Thursday, June 7, 2012



This is my last Rollan's Censored Issues Blog notice here on Blogger where I have had difficulties since the new format which I don't fancy. I have just started a new site McCleary's Alternatives

Its first feature is Cannibal Skies, Zombie Apocalypse. Thanks for coming here and enjoy going there.

Friday, June 1, 2012



I can honestly say that the latest suspicion to arise in Norway’s trial of mass murderer Anders Breivik, namely that he is a repressed gay, is one I had recently arrived at myself and intended to write about here and shall finally say something about. Not however before a few words about why I haven’t written this before.

First, I have been obsessed with finishing my extended essay Solomon’s Tantric Song: Questions of Spiritual Sexuality, which hopefully should be out later in June – someone is working on the cover right now. Second, there were a few others things like forecasts and assessments of current events that I thought might be more important to deal with than any Breivik article. Third, I have had trouble with Blogger itself. When they changed format around the time I obtained a new computer, I put a tick in a box to cancel one article and it wiped out a whole years worth of Blogs including what I had forecast/speculated about Israel this year. I was able to get someone to retrieve one or two of the more important articles which I may put up again, but it’s dreadful. There’s no restore function for errors as in the earlier Blogger system, no way of contacting Blogger itself which merely refers you to a Forum where I found some others were complaining helplessly about my own problem. The net is not really a free zone, we are in the hands of a controlling few, alas.


 So to be brief as possible on Breivik and other complex matters…..I admit to be a bit fascinated by both Breivik and the Norway I regrettably haven’t visited – I’ve only made it to Denmark and Sweden more for family connections than tourism - though I’ve gathered it shares much feeling and value with those nations without being quite so secular (the scenery makes for a bit of nature mysticism if nothing else!). But the Scandinavian mindset seems minimally able to recognize or manage evil on the grand scale. It assumes everybody is good or can easily be made good (vide its ultra-liberal penal system), which isn’t necessarily the case. It certainly isn’t a particularly Christian view.

The latter would posit major evil is assisted and promoted by actual forces of evil, even guiding, possessing spirits as was almost certainly the case with the Florida cannibal of recent news who was growling like a dog as he chewed his victim’s body. Surely more than insanity and drugs were here. Just as there was when, high on drugs, Breivik performed his massacre with voices in his head (angelic?) telling him he shouldn’t do what he was doing. But even if angels were speaking to him he went ahead – because he too buys into Scandinavian ideas of natural goodness. In his disturbed mind he is a good man doing good for his nation even though (as revealed by a documentary here on the massacre) a mid European associate with somewhat similar political views still reported recoiling in horror as though hearing the devil when Breivik rang him with some ideas and intentions.


Jung famously perceived the principle of compensation at work in lives and societies. If you blind yourself to evil Scandinavian style then you risk producing monsters. And in a perverse, negative way Breivik is the prophet or symbol he perceives himself as being. Arguably he is unconsciously compensating things in Scandinavian society, including a poor management of an inherited violence. The Vikings, were particularly violent and “adventurous”. Scandinavians have now gone to the opposite extreme, making criminal issues out of spanking a child and, at least in Sweden, erecting what Julian Assange calls a society that is the Saudi Arabia of radical feminism. While many of us would question precisely that, it does seem the feminism may be getting out of control. Recently there have been calls to address and refer to all children as “hen”, (it), rather than any defined sex. Again one sees unconscious male rage rising against this. Breivik himself has said against the rearing he received at the hands of his mother, "I do not approve of the super-liberal, matriarchal upbringing as it completely lacked discipline and has contributed to feminising me to a certain degree.". (Even while writing this article the intolerably gruesome news from Sweden is that a man suspecting his wife of an affair has cut off her lips and eaten them. Sex and love are not necessarily the sweetness and light some imagine up there in "liberal", permissive Scandinavia!).

The fact is one cannot turn the descendants of Vikings, once the terror of Europe, into domestic pussy cats and lapdogs by modern law in a generation or two. There must be new ways of canalizing and rendering conscious various unconscious masculine ideas and archetypes. Scandinavia doesn’t have enough of these and the women themselves unconsciously resent the situation despite the rationalizations of their animus function – it’s notorious that despite the feminism so many go to the Mediterranean and further abroad looking for gringos (when they do it’s called their rightful sexual liberation, marriage being widely despised in Scandinavia as “possession”) and often prefer settling down with machismo men to living with their own tamed but privately misogynist males. And some descendants of the Vikings do seem just tamed or weak. Take Breivik’s father….

