Backward Glances to 2016

I saved these two images as souvenirs of 2016 - that peculiarly upsetting 12 months we've just lived through. It'll be necessary to click on one, or both of the images for a bigger, better view, or on the link to the original articles. My only quibble with the Sgt Pepper illustration - I can't find astrologer Jonathan Cainer in there.

The Beatles’ iconic “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” album cover has inspired a tribute to all of the celebrities who died in 2016.

George Michael, Prince, David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Gene Wilder, Robert Vaughn, Zsa Zsa Gabor and Leonard Cohen were among the dozens of famous faces featured in Chris Barker’s poignant creation. There are also references to major world events, such as Donald Trump’s presidential election win and Britain’s Brexit vote to leave the European Union:

Nearly Everything That Happened In 2016, In One Highly Detailed Illustration
From “Stranger Things” and Bernie Sanders to the death of Bowie, it’s all here.


Click on this one!

Another souvenir: Dave Barry's Review of 2016 is an entertaining long read, taking the reader through the exceptionally peculiar 2016, in light enough vein to produce many a chuckle.

It's Music Monday.....


For all those gone before:




As we move into 2017:

When will this spate of madness end?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Updating 2008 - rhyming but not repeating

As we wait, on tenterhooks, for results of the New York primary later today, I've decided to play around with an old post of mine from early 2008 during that election season, adjusting the detail - just for fun. The post was titled:
Spirit of Idealism in the USA:

It's fascinating to observe the patterns and passions erupting, from a variety of perspectives, during this long election season in the USA. The conundrum I puzzle over a lot these days: sidereal versus tropical zodiac, nags me regularly as I browse news articles.

There's an interesting phenomenon occurring in the USA now. On first thought it seemed to me to be classic Uranus in Aquarius Aries, tropically, but in the sidereal zodiac, Uranus is now in tropical Pisces. Sidereally Neptune is in Aquarius.

"Change", a keyword of Uranus and Aquarius, is the buzzword of the moment here. American youth has suddenly become avidly interested in politics, passionately supporting their almost messianic hero, presidential candidate Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, whose message encapsulates Aquarian ideals.

The movement towards Aquarian ideals isn't only for the youth of the USA. Those left unmoved by Obama's oratory and celebrity endorsements Bernie Sanders' proposals are enthusiastically supporting an equally determined Hillary Clinton, who passionately demands very little change from the way the country has been run for the last 7 years. Even the old-fashioned Republican party has taken a wee step towards more Aquarian thinking by supporting being shocked by the unexpected in the form of Donald Trump John McCain, who, though still something of an egomaniac warrior, is considerably ever so slightly more humanitarian (Aquarian) in his views on a scant few fronts than his party would traditionally have been.

Uranus in sidereal Aquarius Pisces initially seems like an odd good fit, but because we currently have Neptune in tropical sidereal Aquarius and Uranus in tropical sidereal Pisces, the two planets are in what astrologers call "mutual reception", each is in the home sign of the other. Astrologer Robert Wilkinson says (here) that mutual reception "is a very strong influence. It is as though the two planets feed each other, and grow stronger, for good or ill, in their ability to dominate those affairs in the chart." Using the sidereal tropical zodiac, Neptune currently lies in Capricorn Pisces, mutual reception with Uranus in Aries is absent.

It's not a clear-cut choice to decide which fits the situation better, sidereal or tropical zodiac. It could be argued that Uranus in sidereal Aquarius tropical Aries is a good match for events in the USA, it could also be proposed that Neptune's influence is involved from its home sign, Pisces. In a paragraph above I used the word "messianic" quite automatically, and only later, when searching for information in my astrology books, noticed that Grant Lewi, when describing Neptune in Aquarius in his book "Astrology for the Millions" said
"There is a tendency to messianic feelings of social and economic reconstruction, perhaps an inclination towards dubious methods of accomplishing worthwhile goals (an "end justifies the means attitude")".

Rosa Brooks' article "A National Mood Swing", in the Los Angeles Times discusses the current phenomenon (see here)
In conclusion, she writes: [my deletions and additions for 2016]

"It’s far too soon to say if the newfound spirit of idealism that’s sending voters (including many independents) to the Democratic primaries in record numbers will endure, paving the way for an era of energized new social movements and reforms. But I’d bet that we really have turned a page. On the Republican side too, there’s a palpable desire for a candidate who doesn’t fit into a rigid ideological box, one who can tap into and reflect our best instincts instead of our most craven fears.

