The Military industrial-congressional-complex speech

The Military industrial-congressional-complex speech

Usually hardly anybody will remember the content of an outgoing president’s speech. Slightly different – the case of President Eisenhower’s farewell speech. His speech is still remembered up to this day, particularly certain passages in the painstakingly prepared and many times changed speech. And in light of the present international political fires the Biden administration seems to ignite all over the world right now, many do remember the man that has been called by his critics as a “do nothing president” and what he said when he left office.

His actual “do nothing” legacy origins from his successful attempt to keep world peace in times of heightened international crises. In his outgoing speech on January 17, 1961 to the nation he warned about the danger of the military–industrial complex, which he describes as the relationship between a country’s military and the defence industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy.

Nothing could be more fitting to describe the present administration and its lust for military confrontation, be it with Russia, Iran or possibly even China. The Biden team, as forecasted more than two years ago on this site, is quite cozy with the military-industrial-congressional complex and the present likelihood of ending up in an armageddon style worldwide confrontation springs from here. 

The speech is meanwhile one of the most referred and famous of a US president and from the outside can be seen as a warranted and a quite foresighted warning to the public to be vigilant about the influence of the main weapon producing American manufactures (e.g. Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon and United Technologies) over American politics. If you listen to the speech it certainly all makes sense, sounds wise and quite foresighted, so I thought it might be worth having a closer look from a quality of time perspective, how the chart of a speech like that might look like and what it might tell us.

I wanted to see how the truthful content of the speech would present itself to us. At the first glance and to my surprise the chart does not necessarily look like a chart that delivers truth. Something doesn’t jive that well to really convey truthful content. The chart certainly has some features that give it the potential to be the well quoted, famous speech that we know it for. 

For instance the Virgo AC with Mercury right at the cusp of Hs.6 could not be chosen better for a warning and how it aspected with Uranus clearly reveals that the warning origins from someone that sits on both sides of the spectrum and the connected Neptune tells us that we are dealing with an imminent threat expectation. Up to this point everything is fitting and conclusive, but against all this truthful content we are still dealing with Pluto right at the AC, clearly pointing to some sort of content that will hinder or bend the potential of the chart (AC) and subsequently all that follows.

So why is the “all so truthful” recognized content of the speech so strongly plutonic accentuated since obviously Pluto is tainting the picture at least from an astrological point of view. 

Going back to the start – the grade of the AC on the Zodiac is known as the “warlike word” and clearly Jupiter properties have assisted in the worldwide recognition of the speech. The Pluto right at the AC is connected with Venus in Hs.7 – the constellation known as the “State in a State constellation” – showing up in the house of the conscience, guaranteeing that the message will reach the conscience of the public (sooner or later) – Fait accompli we could say, but …. . 

Like William C. Greenwalt wrote in an article “ … But the “complex” that Ike warned us about had yet to be established. Instead, his warning actually helped create the very system he warned against. The answer to Ike’s warning was to reign in the services with centralization and put controls on the industrial base. The 1958 Defense Reorganization Act (passed prior to the speech but caught up in this whole post-Sputnik craziness) was the gateway legislation that paved the way for the Soviet-inspired Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) which governs American defense planning and budgeting to this day. That was followed by the Truth in Negotiations Act in 1962. PPBS (now known as PPBE) helped the Pentagon and Congress do a better job of creating earmarks and TINA led to a unique oversight system that placed barriers in the way of anyone who was not already part of the defense industry. All of this helped drive out experimentation and prototyping and locked in the incumbents. …”

The so well hailed speech was certainly a warning, we could almost say too good of a warning. The message was received and got into the conscience of that time, and had its impact; which obviously led to something that “unintentionally” caused the unwanted to flourish and fostered the very situation that it warned so sternly and clearly about. After all Pluto got its share out of it, and was actually proven to be the ultimate ruler (and destroyer) over the truthful content of the speech.

So much to well intended warnings.

Copyright 2022 by Dirk Heinicke