No sooner had news of the massacre got out than this undiplomatic sounding one time diplomat to England and France was condemning his son saying it would have been better he had never been born. But perhaps it would have been better if he himself hadn’t been born!?  By the  time Breivik Jnr was one year old the parents were divorced, and outside of some visits to France Breivik saw his father but little. In fairness to Breivik Snr he is said to have petitioned for custody of his son but was refused – expect the laws of Scandinavia to favour women. (Julian Assange does have some reason to tremble). Number one problem with this murderer, long seen as kindly by friends at school, a protector against bullying, is almost certainly he has lacked proper male/paternal influence. He is a case of Vaterhunger, another victim of the Scandinavian free and easy lifestyles which flee any difficulty in relation - the women too readily walk out of Nora’s doll’s house and the men who don’t want to argue, let them go. When Breivik didn’t manage well in life he just returned to his disliked mother’s not his father’s home  living like a hermit remote from the world. Alienated friends suspected homosexual problems in the withdrawal – they felt he had always been a bit effeminate and obsessed with his looks (the gay painted pony type?) and he hadn’t been notable for girlfriends.


Whatever his orientation Breivik is also the text book case of the eccentric Aquarius(b.13th Feb,1979 in London) except that he isn’t just eccentric. He is forward looking and, in his way, Utopian like Aquarians, thinking and speaking in terms of how he will be seen in the future and how history and attitudes will unfold. Unfortunately there’s a bit of method in his madness as there usually is with Aquarians. There was plenty of madness in the likes of Tom Paine, much derided in his own lifetime, but he did see ahead clearly enough on some things including the welfare state. Another Aquarian Francis Bacon well and truly saw the future, his New Atlantis inspired ideas foundational for America. Jules Verne dreamed many details of history in advance.  James Joyce anticipated literary trends. 

All this can be helpful, but the trouble is Aquarians are too often rigid fanatics for what it is they decide is or should be – an all time prime example is North Korea’s recently deceased Kim Il-Jong of North Korea who reduced a whole nation to a state of almost unparalleled destitution and repression for its own supposed good while he indulged himself.  Aquarians, ruled by different, revolutionary, Uranus are also open to anything and this will often mean they incline like the Emperor Hadrian or Ellen DeGeneres to being gay. And we know that as a group gays are trend makers even more than trend followers.


So we have two questions. Is Breivik tapping into any real future and is he gay? As the second question is slightly easier than the first I’ll cover it first. As said there's been talk of using makeup, vanity lack of girlfriends etc. This of course isn't conclusive - Latin men can prove quite vain. What about the birth pattern?  Strictly speaking we need the birth time that no one appears to possess to analyse for gayness, but there are suggestive factors as things stand. Homosexuality falls under the Uranus that “rules” Aquarius though among straights it could just make for surprising behavior or proneness to accidents. But many gays do have Breivik’s Mars square Uranus affliction. It’s what makes for the in-your-face conduct and more reckless and kinky kind of sex of some gays. The massacre was Breivik’s “orgy” of violence under Mars/Uranus. But it’s also an aspect which assisted his technical knowhow to do it, Mars/Uranus people are technical round sex the type that uses kinky sex instruments but the rifle with which he had almost a personal relationship was enough for Breivik. Overall It would however be more helpful to know if Brievik’s moon is in aspect to Uranus (which it could be on his birthday if we knew the time) as this is a surer sign of homosexuality and an associated will to separate from women.

Breivik’s Mars opposite Black Moon Lilith is a strong warning of the already erratic disposition to violence turning potentially demonic at the same time as it could issue from some kind of Viking resentment towards angry feminist womanhood. Yet his cold and conventional Venus in Capricorn could work against wanting to come out gay and/or to experience same sex love as any aspect of his protest. A problem is that on the one hand the loose conjunction of Breivik’s Sun with Mars renders him keen to be rather conventionally male and belongs with his known interest in sports (to help him keep nicely in shape apparently!). But his disharmonious moon in Virgo and other factors could incline him to something more feminine or effeminate. We must also recall that Uranus itself when  as in his case dominant can incline to the sexual extreme whether that will mean striking androgyny or a marked masculinity. So Breivik could swing either way as he appears to have done.


As to the future, just as I see Breivik as being an unconscious representative of a repressed, politically incorrect but in context not unmeaningful anti-feminism, so he represents awkward unconscious compensation towards something. This is the  excessive, secularist, half, or post-Christian rationalism which simply can’t and won’t accept certain core truths. Breivik is mis-expressing and of course wrongly responding to certain contemporary ideas. Yet he may still in his way be ahead of his time, Uranian style, in recognizing problems not yet to be properly assimilated and enunciated. It is not necessarily the mere “illusion” that politically correct, liberal thought would make it out to be, to insist that a problem exists in the West with such as immigration and multiculturalism. Nor is it necessarily wrong to speak of them as entailing an “invasion” or at any rate some kind of conflict. Repress even the expression words like “conflict” as discriminatory and you court troubles of which Breivki is merely the harbinger. 