Whether the idealistic yearning for change endures probably has little to do with who wins and who loses the Democratic nomination (or even the White House). Losses can galvanize social movements just as much as victories, and whoever wins the White House will be president of an America different from the one that greeted Bush’s inaugurations in 2001 and 2005 [ added: or Obama's in 2009 and 2013] It will be a more hopeful, less partisan nation, one united in its rueful awareness of the ways former Bush presidencies went wrong, a nation [hopefully] more ready to pull its socks up and get to work to put things right."

Conclusion: Tropical zodiac may describe this particular situation more exactly than sidereal, depending on one's viewpoint, but sidereal would still describe it well enough.

Astrology aside, the hope in the hearts of everyone is surely that the phenomenon occurring here [among young voters] survives the election, then grows and blossoms, so the world and the planet itself will benefit.

BERNIE 2016

"Progressives" are I guess a group of voters, would-be voters, once-were-voters, including some more left-leaning Democrats, some registered Independents (like moi), and some optimistic 3rd party supporters (the Greens for example and Democratic Socialists). This progressive group, which I'd like to bet is much larger and more wide-spread than many people suspect, hasn't had a leader for many decades. Dennis Kucinich tried in 2007/8 but was shouted down before he could gain even the most wobbly of foot-holds. That was then, this is now. Bernie Sanders has come forward, a respected Senator of known record.

However Senator Sanders' campaign develops, however far he is able to reach, if nothing else he will have made it easier, and success that bit more likely, for whoever steps up to take a progressive lead in the future. Not only that, but if Bernie can make a decent stab at beating the Clinton machine, it could inspire others outside the mainstream, nation-wide, to try for congressional, state, county, or city offices. That'd be invaluable - the message that there is a way, when there's a will, to beat the billionaires at their own game.

A few points I picked up from reading a piece by Yves Smith and thread of commentary at Naked Capitalism website this week have inspired this post, by the way.

There are many ticked boxes to Bernie's record, and a few that have to be left blank for now. Personally I'd like him to be more anti-war, anti-military and most definitely anti-drone use. Oh - and less nice towards Israel - but as he is Jewish, I can kind of understand his feelings on that score, even if I disagree. I'll take what I can get, for there's unlikely ever to be a candidate with whom I'll agree on every point.

It's no use being a Pollyanna on this though. If Bernie were to win his way through, as far as the White House, would he crumble or fold under the weight of corporate power, the military industrial complex, and what might still be a hostile congress? Huge, huge challenge!

Any success Bernie Sanders achieves this time has to be considered a first step. It would prove to be a much easier and longer stride if congress were to reflect a public confidence and change in mindset bleeding into the rest of the votes on their ballot sheets.

Whatever happens, it's becoming clear that campaign dialogue and political dialogue in general is going to shift now; consequently so will conventional thinking.

Those who wish to damp down enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders' campaign will, among other ploys, liken him to Obama in 2007/8. He's not comparable in any way! Bernie is not the unknown quantity Obama was. Those of us with open ears and minds have been listening to Bernie for years, know exactly what he stands for - and what he doesn't. He has long experience of speaking with and to the people - as one commenter at Naked Capitalism observed "He very well may know the citizens of this country better than big media understands." That is a very, very big plus!

Bernie's natal chart is available in a 2013 post - SEE HERE.

Jim Webb - a 2016 Contender?

So far, although several Republican presidential hopefuls have eagerly thrown hats into the 2016 ring, with others "still considering" doing so, Democrats remain coyly reticent, possibly unwilling, or financially unable to face the colossus that is the Hillary Clinton campaign. Bernie Sanders hasn't yet said a definite "No"; Elizabeth Warren has, several times. This piece by Andrew Levine, at Counterpunch, puts another name, Jim Webb, into the mix: The Last Chance to Derail the Clinton Juggernaut?

SNIPS

Now would be a good time to dust off an old idea: “critical support.” That idea, along with much else associated with the Left, effectively went missing during the 1980s.

It may seem like splitting hairs, but critical support is not quite the same thing as unqualified support. When critical support is offered, support is qualified and disagreement is expressed. With straight out support, disagreements, if any, are overlooked.....................................

However, there is a candidate running for President in the Democratic primaries next year who will merit at least critical support from the Left — what is left of it, that is.That candidate is Jim Webb, the former Senator from Virginia. Webb has not yet declared his candidacy, but he is showing all the signs.

Voters who could care less where a candidate fits on a left-right spectrum – the majority of voters nowadays – may find, as they learn more about Webb, that they have no problem supporting him outright.

