Ah yes, the famous Mr. Odin, the father of the brainless post.Originally Posted by Odin
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Cambridge, MA
- Posts
- 4,010
Ah yes, the famous Mr. Odin, the father of the brainless post.
Nah, just making sure the newer members of the form realize that your stuff is a complete butchering of S&H, reducing it into just another war cycle theory (plenty of big wars were in 1Ts and 3Ts), and inventing nonsense like "5Ts" to cover for that fact that 4Ts don't require a big war, and adding in reactionary notions like war being a necessary thing to reduce surplus population.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Ah yes, the famous Mr. Odin, the father of an endless, unlimited
stream of brainless posts and meaningless gibberish.
Bingo. I think we have a winner. GC = a group of Jonesers as per historical precedents. The last go round it was Roosevelt, but also Eleanor, Truman, Patton, McArthur, etc.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
Frances Perkins.
Nomad Female
"Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere." --Mae West
Nomad INFP
"Sunday morning is every day for all I care, and I'm not scared...Now my candle's in a daze 'cause I've found God." --Kurt Cobain
But are there any Joneser candidates around who might fill the bill? And, do any of them have a good cosmic score?
They might not be visible yet. But so far, I have found these (listing only Democratic politicians with positive scores):
Janet Napolitano Nov.29, 1957 (18-6). Former governor of AZ and Homeland Security Secretary; currently president of University of CA. She has earned my disapproval though by approving tuition hikes. But she has a certain calm confidence and breadth of intelligence that could make a good leader.
Tammy Baldwin Feb 11 1962 (12-8) Wisconsin Senator. She'd be about as good a candidate as Hillary. Maybe too fiery.
Andrew Cuomo Dec.6, 1957 (10-7) Gov. of NY.
Jack Markell Nov.26, 1960 (10-4) Gov. of DE (state too small?)
Terry McAuliffe Feb 9 1957 (11-10) marginal; VA politician
Not a very good crop so far. I guess your best bet is to call up Janet and ask her to run.
Unless you want to crown the current guy (Aug.4, 1961) (score 8-2) as gray champion and settle for what he's done.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 10-31-2015 at 12:41 AM.
pot kettle black I presume
[/quote]
The above is just a single dimensional look at POTUS. If this 4T is like the prior one, we'd need to look at the current crop of top military.
If the 4T involves say AGW, then we'd need to look at scientists.
Neil deGrasse Tyson (/ˈniːəl dəˈɡræs ˈtaɪsən/; born October 5, 1958) He's pretty popular with Millies, so I'd give him the nod.
I did a search through the birth years for corporate executives. Perhaps your astrology can enlighten us as to why so many are born in 1960.
Over in EU land, you might want to do a chart for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandra_Mussolini
I think ole Alessandra is probably more fiery than Baldwin. I mean, look at that expression.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
Maybe, but it's in society at large where leadership is needed. That's where we've gone astray. Military doesn't matter much when war is so automated.
Some people were talking about George Clooney. Celebrities seem to be considered qualified for POTUS or goodness knows what else. May 6, 1961. I have him as a 16-12 score, but don't quite understand why Bill DeBlazio, born 2 days later, has an abyssmal score. Probably need to check that.
He was born on my birthday, eh? Not my year of course. Maybe, but he sure is ignorant about spiritual things. He's a good champion on AGW though.If the 4T involves say AGW, then we'd need to look at scientists.
Neil deGrasse Tyson (/ˈniːəl dəˈɡræs ˈtaɪsən/; born October 5, 1958) He's pretty popular with Millies, so I'd give him the nod.
But such a champion need not be a scientist. Bill McKibben fits the bill.
That's pretty easy; Jupiter and Saturn in Capricorn, sign of executives.I did a search through the birth years for corporate executives. Perhaps your astrology can enlighten us as to why so many are born in 1960.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 10-31-2015 at 12:11 PM.
I don't recall seeing any mention of Bernie Sanders as a candidate for this era's Gray Champion. Seems almost a no-brainer.
He fits the qualifications for Hawthorne's champion better than most others.
1) He's from New England
2) He gives angry old man speeches
3) He appeared out of nowhere (technically speaking) after everyone had forgotten he'd existed for the longest time
4) He connects with the youth far better than most others
Not that I'm going to go out and crown him, as a Silent (technically a War Baby cusper), the next Grey Champion, but still, he fits the profile the most.