Sadly, Breivik’s talk of conflict arguably perceives, Aquarian style ahead of time, what eventually the complacent may be forced too late to realize – there really is a challenge to be addressed by more than appeasement. Indeed, since it seems Christians are on the way to become the new persecuted refugees, the West would not be unjustified if it debarred Muslim immigration just to make room for the massive influx of all those Christians and others the Muslims don’t want near them and which the West is duty bound to be concerned  with if it honestly believes in its own human rights philosophies. 

The influx of immigrants to the West (six million Muslims now dwell in France alone and around 3 million Turks in Germany) is inevitably controversial. It’s hardly racist to ask questions considering the entire population of New Zealand is only around 3 million and the Irish Republic 4 million! We are finally compelled to ask can and should nations be distinct or total hybrids or entirely new entities all but defined by their immigrants who with their higher birth rates will soon rise in proportion to the population? A quarter of all Breivik’s Oslo is a ghetto of immigrants whether Muslim or other, and if and when an immigrant attacks the native (as had happened to Breivik and people he knew and as has happened in Sweden’s Malmo with a major crime problems it hardly dares mention), one can almost rely on police to downplay or even ignore the offence lest the truth appear discriminatory, “racist”, fascist or extreme. So justice is not done and obvious truth unspoken in the interests of a convenience calling itself tolerance.  

This toleration is a mere rationalist, secularist parody of Christian values. The open door to such large numbers of people bids fair to become like the uprooting and (dis)placing of entire nations, nations which, besides, wouldn’t themselves reckon to adopt westerners on the same scale and certainly not tolerate their ways even as a small minority. The persecution of Christians in especially (though not uniquely) Muslim nations is now well nigh ubiquitous from Pakistan to Sudan, and is a scandal of such proportions that a frightened and/or indifferent media doesn’t deal with preferring to espouse the more trendy theme of denied gay or women’s rights. Aid pours into Afghanistan but churches mustn’t be allowed there, Christians are threatened with death, gays mustn’t exist etc. In Europe Britain now has towns with some schools having seventy to eighty per cent overseas pupils to the point English pupils scarcely have identity in their own land and English is not spoken around them. This isn’t a true and enriching multiculturalism, it’s merely a social inefficiency occasioned by the policies of purblind leaders who don’t themselves live in or near the new ghettos.

Worse, at least among some sections of Muslim immigrants, namely the more radicalized which I don’t suggest most are but who can dominate the moderates who fear them, there is hardly such a thing as immigration. Instead, it can equate to virtual colonization (A mosque built belongs to the commonwealth of Islam for ever – the principle has been a ground for raging disputes in Hindu India). The moment is merely awaited when their own values, assisted by higher population growth, can be imposed on the host nation, the process regarded as a religious cum political duty. Meanwhile it can get protested anything great or small barring the way to “acceptance” of these values is “prejudice”. This differs from the outlook and contribution of most other immigrants to anywhere, but again political correctness and the equality fetish must not be allowed to privilege or prefer one group over another. Again, this is the merest parody of Christian agape, one that parasitically and decadently draws upon its legacy.


 The irrational hope of the rationalist secularists from which Breivik so embarrassingly separates himself - even to improperly labelling himself a fundamentalist Christian - is that assimilation must and will take place. People will unlearn their past or they will at least learn toleration in diversity. Where is the evidence? It can happen second and third generation immigrants prove more extreme, are more atavistic, more alienated than those first landed (witness the recent Marseilles shootings) and in Egypt once one of the more liberal Muslim nations now wants Christians expelled and/or accorded  second class citizenship. Reason, from which so much is expected in the West, is only ever an adjunct, a correction, a justification to deeper currents of life more unconscious and which are the theatre of religious beliefs, (or unbeliefs and we know how even unbeliefs as of Stalinism can produce their own irrationalism).

The success of eventual integration and/or the workability of multiculturalism despite the signs is the one generalization political correct secularism allows itself. Otherwise it can draw or allow no generalizations. While Rome burns it dithers with the UN and the committee that demands ever more statistics and sociological surveys and proofs. It denies the man of action, which the likes of Breivik think of themselves as being, any meaningful role or voice. It denies the obvious and commonsensical. It is unnatural, and unhealthy an invitation to the outburst. If the West could have generalized from history and culture it would for example never have wasted its time and been so long deceived by the behavior of Assad in Syria. The West and its liberals if they were at all aware and able to generalize should have anticipated the so-called Arab Spring would more likely engender conservatism and desperate upheaval than democracy. Stubborn pride alone prevents these interest groups from admitting their miscalculations and the obvious truth.

