Aquarius most likely to produce dictators.

A friend sent this.

Dictators and the elements
I got an idea tonight and ran all dictators of the 20th century I could find through a birth control.
The result is certainly interesting:

Hitler: Aries
Aguinaldo: Aries

Mussolini: Leo
King Abdullah bin Abdul: Leo

Stalin: Saggitarius
Franco: Saggitarius
Pinochet: Saggitarius

Pol Pot: Taurus
Saddam Hussein: Taurus

Mao: Capricorn
Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir (Capricorn)

Ceau?escu: Aquarius
Mugabe: Aquarius
Kim-Yong-il: Aquarius
Than Shwe: Aquarius
Islom Karimov: Aquarius
Saparmyrat Ata_ewi? Ny_azow: Aquarius

So, we have the worlds 17 worst dictators. Lots of signs, however, are not present. None of these 17 was a water sign. We may therefore safely conclude that water signs don't make successful dictators.
For the rest:

30% of them was an Aquarius (!!!)

36% of the a fire sign. The biggest European ones definatly were fire signs (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco)

No Gemini, No Cancer, No Virgo, No Libra, No Scorpio, No Fish present. So 50% of the zodiac ring is completely dictator-free.

Aquarius seems the sign most likely to produce dictators, and Sagittarius possibly the sign that produces the most dangerous dictators.

...hmmm, both aquas and sags are considered to be friendly people.

Not at all. Aqua do everything in their power NOT to rely on others.

At best we rely on others for entertainment purposes, but its the general consensus that most of us arent as social as astrology makes us out to be. We dont have very many friends in the true sense of the word, mostly acquaintances at best.

Dont believe the hype. We can do the social scene but most often than not we are loners.

lol

😢🙂

Ive never seen the full movie and it was actually on t.v. the other night. I'll watch it if it comes on again.

I guess its a more inner loneliness/seeking a more meaningful deeper connection and understanding of sort.


I have always had a difficulty with joining formal groups or clubs. I just have all kinds of commitment issues, lol. I come and go as I wish...the more obligated I have to be the less I want to be there (whatever 'there' may be).

Im a freelancer of sorts (I do this in social settings too). I remember in HS being unhappy b/c I was stuck in this clique of girls (which Id never done before prior) I was friendly and 'popular' but very unhappy...the girls werent open minded and very catty.
I dont like to be with just the nerds or just the popular girls or just the jocks. Everyone is different and has alot to offer through their differing personalities.

Needless to say I distanced myself from the group and they were still my 'friends' just not as before.

Jack of all trades, Maser of none.

"Dont believe the hype. We can do the social scene but most often than not we are loners."

This is soooo true.

I think it is an intimacy thing. We are loners when it comes to intimacy. We have (or at least I do) a "people" face and an "alone" face...or state of being, I guess you might say. Very, very few people get into my inner circle, and there are only a couple of things that get a person there: trust, loyalty, and MOST importantly...the test of those during a good length of time...in other words, it takes time, time, time and patience for someone to get to know the "real" me. We don't trust easily.

" Water signs can also be found in any extremist parties, at least on of them, their primary choices are often nationalism. I'll take the world wide famous example: Cancer George Bush. Josip Broz Tito was a Taurus and his non-aligned friend Jawaharlal Nehru was a scorpio and his beloved Egyptian comrad Gamal Abdel Nasser was a Capricorn. Pol Pot was a another lovely Taurus."

I was under the impression that Jawaharlal Nehru was generally considered a good guy.

From wiki:

"He spoke passionately and forcefully to encourage Hindu-Muslim unity, spread education and self-reliance and the need to eradicate social evils such as untouchability, poverty, ignorance and unemployment.
...
Nehru was deeply impressed by the rising currents of radical socialism in Europe, and delivered fervent speeches in condemnation of imperialism. On a visit to the Soviet Union, Nehru was favourably impressed by the command economy, but grew critical of Stalin's totalitarianism.
...
Under Nehru, the Indian Parliament enacted many changes to Hindu law to criminalize caste discrimination and increase the legal rights and social freedoms of women.
...
Nehru also championed secularism and religious harmony, increasing the representation of minorities in government.
...
The election of his daughter Indira as Congress President in 1959 aroused criticism for alleged nepotism[citation needed], although Nehru disapproved of her election, partly because he considered it smacked of "dynastism"; he said, indeed it was "wholly undemocratic and an undesirable thing", and refused her a position in his cabinet.
...
In his lifetime, Jawaharlal Nehru enjoyed an iconic status in India and was widely admired across the world for his idealism and statesmanship. His birthday, November 14, is celebrated in India as Children's Day in recognition of his lifelong passion and work for the welfare, education and development of children and young people."

