A Neptunian Mercury Retrograde in Virgo: Refining the Channel From the Spiritual to the Material

This article is available in its entirety to Willow's Web Astrology patrons. If you regularly find value in the writing and interpretations here, please consider becoming a patron. Patrons receive full articles to their email inboxes that are not available on the blog, as well as other fun offers throughout the year. Patronage ensures that WWA will continue through these bumpy and amazing times on Planet Earth. 

An excerpt from the article:

The friction I run into with most anarchist groups is that I consider anarchy a way of being, a way of life that naturally occurs, rather than a political movement or a scene. So right off the jump, there's a difference in the way I define and understand things.

There's much talk in anarchist circles about the supposed failure of the "anarchist movement," and I've never understood this. How can a way of life and a way of being inherent in most people (non-hierarchical, non-coercive free association; running our own lives; making our own decisions; helping those who need it; do-it-yourself problem-solving on individual and societal levels) be a failure?

There is also much talk in these circles about what people "should" do in order to be considered a "real anarchist."

"If you don't trainhop, shoplift, and live out of dumpsters, you're not a true anarchist."

"If you don't live in a squat, hop from summit to summit, and bust out Starbucks windows on the regular, you're not a true anarchist."

"If you pay rent and bills and have some sort of employment that pays you money, you're not a real anarchist."

"If you aren't involved in the ___________  issue/protests, you aren't a real anarchist."

I've even seen the question posed: "Can someone be called an anarchist if he/she doesn't interact with other anarchists?"

It's mind-boggling to me that that would even be called into question, that that would be yet another scene-imposed "requirement" to being a "real anarchist."

This type of posturing is bizarre to me (perhaps driven by teens and early twenty-somethings?) because there is no policing of behaviour/lifestyle/actions and there is no moulding of oneself to the dictates of the group with true anarchy/anarchism - not with my version, anyway. In my mind, trying to enforce a certain lifestyle or a certain set of political views on an entire group of people is antithetical to anarchy. (IE. non-coercive, non-controlling, non-authoritarian, each person is in charge of him or herself)

Recently, with Mercury in Virgo opposite spirity-weirdy Neptune in Pisces, I had an odd moment where my computer basically sent me, of its own volition, to an anarchist site that I'd had both rewarding and frictional interactions with in the past. I found the commentary of one particular individual interesting because it described the difference in definition that I've outlined above.

Long story Virgoan-short, I came to realize that my version of anarchist is more an adjective or adverb describing a way of being, while the other version, more often used in “the scene,” considers anarchist a noun, a definite thing, a concrete label, an identity that has come to be associated with these certain lifestyle markers (all the "shoulds") that I find so aggravating.

This may seem like a small distinction - and it is.

(The only real reason I declare myself an "anarchist astro-reporter" is to give people fair warning as far as what my writing/stance is going to be like. It heads off misunderstandings and social friction.)

But this small distinction removes me from much of what I find problematic with the "anarchist scene." We are working with different definitions, and understanding this small distinction saves me (and those I come into contact with) a lot of unnecessary frustration. 

These are the types of small distinctions and refinements that we can expect to make with Mercury retrograde in Virgo.