Sometimes regretfully one must just speak the language of conflict and accept its burden, something which amid his many illusions Breivik does, though of course we should not pick up a gun with him either. But one cannot trivialize or romanticize or rationalize away major ideological and religious conflicts with all the barnacles  of their prejudices in the style of the Norwegian girl who, with the almost childish innocence of her nation in the face of evil, concluded the docu on Breivik admitting she loved the variety of interests and colour multiculturalism brings to her country. Much more is involved than the variety of restaurants and cultural spectacles, in fact so much more that it’s  almost selfish to talk that way. And until one faces the backlog of social and political irresponsibility governing many current policies, nations risk producing and half deserve the monster that Breivik, once supposedly quite kindly, has become.

 It would be tragic if Norway and the West couldn’t learn a few lessons from the Breivik fiasco but I fear it will ill now get explained away, secularist style, as an accident of repressed homosexuality when it is far more, including a perverse prophetic warning of sorts it would unwise not to heed.


Making up for lost Blogger time and keeping to a theme somewhat, everyone either has been or should be reading Simon Montefiore’s book and the have read it persons now include Bill Clinton and David Cameron, the latter oddly admitting to do it backwards. While still writing Solomon’s Tantric Song, I have joined this very wide reading audience for a deserved bestseller that covers a three thousand year panorama of what is often pure horror. The account has sometimes appalled me and sometimes had me in stitches but I feel I have learned a few things along the way and it somewhat colours the above reflections. I can’t take the side of the Crusaders with Breivik, but I can’t go in the opposite direction and take the side of Saladin et al. Even this supposedly generous man like most rulers throughout history has been glamourized and he crucified and tortured people when it suited him. He was only rarely forgiving and mild. The rulers of the Middle East seem mostly to have been Herods for murder, tyranny, torture and lies and among the Muslims they seem to have rejoined the cause of jihad in most generations even if they were personally the grossest decadents. Today’s Puritanism is almost a novel phenomenon.


Mentioning Jerusalem leads me naturally to the point that Blogger also lost me an article I had put out on prospects for Israel. I am not going to try to reconstruct its details but just in case and for the sake of it I shall put its core astrological observation on record.

 I observed that there were reasons to suppose Israel might strike Iran in late June or in July, and that, whether it did or not, that would probably be the easiest time for it to engage in such dangerous and controversial ventures. Key for this impression is that the lunation of late June hits degree exact on Israel’s natal Irani. At the same time, this lunation is opposite Israel’s Jupiter and trine its Mars. More could be said but doesn’t need to be so, as this formula covers what’s most essential. It’s a pity that Iran can’t realize Israel is not going to be wiped off any maps as failure to recognize this is likely to cause it and just about everyone lots of trouble sooner or later; but sooner might mean relatively soon. Few things are absolutely guaranteed in astrology (fate is rarely absolute) but there are guidelines and strong probabilities.

The other place to watch is what this month’s lunar eclipse might trigger for New Zealand. I don’t know what is the right best chart of New Zealand but a widely used 1907 ones is seriously afflicted by the eclipse. I mentioned in the erased material of last year that some would-be Anglican prophet of Maori origins alleged he was shown Wellington would be destroyed. He didn’t know in what year, but when it happened it would be in June, he said. Only recently there have been more shakings around Christchurch, so it looks like Wellington might be at some risk at this time.

Thursday, April 26, 2012



Already previewed and debated, on the 28th of April the docu film Corpus Christi: Playing with Redemption is officially released in San Francisco. The film follows the Corpus Christi gay Jesus play and its reception since 1998. Though some early death threats to the play were always indefensible, any negative reception has been predictable and understandable. I have not managed to attend a performance in Australia and there have been altered versions over the years, but if as reported the play originally included such as “F- your Father, F- your Mother and F-God”, transports Jesus to 1950s Texas where he marries two (female) apostles, is seduced by Judas (did this inspire Lady Gaga’s Judas song?) and is asked by Philip to perform oral sex on him, then by normal standards obviously this would be considered offensive and mendacious in ways presuming on a tolerance other faiths would not extend to it.

If the “obviously” word doesn’t register it’s because supporters, placing the onus for controversy on the religious right, subscribe to implicit belief ONLY intolerance is sin and ANY propaganda serving gay aims is justifiable. Though critical acclaim has included the statement “in this show I found one could reconcile being gay and Christian”, that’s nonsense. And indeed Christians gay and straight alike should never agree to, but rather protest, the hypocrisy of what has now become a virtual CC cult which is printing “I am Love” Tee shirts and promoting itself as a “campaign” against ignorance as though devotees owned a new gospel to rival or better represent the non-Redeemer’s love.