But those of us who look forward to a time when an authentic Left reemerges, do care. We care that Webb is soft on capitalism, not that any other Democrat is better; and we are queasy about where he still stands on the Vietnam War. He may not be the best candidate in the field on gender issues either, though the evidence on that is ambiguous at best.

In any case, the plusses swamp the minuses – to a degree that is unprecedented in recent decades. This is why, for us, critical support seems about right...............

A complete natal chart isn't possible without a time of birth, which isn't known at present, but here's a 12 noon chart for Jim Webb's date & place of birth:
9 February 1946, St. Joseph, Missouri. Let's see what his astrology has to say:

There's a nice Airy circuit going on! Sun/Mercury/Venus conjoined in Aquarius; Jupiter in Libra; Uranus in Gemini. This guy is not lacking in mental acuity - thinking "on his feet" comes naturally to him, as easily as deeper, analytical, thinking. His natal Moon could be in Gemini too, depending on time of birth, otherwise in late Taurus.

Mars conjunct Saturn in Cancer links to his military family background and career.

I like what we know of his natal chart! The two planets in Cancer will have been "feeling" recent opposition from Pluto in Capricorn, also linked to the pesky set of Uranus/Pluto squares of recent times. Beyond that, I don't see anything major coming up for him soon, though by November 2016 Pluto will be back at 15 Capricorn, opposite natal Mars after a few months of to-and-fro.

A piece, The Jim Webb Story, mainly a book review written in 2008 by Elizabeth Drew on one of Webb's books, A Time to Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America, includes dozens of clues about Jim Webb's personality, aims and more about his Scots-Irish and military background, his entry into politics. It's an all-round interesting read, and one I'll go back to, if and when Webb confirms he will run in the 2016 presidential election.

A few snips from the piece:


Relating to his campaign for a Senate seat:

Webb ran an unconventional campaign, going more with his intuition than with the advice of Democratic Party professionals, who at times despaired over him. He chose his own pacing and for a stretch in the summer evinced little interest in campaigning at all. He is not one to be guided by focus groups; he doesn’t play the angles. Like a boxer or a military man, Webb decides on his targets and charges straight at them. “We picked our themes and stuck with them,” he says. His three campaign themes were the war, the growing chasm between the wealthy and the working class, and the exceptionally high rate of incarceration in the US.........

Reid considered Webb such a valuable new asset to the Democrats—a moderate with military credentials from a swing state—that he also took the unusual step of inviting the freshman to give the Democrats’ response to the President’s State of the Union address. Webb tore up the draft supplied to him by the Democratic leadership staff and wrote his own speech. He gave the staff members fits by refusing to show them his version until shortly before the speech was to be given. In his speech, Webb went straight at Bush over the war in emotional and somewhat personal tones,

So Jim Webb arrived to the Senate with a reputation for being unpredictable, even a little weird, a little bit out of control, a little hotheaded. The sense in Washington that he was—well—different was enhanced by his famous first encounter with President Bush after the election, when at a November White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb refused to shake Bush’s hand....

The author of the piece found a different personality:

When I was about to meet with Webb for the first time, in 2007, I expected to find someone who would be difficult to talk to, a little bit strange—someone with whom I had to be very careful not to put a foot wrong, lest I set off some land mine. What I found was completely surprising. Webb turned out to be an easy conversationalist with a low, gentle voice, a ready smile, and a sometimes very full laugh. During an hour-and-a-half-long conversation over sandwiches in his office, I kept waiting for him to be weird, but that never happened. Even Webb’s looks are surprising: on television his large, flat face, with its broad forehead, looks like a potato—pale and pasty. In person his complexion is ruddy—with piercing blue eyes that suggest a man who might in fact have a wild side, a man whom one doesn’t want to cross. Yet there is an air of almost preternatural calm about Webb, of a man who knows who he is. He is reserved; one gets the sense that he’s seen things he just doesn’t want to talk about. (This is a characteristic shared by other Vietnam veterans.)

From talks with his colleagues and others in and around the Senate, it became clear that his reputation belied the actual Webb. A senior Senate Democratic aide said, “He’s proven all that wrong.” Others described Webb in unusual terms, as applied to elected politicians: “polite” (I heard this several times), “shy,” “modest,” “a very nice person.” His close friend Claire McCaskill, of Missouri, also a Democratic freshman senator, told me, “The fact that Jim is so grounded separates him and makes him seem more complicated than he is. He’s not a complicated person.”