Mentioning him alongside Tito, Nasser and Pol Pot just because he was radical, seems ridiculous at first glance. Are you aware of something that I'm not aware of, perhaps?

"In politics there are no good or bad guys but only countries with politicians who in one way or another protect the interests of some group of people, including themselves. "

Why do you present it as a dichotomy? Politicians can be considered good or bad when protecting their people's interests. Hitler is generally considered a bad guy, for a example.

"Fascism, nazism and militarism were evil, destructive idologies, equally false as they were anti-civilisational. Who was the one who convicted the war criminals? How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who payed for that? Who was politically responsible, as in which ideology for the murders of Iraqi people? Who was the one who wellcomed Pope John Paul II. when visiting various worldwide places, and who organised his unseccusful assassination? What do you or someone else think about him and his views?"

Sorry, I don't see where you're going with this.

"Someone's extreme views can only be formed as a counter-reaction to something, likewise with Nehru. People don't seek extremes, everybody seeks one or other means of balance and harmony, but in order to achieve a harmony he desires, he sometimes needs to fight extreme with extreme. Taken in itself, extreme is never good, the nature of the truth itself is not extreme. But the people will react extremely, if there's a certain goal that can be achieved by this."

Before you try to delve into discussion about abstract concepts such as extremism, you might want to define it first. You're making a lot of statements unsupported by an argument, that I assume would make more sense if I knew exactly what you mean by "extremism". Statements such as "people don't seek extremes", which seems to ignore the existence of the sort of people you've mentioned in your previous post.

"Who's a good guy? The one who always compromises never to do anything worthwile? Or the one who chooses brutal means for achieving noble goals?"

It's a guy who works towards the betterment of mankind, trying to avoid violence in the process(though not always).

"How about hypocritical doctors, lawyers, spiritual leaders or inventors, all of which have, at various points in history been included in immoral actions?"

I must be missing your point.

"Therefore, very few educated people believe in good guy-bad guy division."

Sure, you won't see it mentioned in many academic journals, but I think the term has it's purpose. Some people are generally considered violent and oppressive, others aren't. Nehru is in the second group.

"The aforementioned example illustrates how some have benefited from non-aligned movement, while others cursed the names of their political leaders..."

Well, if it does then I certainly missed it. I don't really know all that much about that movement, but I didn't really get the impression that it was all that bad. Do you mind giving me some examples which clearly show Nehru using the movement for destructive purposes? Some actual examples of immoral actions taken by the movement?

most dictators are cardinal signs, because we like to intiate disasters. 🙂

And you forgot Putin. Man I love that guy,

Hitler was a taurus; not an Aries.

West still consider Hafeez Azad of Syria as a dictator and he was a libra.

chk the time and year. he is just inside Taurus. 😉

I tend to bring joy to many peoples lives....even you haffo.🙂

🙂

I agree w. Brahn, there are a handful in my family.

"Hitler was a taurus; not an Aries."

True, technically he was born at 0 degrees, 48' of Taurus, Cap moon, Venus-Mars in Taurus, Libra rising .. *he did have Mercury in Aries.

"No Gemini, No Cancer, No Virgo, No Libra, No Scorpio, No Fish present. So 50% of the zodiac ring is completely dictator-free. "

Cancer: Julius Caesar, Oda Nobunaga
Scorpio: Chiang Kai Shek
Virgo: Calligula
Fish:?
Gemini: Suharto

"Man, we're good at everything, aren't we?"

I guess you can count FDR as a dictator if you insist aquas make good dictators.

Yes, Hitler was definately Libra rising -it does fit, i've studied many a chart of Hitler, his saturn aspects are dead on with the final accumulation of events in his life. He had the charm to woe his people onto his side, and had his 3rd richt to do most of the physical dirty work. And imho, he was a handsome man..lol