While there’s no reason to dismiss the expression “Gay Christian” as an oxymoron and, like the daughters of Zolophehad (Num 27:1) who successfully questioned Moses’ law, believers have the right to question individual issues like homosexuality, they don’t have the right to ignore the first Commandment by consenting to be inspired by or defended by profanities. Advocating CC is a form of idolatry to the extent it rates rights causes above God devotion and implicitly denies trust that things can be changed without secular assistance. The idolatry of rights to which support of CC belongs, is arguably registered –subconsciously - within the larger community by use of the rainbow symbol (a rainbow surrounds the divine throne, Rev 4:3) to signal LGBT concerns – traditional gay pink and mauve could suffice.

Since some Christians, especially of revisionist theological opinion influenced by queer theory, ardently defend CC, the question is raised who owns not just Christ but truth as regards homosexuality and does truth matter here? Any truth to fact is easily blurred as Jesus is believed to have said nothing about the non-biblical word “homosexuality”, though as a gay theologian I deny that.

From both inside and outside the Bible I believe much that’s relevant today can be known without descending to irreverence and profanity to encourage dialogue on religion and same sex issues. But that same evidence (whose availability at this time I believe to be not accidental but providential) is as ignored, dismissed or censored as Corpus Christi playing the victim card isn’t. In fact, both the play and the queer theology that derives from the convoluted queer theory which unrepresentatively (even with elitist selfishness relative to grass roots needs), dominates discourse on all matters gay today through academe and publishing, is more or less where they want to be. That, according to the most outrageous of queer theologians, the late bisexual Marcella Althaus-Reid near conclusion of her The Queer God, is the hell zones from which to mount demonic attack on faith as “redemption”. (The Queer God, pp 164-171)

And yes, redemption is being played with by CC. The film’s title is correct if nothing in the play is, and......”many a true word spoken in jest”. Except that the devil is “father of lies” (Joh 8:44) and nothing is “true” for evasive, migratory “queer” theory: not fact, history, doctrine, gender or sex. It’s all negotiable, borderless, permeable, in motion, open and ironic, more bisexual than gay because to be “born gay” suggests something fixed and essential, not floating and relative.

By the same token Jesus, if and when not as in CC recognizing everyone’s divinity, becomes relative like queer theologian Patrick Cheng’s Christ, who might be Kwan Yin whose image, he says in his Net essay Kwan Yin, Mirror of the Queer Asian Christ sits on his desk as he writes theology - that is if the Holy Spirit isn’t Kwan Yin, a speculation queer theologian Elizabeth Stuart is open to. (Religion is a Queer Thing, p.25). The Net mission notice of the MCC Church in the Valley, North Hollywood, controversially declares, “We have discovered the Holy Spirit as Trickster and Mischief Maker... We attempt to practice a little mischief for God by following the Spirit”. The noisy Soulforce activist group, a sponsor of the CC film, is a prime example of queer apostasy which behind an appearance of openness is virtually closed to non-queer perspectives. (Years ago its site even refused all link to and mention of my groundbreaking published doctoral work on gay spiritualities, A Special Illumination (2004) as that would have been too ”commercial” for them. It would certainly have opened upon a few more Christian perspectives. I have also never heard
from the gay MCC church, another supporter of CC from the first).


.....But what would any specifically “Christian” perspective be? As regards Jesus himself, most essentially one not compromising incarnation and the related redemption as CC does. Whoever or whatever you assume “Antichrist” represents, denial of Christ as incarnate Son/Logos/Wisdom is somewhere involved (1 Joh 2:22). But just this is what Althaus-Reid’s hell zones queerdom spokespersons and some MCC representatives are involved with. Their materialist “body theologies” don’t give room to incarnation of divinity or embodied soul (pace Soulforce) – this would affirm something “essential”. Instead they embody ideas: compassion, inclusivity, political engagement etc that any person or deity like Kwan Yin might be appropriated to represent. There can be Christ Buddha. Christ Krishna and Christ anybody if it makes people feel together and good.

The reality, obscured by queer theologies and fundamentalist ones alike, and even a reason historically the churches fell into such confusion defining and explaining the two natures of Christ, is that they failed to acknowledge any esoteric or sexual principles. On 20th April England’s Guardian newspaper belatedly reported on Sussex University’s chaplain, the Jewish Christian Canon Paul Oestreicher whose Good Friday sermon declared “Jesus was probably gay”. I suggest there’s not much “probably” about it.

Churches and their councils have always failed to realize that to be incarnate at all and representatively for both sexes, to be the Logos(male) and Wisdom (female), Jesus had, humanly, to incarnate as a gay male. That is to say to be a female soul in a male body, which he was from birth and as good as told people he was when he mysteriously referred to some as born “eunuchs” from their mother’s wombs (Matt 19:12).