This different kind of senator doesn’t much share in the folk habits of the body he serves in. He’s not a back-slapper; he doesn’t engage in the touchy-feely behavior of most of his colleagues on the Senate floor, and, as McCaskill put it, he’s “not much of a schmoozer.” He knows that a certain amount of collegiality is necessary to being effective in the Senate, but he doesn’t go overboard. Webb is as plainspoken on the Senate floor as he is elsewhere; he observes the required courtesies, but his speech is unadorned with the flummery of much senatorial oratory.

Well, well, well....I'm now hoping for Jim Webb the presidential candidate - it'll make the "race" as a whole and especially the struggle for Democratic nomination far more interesting!

Woo-Wooing Hillary

The final paragraph of yesterday's post linked Hillary Clinton to the far-outness of UFO culture. If we have ahead of us some 18 months of presidential campaigning with Hillary Clinton heading the Democratic wing of the USA's duopoly, it's going to be a boring 18 months indeed. How can we withstand months on end of trouser suit jokes eh? A bit of woo-woo will be needed.

During the 2008 go-around I posted a bit of woo about Bible codes and Hillary Clinton's prospects, relevant post is HERE. That "prophecy" didn't turn out well! I wondered whether any bright spark had yet investigated the codes for news of 2016. There's THIS, as well as a few YouTube presentations of the same thing.

Daft or what?

Another of my old posts on Clinton was a tad more sensible (well, I thought so) - I spotted a few similarities between her natal chart and that of John Adams. See John Adams & Hillary Clinton.

Ms Clinton has not yet declared her intention to run, though most journalists seem to think it's a foregone conclusion - more's the pity! If she declares her intention to run, The Powers That Be, and their pet media pundits and writers will make certain she will be the party's nominee, crushing the hopes any populist upstarts early on. Any fun to be had will have to come from t'other side. I wonder if anyone has searched bible codes for Ted Cruz or Rand Paul yet?

Chasing the Rabbit...2016 to First Century AD

Down another internet rabbit-hole I tumbled yesterday. At the rabbit-hole's entrance, a piece by Eric Zuesse at Smirking Chimp: America's Aristocrats Declare Victory Against the Public; They War Now Mainly Against One-Another. A good piece, but offering dismal prospects for 2016's General Election.

Curious about the author, an investigative historian, I searched briefly and found information about one of his books, CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Hmmm that sounds interesting, but probably far too dense in detail for this reader's internet addled ADD infected brain. It seems that Mr Zuesse has discovered that St Paul was not exactly what some of us might have expected: a true messenger carrying the teachings of Jesus Christ ever farther afield. Instead he might have been something rather more sinister, a twister of Jesus' teachings to suit his own, and his successors', purposes of...what? Control, I guess.

Never suspecting I'd be tumbling deeper down that same rabbit-hole, I next clicked to one of my regular net-stops, Cannonfire, only to see, to my surprise, Mr Cannon writing about Jesus and Christianity too: Not THIS shit again: "Jesus never existed..."

There's no direct link between Zuesse's writings and Cannon's, other than the religious aspect between adjacent rabbit-hole stops - which kind of shook me. Am I meant to think on these things? I wonder!

I like to keep things as simple as possible, so came to the conclusion, some time ago, that the man we call Jesus Christ emerged in the Middle East as a teacher of what we might today consider "left-wing" ideals, set against those of the then ruling Roman Empire - a rather nasty crew by all accounts. Stories about the teacher have been told and embroidered, maybe even twisted somewhat over the centuries. Jesus the teacher could well have taken his ideas from earlier wise men and legendary teachers similar to himself. Eric Zuesse's book could be a detailed and well-researched historical journey along a similar theme. The Roman Catholic church, it seems to me, has always been very far away from what I understood to be Christ's teachings. Same applies to fundamentalist evangelical churches in the USA. Best to say no more, this particular rabbit-hole could become very, very dark!

Senator Elizabeth Warren - What Next?

Something Senator Warren said earlier this week began a mini-flurry of wonderings regarding a possible presidential run in 2016. I've always admired her style, but in view of current doubts about Senator Sanders' true loyalties, and the fact that Senator Warren voted, along with Bernie Sanders, to confirm David Barron to a seat on the First Circuit Court of the United States, I shall have to give this more thought and caution. I've become wary of placing trust in any politician beholden to the rot-riddled establishment Dem. Party.

