A great danger facing the modern world is the number of people who seem to need to construct general conspiracy theories based not on studying the facts but on one example that they have heard of.

The recent Covid crisis flushed out all kinds of armchair scientists who claimed that one person happening to die within a fortnight of receiving a vaccine meant that we are all destined to perish in a Bill Gates led crusade to empty the planet.

This kind of thing isn’t thinking at all, it is in fact that opposite.

It’s taking one example of something and fixing a theory onto it to save the holder from ever having to observe or even think about the issue ever again.

Astrology is one of the worst subjects for this kind of thing. You’ll often find people on astrotwitter dismissing all Geminis as cheats based on the “ research “ that they did into their ex boyfriends chart. 

The trouble is, it’s always possible to find one example of something but that doesn’t prove the theory works.

Take the French king Louis 16th whose Sun in the final minutes of a sign is often used as an example to defend the principle of anaretic degrees. It even happened in Leo so it’s obviously is a bad thing.

We all nod sagely and see it as clear proof even though we don’t actually know what an anaretic degree means but it sounds like something to do with a kidney infection so it can’t be good, and Louis obviously met a bad end so….

A search through various articles on anaretic degrees will reveal that they are ” considered problematic “, and ” associated with weakness and destruction “.

When planets arrive there they are said to ” wish to move to the next sign, but they are stuck and exhausted “.

” If a natal planet is found at 29 degrees of any sign, also known as the Anaretic degree, there can be some real issues with decision-making in that part of the personality represented by the energies of the planet. The native may evaluate and re-evaluate situations before making a move one day, and the next day, jump into the action without listening to himself or herself! For example, if Mars is at 29 degrees, the native may devise many plans of actions, worry excessively about the possible actions and different routes to take, and then execute a spontaneous action that is contrary to the decision “

Interestingly the above writer came up with the following example to prove the point.

” I know a woman whose Juno is at 29 degrees, and despite the fact that she has many theories about taking relationships seriously, jumps into them quickly. “

Astrology is rife with this kind of stuff.

The example put forward to prove a theory is frequently someone known to the writer rather than a famous person who we all know about.

The judgement about their actions is extremely subjective but we are expected to agree with the writer’s view of someone we have never heard of.

They pluck some absurdly singular placement, in this case one which has seriously questionable merit in its own right as being the definite cause of this statement.

They don’t publish the actual chart to give the rest of us an opportunity to check whether it’s that placement that actually is the reason for that behaviour, even though we have no actual evidence to back up the assertion in the first place.

But the vast majority of readers don’t apply those criterion to a statement such as that made above.

They read it and move on, unconsciously filing it as evidence of the proof of anaretica.

This analysis would not work for Louis 16th. He was not looking to jump from Leo into Virgo, in many ways that was his problem. His exact Sun / Jupiter conjunction at 29 Leo meant he was passionately fixated on the divine right of kings – that was why all the Virgos had to kill him.

But in the individual case of Louis the symbolism really works. 

His Sun at 29.56 Leo was obviously meant to symbolise the end of monarchy, a piece of symbolism that works very well in Louis’ case but you can’t stretch that out into a general theory of revolutionary execution.

Having your Sun in the final degrees of Leo is no more a sign of impending doom than it is of you being crowned king of France in the first place.

Sadly most people’s approach to astrology is religious rather than scientific.

They believe in astrology, it works for them so anything anyone says about it is automatically assimilated because it must be true.

The thing with any kind of research is you have to put any personal prejudices or biases to one side in order to avoid accusations of subjectivity.

And in the world of astrology this is actually very difficult, because we are always looking at phenomena through the subjective prism of our own chart.

I recently had a conversation with someone who stoutly defended anaretic degrees but used mainly personal experience for evidence. 

The problem here was this person had the Moon at 29 degrees of Cancer and was referring to experience received as a result of Pluto transiting opposite that Moon.

That personal experience was undeniable and genuine but you can’t use it to defend a theory that states that 29 degrees of every sign is a problem for everyone.

The anaretic thing seems to be particularly trotted out when referring to anyone with the Moon there.  

This is probably due to the Void Of Course Moon phenomena which is almost always going to be the case when it’s in the final degree of a sign.

I have warned many times of the dangers of importing horary theories into natal delineations.

This one would say that someone with a Void Moon wouldn’t amount to anything.

How much more so would that be with the moon in the final degree of a sign.

Try telling that to the Winston Churchill, Pope John Paul 11, Jack Nicholson, Hillary Clinton, Michael Crawford, Judy Garland, Shirley Temple, Iga Swiatek, Frida Kahlo, Vanessa Redgrave, Rory McIlroy, Simone De Beauvoir and Malcolm X.

I could find many other examples of successful people with an anaretic Moon, but don’t wish to fill the article listing them all. This is a small cross section of people from a variety of different professions.

This is a general problem in astrology. Most of what people call research is anecdotal based on a very small sample of experience but this doesn’t seem to stop people making widespread generalisations based on it.

When it comes to astrology we all have very different proof thresholds.

Some people have such a strong desire for the subject to be right that they will accept overall theories based on one or two subjectively described occurrences.

As a triple Capricorn that won’t do. I have a very high truth threshold that has to be met consistently over time in many differing scenarios.

Ultimately I want astrology and my own work to be proven and trusted because it is. 

The reason that I dismiss so many astrological theories is because they don’t meet that criterion. 

I am pragmatic not ideological. If any of these theories did meet my requirements I would incorporate them into my work. 

I understand how my approach gets under the skin of many astrologers who don’t operate in the same way.

If I apply my proof threshold to their observations they often take it personally and block me.

But at least my clients can rely on the fact that any deductions I make about their own charts are based on thoroughly researched observations over half a century.

Another thing is that astrologers hardly ever declare their own subjectivity.

I am constantly referencing my Capricorn stellium to explain my approach to astrology.

I never see Pisceans owning their tendency to believe a hundred impossible Astro theories before breakfast.

Or people who flit from Sidereal to Tropical using whatever suits them explaining that it’s because they have Gemini Moons.

Or astrologers with Sun, Moon and Ascendant in Fixed signs declaring that their placements cause them to obsess about 2000 year old “ house systems “.

We are all entitled to our opinion. But we are also equally entitled to challenge the opinions of others.

I don’t actually want people to change their opinions about astrology, just to get them to question and test them.

In the end it all comes down to what are we looking for from astrology ? Truth or comfort ?

The more robust we can make our astrology the easier we can withstand the criticism of the subject that comes from the scientific community.

Astrology is the purest truth that there is. Why dilute it or expose it to ridicule by incorporating obscure beliefs that don’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny? 

We need to feed our discipline with millions of verifiable examples that obviously do work in practice, not starve it with anorexic theories. 

So if any readers disagree with my views on anaretic degrees, please feel free to provide as many examples of them working as possible.

Every single verifiable example can advance our understanding of how astrology works. Just voicing our opinion and saying it works for me doesn’t move us on at all.

And Covid ? It’s interesting when it happened so many astrologers were falling over themselves trying to link it to Neptune being in Pisces and not leaving us until the planet reaches that anaretic degree.

If that was the case you’d think Saturn’s entry into the sign would have coincided with a massive new wave killing half the worlds population.

Yet since it left Aquarius hardly anyone is even mentioning Covid.

Perhaps Saturn’s passage through the anaretic degree of Aquarius killed all the germs off.

Posted on 21st March 2023

YOU CAN BOOK YOUR OWN PERSONAL ASTROLOGY CONSULTATION HERE

TREAT YOURSELF – REMEDIES INDIVIDUALLY TAILORED TO YOUR BIRTHCHART AND TRANSITS