The eunuch word, unused by St Paul (who is more concerned with issues like recreational bisexuality and gay prostitution), is the nearest Jesus’ society had to the modern “homosexual”. By Jesus’ times it didn’t invariably mean either castrate or celibate, but it did signify an outsider to social/domestic norms - which all Christians may need to be but may lack courage or discernment to be. In the case of Christ, and precisely because he and his disciples believed he was divine, celibacy was inevitable as otherwise Jesus would be like boundary-crossing fallen angels who mate with women in Genesis. For other persons and circumstances there might be other arrangements as with the centurion and his pais who received a miracle, an episode giving every indication of Jesus encountering a gay relation. But there would not be that relation for Jesus and John, attached though they were. More on Jesus and homosexuality and proof for it presently. First let’s consider those Althaus-Reid hell zones and their happy days when His Satanic Majesty stalks the heavens as an angel of light for the undiscerning.


On 19.11.11 Pakistan’s PTA banned the name Jesus from cell phones with obscene and offensive words. (Pakistan regularly harasses its Christians). On that day Saturn, traditionally planetary symbol of restriction and in religious contexts the devil, conjuncted the Jesus/Christ/Messiah conjunction of Jesus’ natus which registers across history for Jesus issues to this day. (More presently, but if you don’t know the extraordinary details of the birth it’s because Christians - who no doubt consider the Magi as disobedient to God as gay Christians - have been screaming abomination and secularists superstition so that the whole vital issue is censored out of range in one of the religious and information scandals of the century).

I rightly guessed that 28.4.12 would show something similar. Sure enough, after moving forward some degrees, by apparent retrograde motion Saturn is back conjuncting Jesus/Christ/Messiah for the day of the premiere. The devil’s in the works somewhere even if queer doesn’t see it. I don’t generalize from a single example.


On the very day in ‘07 that the Mardi Gras Australian premiere of CC took place, blasted in advance by a Sydney bishop as deliberately offensive but defended by its Christian director as encouraging dialogue on sexuality, there was an eclipse. It fell degree exact on the Lucifer/Ishtar axis of Christ’s birth. And in certain respects Ishtar is – broadly - what and who much queer theorists worship. Althaus-Reid made offerings to images of the Egyptian cat goddess Bast (according to body theologian Lisa Isherwood’s Introduction to Dancing Theology in Fetish Boots, 2011), Elizabeth Stuart can write of God being so frustrating – you catch her scent now and again but She disappears.


The eclipse preceding the very first and postponed premiere of Corpus Christi (which finally took place 13.10.98), fell conjunct asteroid Lie in Christ’s birth data. Lie itself is opposite Christ’s Part of Homosexuality and asteroid Boda (marriage), both life issues that would always be challenged by various distortions, perhaps especially through theatre and the entertainment industry. Lie is, and the eclipse was, in Leo the theatre/entertainment sign. Recall it was a famously insolent dramatist, Marlowe, was the first to suggest Jesus lived like an inhabitant of Sodom.


That the intention of Corpus Christi was to shock and probably offend too, is betrayed by McNally’s data. At birth McNally (b.3rd Nov 1939) had what astrology deems a classic gay signature, Mars aspecting Uranus, but in his case inharmoniously so via the close afflicted square aspect favourable to recklessness and “in your face” attitudes. By what’s called chart comparison this same aspect “attacks” Christ’s reputation through the gay fantasy of the dramatist’s Uranus. It stands in less than a degree of affliction aspect to Christ’s Midheaven angle (his destiny/reputation) which McNally’s Mars then aggressively conjuncts.


I have explained elsewhere on this Blog and in Testament of the Magi the respectably scholarship supported means by which has made it possible to pinpoint the data for Christ’s birth and read that data in traditional and also modern ways employing bodies still unknown and unnamed in Christ’s day. But because all time and languages are one (to at least God!), the modern input works and vividly to this day.

Any remaining mysteries about Christ and homosexuality are dispelled by the extensive evidence emerging from the patterns, including the close connection of Born and Saris (eunuch) across the so-called ruling planet of Jesus’ birth, a feature which bespeaks his self-identification as a born eunuch. Only recently, against all probability I have seen what looks like coded confirmation that the mysterious raca issue in the Sermon on the Mount, which I and others have long speculated implies condemnation of homophobia and cursing the faggot/outsider, is very likely that. Aramaic Raca was slang for faggot/effeminate. Suggesting the personal tensions and conflicts involved socially and personally for Jesus, a new asteroid Racah eloquently and argumentatively conjuncts Honoria (honour) and the Part of Coitus of men with women (the faggot is dismissed as lacking) while challengingly opposing The Part of Sexuality in the House of sex besides. Be that as it may....


