was able to get all eyes on her when she walked into a room, and she probably loved that.
Where there are duplicated signs, there are intercepted houses. Rand’s intercepted, or “scattered-focus” areas (opposite the highly focused or dominant areas described above, i.e., Aquarius/Leo) are the 5th and 11th houses. The 11th is Aquarius’ natural home, and is about society in general. It’s about the impersonal human condition, how people interact, large groups of people, humanity as a whole. As described above, Rand is quite blurry in this department, and in its opposite, the 5th house.
These intercepted houses represent parts of life the subject doesn’t exactly get. The 5th house is about creativity, children, and playfulness. She didn’t strike me as one who enjoyed parties. Why would she? They’re full of other people! I’ve never seen her appear lighthearted. I bet she hated kids even more than adults. [Oh, after I wrote that, I saw this:]
In elementary school, her class was asked to write an essay about why being a child was a joyous thing. She instead wrote “a scathing denunciation of childhood,” headed with a quote from Pascal: “I would prefer an intelligent hell to a stupid paradise.”
Rand did have Uranus technically still in the 5th house for another minute, so it’s possible she threw very odd parties, or some form of entertainment that was unique unto her (Uranus is for weirdos, and she has Aquarius on steroids). With her unique Moon and generally sour Saturnian personality, I suspect she had the same taste in entertainment as a very tight-fisted Roman emperor. She may have thrown “parties” (and I’m purely making this up) where people would be savagely criticized or otherwise subjected to unpleasantness that Rand said was for their own good, and thus entertaining for her, and thus rational. Her Collective members would undoubtedly have swallowed their pride to her sheer delight many times.
I feel her Uranus more reflects her 6th house, wherein she had oddball ideas about health and service. Rand taught that self-service was the only virtue. She believed smoking cigarettes made people more rational, and as Dr. Levine describes, refused to retract her smoking mandate even after being diagnosed with lung cancer. She lived to be of disservice, just like she was famous for not-love. There were other things, too, about what people ate and drank, and what she expected from them in fealty. I get that she conflated marriage with service, with her Sun (self) in the 7th, and all of her asteroids in the 6th. Because of who she was, she saw that as more of a one-way thing where he gives and she takes. That was her thing. But she could’ve taken that the opposite direction, and let him help her help herself to astonishing result.
A person with a lesser-evolved, duplicated Leo Ascendant is already likely to truly believe themselves to be royalty among men, and demand extreme ring-kissing, even without her intense Pluto and other issues. The more validation she got, the more she would want. There would be a tendency for her Sun (ego) to run amok.
Rand had Taurus, Gemini, and Cancer in the 11th house, and Scorpio, Sagittarius, and Capricorn in the 5th. Each of those houses, with their multiple signs, would be a big mishmash of things she probably didn’t know what to do with. The only activity in either of them is Pluto/Mintaka in the 11th. (I know, technically Uranus is still in the 5th house for another minute. It’s headed directly into the Moon/Mercury/Pallas crap storm, so I’m calling it part of that mess.)
The 11th house interception (with the chart factors in play here) suggests to me someone who may have lots of vague ideas about how society should work, yet no real ability to extrapolate how policies would play out in real life, what that would look like. It could be a certain myopia regarding the realities of the human condition overall, which combines with the absolute dearth of empathy and compassion in this chart to chilling effect.
I see it as potentially the sort of thing I’ve heard about Henry Ford: that he was a virulent racist most of his life, until he saw the actual human experience on the other end of his rhetoric played out in the Holocaust. I have heard he had a 180-degree revelation once the dots were connected viscerally. I would expect Rand’s acolytes themselves to have this experience, though from this chart I doubt she ever would. If the people in the images were not European, I would expect her to double down on killing them all, and possibly even if they were.
Rand’s capacity for emotional expression was so thoroughly ravaged in this chart, so meticulously absent, that it makes me wonder if she was consciously incarnated to represent hatred, like HH the Dalai Lama’s evil twin. She was enormously capable in her own way, and from what I’ve seen of her I doubt she had one single regret about the way she lived her life, other than not doing the same but more and harder.
The radioactive-looking cherry on top of this shit salad of a chart is Vesta, the true believer. I don’t believe Ayn Rand ever spoke a false word in her life. Her entire life was one enormous lie, and she believed every square centimeter of it. The Vestal Virgin within her, the one who would rather die than cross her own line in the sand, was right there on the IC at 9 Libra.
I see the IC (we all scream for ice cream!) as the proverbial heart of hearts, where a person lives emotionally, their sense of their core truth. Rand’s Vesta — the one who never couples, who chooses death above dishonor — sits right there atop a fixed star called Vindemiatrix. Terry Nazon describes it as “Falsity, folly, disgrace, stealing, widowhood, depression, witch hunts, mysticism, and the occult.” This underscores my sense that she was very, very comfortable with her dysfunctional 11th house, or ability to relate to humanity in general.
Lastly, there’s some very gross stuff in her chart for me personally. For one, her Jupiter is on my Midheaven, and we have the same Ascendant at 7o Leo. This is conjunct Praesaepe, an unfortunate fixed star that drives individual will and can portend violence and misery (as I have been on the receiving end of). Also, her key player Uranus (also a key player in my T-square), is conjunct my South Node at 2o Capricorn. For me, 2o Capricorn represents the hell of ancient Orion, and the effect its ripple has had in my life. Of course my Ascendant is how others see me, as with everyone. Marilyn Monroe has the same one too, it’s not all bad. But I don’t like having such key factors on the nose with Ayn Rand. I’ve recently discovered that Heinrich Himmler’s chart strongly resembles my own, too. Yuck.