Elizabeth Warren's career, presidential potential and natal chart have come up in four archived posts spanning 2010 to 2013 - another look:


Wednesday Women - Elizabeth Warren (11 August 2010)


Elizabeth Warren (20 July 2011)


Elizabeth Warren and 2016   (28 Jan 2013)


Next Exit 2016?  (14 Oct 2013)

Elizabeth Warren and 2016

Commenter "Sonny" left a note on a 2011 post featuring the natal chart of Elizabeth Warren the other day, with information on Ms Warren's time of birth, and asking if I'd take another look at the chart.

"1:51:24 pm time of birth..
Would you consider doing her chart again and letting us know your feeling on her being VP in 2016.
Thank you"

Ms Warren is now Senator Warren of Massachusetts, of course. Excellent!



Her natal chart updated with the proposed time of birth :

My view:
It'd be difficult to narrow down any potentialities to an indication of her being Vice President in 2016. All we're likely to see is some indication of change in her career, extra dynamism around Uranus (change) or Saturn (career, legislation) also involving Sun, Moon or ascendant (different parts of "the self).

In November 2016 Mars (dynamism, energy) will conjoin her Jupiter at 00 Aquarius, the planet at the apex of the Yod mentioned in the 2011 post. The Yod involves Sun/Uranus, Saturn and Uranus-ruled Aquarius. Indication of "something" happening linked to career matters, but there are numerous possibilites.

Another possible indication of "something" important/different happening is that Uranus, planet of change will be conjunct north Node of the Moon in her chart.

Perhaps Mike, our blog friend who is more expert and experienced than I am in these matters, will offer his opinion....please?

RICK SANTORUM 2016?

Rick Santorum, "dark horse". I had been hoping that honour would go to Jon Huntsman. Santorum really did come from behind (no pun intended re the definition of his surname in the slang or urban dictionaries).

The Republicans' campaign for nomination of presidential candidate has developed in increasingly bizarre directions. Santorum makes Rick Perry seem like a benign, if rather scatty, uncle.....And there I was, a few weeks/months ago, thinking that it was Perry who'd try to lead the USA into Dominionism.

Curiouser and curiouser!

I've avoided looking at Santorum's chart 'til now. What prompted me to do so was remark - almost a throw-away remark, part of a comment on a political website....it went something like this:

...even if Romney cannot steal the White House from Obama in 2012, Santorum will be the Republican frontrunner in 2016 and it will be their turn.....

Bearing in mind the pendulum-swing effect which is commonly a part of electoral patterns, and because Santorum, barring any bad slip-ups in the future, will have a feather in his cap for doing so well in this campaign......need I go on?

Here's Santorum's natal chart, set for 12 noon, in the absence of a birth time. I'm not going to interpret it fully - astrologers have done that already, and their views on it are easily accessible via Google search. I'm looking only for anything indicating some big change in the guy's life, due to happen around 2016.



Most significant indication of change is this: by November 2017 transiting Saturn will reach the exact degree it held at the time Santorum was born - this is known as a "Saturn Return". For Santorum, it'll be the second such event in his life cycle thus far.

In layman's language from Wiki:

In astrology, the Saturn return is an alleged phenomenon which is described as influencing a person's life development at 27 to 29 or 30-year intervals. These intervals or "returns" coincide with the approximate time it takes the planet Saturn to make one orbit around the sun, i.e. 29.4 years. It is believed by astrologers that, as Saturn "returns" to the degree in its orbit occupied at the time of birth, a person crosses over a major threshold and enters the next stage of life. With the first Saturn return, a person leaves youth behind and enters adulthood. With the second return, maturity. And with the third and usually final return, a person enters wise old age. These periods are estimated to occur at roughly the ages of 28-30, 56-60 and 84-90

Although November 2017 is a year after the 2016 General Election, I still see his Saturn Return as significant in this context. I recall reading that Saturn Returns can be "felt" a year or so before and after Saturn hits one's exact birth degree. The indication of lifestyle change could manifest in a number of ways, connected or unconnected with his political aspirations. It'll be interesting to watch what happens.

Of course, should Mitt Romney (or any other Republican) beat President Obama in November - all bets are off. In 2016 we'd then be waiting for a left-winger (a real one this time) to save the day.

All things considered, astrology aside, I'm leaning towards 4 years of Romney being the better outcome. That would almost certainly ensure Santorum would never get anywhere near The White House in 2016. With a President Romney there'd likely be no discernible difference from the last 4 years with President Obama, but the Democrats might start opposing stuff that Obama would have managed to get away with free and clear - that alone could make a President Romney worthwhile! Then, come 2016, with The People more awake than ever after continued efforts by The Occupy movement, the road would begin to turn sharply towards that real time of revolution and reform(hopefully bloodless) that I reckon will be due in or around 2025.