The tragedy of the current gay debate is that it leaves the spiritual condition of gays caught between the nutcrackers of profane heretics seeking to liberate them and fundamentalists seeking only to cure them. Both in different ways deny the gospel truth that (even if and though some people are sexually undecided, challenged or bisexual) most people are born one way or the other and must work with and from that.

Unless it’s a case of drug or sexual addiction, God is not in the business of curing gays, and it’s falsehood and even cruelty to maintain otherwise. Nor can and will gays destroy religion, the family and civilisation – unless they go the way of directionless, amoral queer theory. It’s little short of divine judgement upon churches that the message “born that way” gets out through the sensationalist Lady Gaga rather than persons properly representing their faith. If praise is not given the stones will cry out (Luk 19:20). Likewise truth will out from any source if Christians won’t do their duty. But I have long realized that the fanatical, Pat Robertson style view of gays – everything up to and including they are devil possessed and cause cyclones – will never be cured unless and until there is the shock of realization that Jesus himself would today be considered gay.


Yet almost no one is willing to consider and assimilate that fact unless via the distortions of the profane much as, anciently, only the contaminated messages of false prophets were eagerly received. I have recited before how, despite being published on gay spiritualities, I have not had reply from a huge list of persons and groups including the specifically gay MCC church who theoretically should have had every interest in my work. It is also apparent the wisdom of the wise and this world which God confounds (1 Cor 1:19) is unwilling to countenance the possibility that the skies might be witness to Christ and anything about him in acute revelatory detail besides. That would be one miracle too far. (After all, Dawkins might be amused).

When former editor and religious journalist Phyllis Tickle wrote me about my researches – not being gay she at least had the kind consideration to respond! – from years of experience with publishing she informed me there was no one she could imagine would consider such material if she were to recommend it. Then woe to the fools of faith (and unfaith) in the circles she knows, who in recent years have all too often published any lies and profanity about Christ for profit. Arguably people might search further and press harder if the subject was deemed important (which credibly to solve the mystery of the Magi after two millennia should be to the point of being historic), but that’s another matter.

As things stands, it’s just a case of “no room at the inn” over again. A very devout believer on whom I tested an early version of my work, admitted they nearly fainted out at certain implications and were so troubled they took it to Jesus. Later they alleged Jesus spoke to them about this and told them the reason people were not listening, and that the researches I have been dealing in is what the world is meant to know. At that point I had better rest the case and simply declare that Wisdom is justified of her children (Matt 11:19), though personally - in at least one thing like St Paul! - I can’t “suffer fools gladly”, especially not queer profane ones and fundamentalist fanatics.



Looking in at some of the centenary Titanic material I ask myself, not cynically but curiously, quite why this ship’s disaster continues to haunt us to the degree it does. The James Cameron Titanic film of 1997, though perhaps the most overall inaccurate and romanticized record of the tragedy, was the biggest grossing film of all time (until his own Avatar overtook it). We now have even a Titanic Requiem being performed.

There seems little question that all our fears of drowning, sudden disaster, of loss amid ease and pleasure, separation from dear ones, the thought of having to look the jaws of death in the face gather around the story; but then there are tales of loss and heroism at war that have great pathos. So perhaps too we see the Titanic event, occurring as it did not long before WW1 as also profoundly symbolic in more impersonal ways, the soon disappearance of an empire, a lifestyle, a world that no longer exists though we are not vastly removed from it. Some of us just project personal associations upon it. In my own case when I was a child I was on a vividly remembered voyage between Wales and Ireland so rough people thought the old ship might sink - which a few weeks later it actually did, but fortunately enough in Dublin harbour rather than out at sea!


But there’s not just the pathos and the symbolism, there’s also our incredulity at the tragedy which has perhaps increased over time as research has made the picture clearer. Humanly it turns out to be a saga of the most mind-boggling, incredible series of errors, oversights and accidents from the weak, low grade iron ore rivets in the steel plating of the perfect ship and insufficient lifeboats insufficiently filled because officers didn’t understand how many should go in them, to the undelivered wireless messages and even making the vessel sink faster by gathering speed instead of staying still or at least progressing very slowly. How could even the keys to the box containing the binoculars for the Lookout have been lost?

The list goes on and on. Many people and things contributed to the disaster but it strikes me one of the most directly and gratuitously guilty was (inevitably and unjustly!) a crew survivor, Harold Bride. He seems to have been too interested in sending income boosting radio messages for the rich and famous to be concerned with warnings about general conditions and icebergs. When he was strongly told he grew so irritable with the nearest ship, the Californian, which could have steamed over in time to save passengers, it switched off for the night so that emergency messages couldn’t be received when needed.

If the passengers remained too long secure for their own good in belief the ship was unsinkable, not even the popular captain Smith that millionaires like to travel with seems to have been too bright. An arbiter of fashion, Lady Duff Gordon, who had been prone to interesting states of foreboding during the voyage, walked on deck on the morning of the 14th and found it so cold she was convinced icebergs must be near which the Captain laughed off as improbable. But admittedly it was improbable. Though April could be a dangerous month, icebergs shouldn’t have been so far south at the time and it seems the massive culprit had broken off and made a very long journey and even from the time the Titanic began to be built.

The story begins to become like a parable of something, a dark tale of doom or retribution like Captain Ahab’s Great White Whale or the whale that God “prepared” for Jonah, all ultimately unavoidable. Yet not entirely unavoidable. There are strange tales of people’s late cancellations for the Titanic’s maiden voyage, everything from dreaming it would be wrecked to perhaps providential “accidents” that prevented their going as in the case of various clergy like the Rev Holden whose wife’s sudden illness prevented him from leaving for America, Pastor Nesbitt’s suddenly changed arrangements. The ship had been like a challenge to fate by its very name. The titans like fallen angels had revolted against the Greek ur-God, Saturn. The Titanic was the boat that ”even God himself couldn’t sink” (famous words attributed to Captain Smith who perished so that we can’t check) but which nature if not God did sink.


It’s a sign of the times that this last weekend’s docus did not stress religion really at all though the event would carry a lot of religious resonance and stories for many people. The Cameron film included violinists playing “Nearer my God to thee”, but it’s disputed it was precisely this hymn was played. However we do know that on deck there were priests giving absolution (to those from the second and the half abandoned third class) and on some boats, like the one 17 year old John Thayer managed to get onto after floating around, people were praying and singing hymns.

However not everyone on all life boats. The unsinkable Molly Brown was registering she was unsinkable and Lady Gordon in her detailed and fascinating account, and despite all her justified premonitions about the Titanic (where or how did she have them?), never once mentions God or Providence in the matter. In the lifeboat, scarcely able to endure the cold, the sea sickness, the sight of the sinking ship and the cries of the dying across the waters, like Voltaire’s Candide she only mentions that the stars above the boat (the night was illuminated by only stars, it was the dark of the moon with a new moon due on the 17th) seemed remote and uncaring to the scene. She hardly seems thankful to have survived – possibly she suffered survivor guilt. The British Dulwich College science teacher Lawrence Beesley likewise registers nothing emotional but the horror of the screams of the dying (some said they went on for hours but that’s what it must have seemed as most people would die in minutes from hypothermia). There is no thought or mention of God or fate; we may suppose science forbade everything but fact.

An idea I musingly draw from what I read and hear in this respect is that, (as I describe near the end of my The Great Circle), belief is a truly complex thing and is not necessarily influenced or decided at all by disaster, emergency and the face of death. People have a sense of God and the beyond or they don’t and often seem to believe what they want to believe. Ultimately it is almost as though there is a predestined, or at least highly “irrational” element to the faith decision.

The most extreme Titanic story of the religious kind belongs to the Scots Baptist minister John Harper after whom a memorial church would be founded in Glasgow. He was the traditional “soul winner” and was so to his last breath. His “last convert” a fellow Scot who managed to cling to some wreckage till he was later rescued would later attest that Harpur had heroically given away his lifejacket and was being driven back and forth in the water. He had come close shouting to him to trust in Jesus and be saved and asked him if he thought he was saved. “No,” replied the man. Harper was driven away by the current but later swept back to him and shouted had he now put his trust and was he really saved?” 'No, I cannot honestly say that I am' was the reply. Harper then sank. The man said he suddenly then believed. As I don’t find the name of the alleged convert one wonders if this is evangelical fantasy but probably not as Harper had also been observed by numbers of people on the sinking deck and then in the waters similarly calling on people to place their trust.


Harper’s daughter, Nina, survived but as her mother had died in childbirth she was brought up by family friends who never let her even discuss the Titanic during her youth. One wonders with such suppression and repression, with no grief and trauma counselling how even with prayers, hymns and faith Titanic survivors quite managed. And it seems they didn’t do so too well. John Thayer suffered depression and committed suicide later in life, Madeleine, the widow of John Jacob Astor who drowned lived a confused and troubled life. There are similar tales.

The most important thing would seem to be that we should learn a few lessons from the Titanic, not just the need for responsibility and efficiency on sea as much as land but even the need to mourn and express rather than repress which perhaps today we do rather better than back a century ago. Indeed it is almost as though the collective sensed it had to do the grieving for people and those of a generation who never quite did it for themselves. However the recent wreck of the Costa Concordia, another tale of remarkable bungling, suggests we may not have learned as much as we might have done.