That said, I can go back to previous 4Ts and pick out the key figures of those turnings and give examples of each and every archetype solving a Crisis and having a different style of doing so:
Artist = Richard II (resolved the Plague Crisis), Edgar the Peaceable
Prophet = FDR (resolved the Great Depression Crisis)
Nomad = Elizabeth I (resolved the Spanish Armada Crisis)
Civic = William III & Mary II (resolved the Glorious Revolution Crisis), Henry II, Alfred the Great
So... given those examples... it's clear to me that ANY archetype can rise to the task of ending a Crisis--even Artists--they just go about doing so in different manners.
~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
Well, we'll see. Go Bernie!
And remember he has the best cosmic horoscope score of any candidate running!
(not a Joneser though, which according to Ragnarok is the most likely group from which grey champions are coming. So my post was based on his premise.)
Where would Elizabeth Warren fit into this? I would pick her over any of the others listed.
She's not a Joneser. That means someone born between approximately 1957 and 1963. Originally that definition includes a year or two on either side too. For us they are also known as Boomer/Xer cuspers. It is a good point that if "gray champions" are supposed to be prophets (Boomers in our time), then it is more likely to be the younger ones, as was the case with FDR. And someone who combined the idealism of prophets with the practical skills of nomads may be a good choice for a gray champion. Obama of course is already filling the bill, some people might say. Although he does seem to be a "champion" who often leaves one hand tied behind his back.
But as I pointed out, we may be extending the definition of "geriatric." So older Boomers like Warren may still be around and available even in the 2020s, just as the Silent war-baby and former sixties activist Bernie is available this year.
In the case of Richard II, who was 14 at the time of the peasant's revolt, and Edgar the Peaceable ascended to the throne at age 16 ending a crisis of secession (though I'm unsure if it was a 4T...I don't delve much into the Early Middle Ages). They were hardly Gray.
William III (of Orange) and Mary II were both adults when they ascended to the throne (in a not disputed 4T), so not so gray...yet.
As to FDR, I think it should be considered that he was involved in a cusp, and as such tended to rule more in the style of a Nomad than as a Prophet. Much the same way that a Boomer born in 1946 is totally different from one born in 1959.
Bernie Sanders is 74 years old. Not quite too old. (Political leaders in their 80s tend to be few and far between). I can imagine him as a one term president.
In only five years we will be in the decade of the 2020s. A Boomer such as Elizabeth Warren-now 66 years old-will be in their seventies. Not yet too old to serve as a political leader, so the Woodstock Wave may still leave a mark during that decade.
Once you age to your 80th birthday you will likely have reached the point of being physically/physiologically fragile, and just plain old.
(BTW, the next decade will be called the "Twenties", which seems odd to my ears. I'm used to bigger numbers, such as '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s….)
Last edited by TimWalker; 11-02-2015 at 01:03 PM.
Yes, as of now; in democratic countries where it's much more stressful to serve as a political leader, with all the campaigning required. In China of course, you can still be in office in your 90s. So, if the Republicans get their way and America becomes an oligarchy, then I guess our "political" rulers will be able to sit in their corporate board rooms and rule over us until they are 100 years old.
Yes, except the alliteration of the decade's numbers may encourage us to call them "the 20-20s." And does that also mean we will begin to see things as they are again?(BTW, the next decade will be called the "Twenties", which seems odd to my ears. I'm used to bigger numbers, such as '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s….)
Conceivably we could have another Woodstock Wave president before getting a Joneser in office.
Conceivably. I'd rather say so! Any of the 2 current viable Democratic candidates winning will do.
Note I didn't include Martin O'Malley (Jan 18, 1963) in my list, because his horoscope score is only 14-14. Make of that what you will!
Eric - Have you posted how your horoscope scores are
calculated? Thanks.
I have indeed; somewhere back on the Election 2016 thread. I can't post all the details, but I did an empirical study of which planetary angles are in which presidential candidates, and scored according to which ones were in the winning candidates' horoscopes, which ones in the losing, which were not in the winning candidates, and which not in the losing. I covered the year 2000 back to the 1830s. I didn't update the scoring system past the year 2000 yet. On the Election 2016 thread, I show the scores of winning and losing candidates going back to the 1920s, to show how well the system works. The more positive the percentage, the better; although high positive scores themselves are probably better. Horoscopes scores are not the only factor; new moons before the election are very good at predicting which party will win, and a candidate's Saturn return in an upcoming term (age 55-58 when running) usually defeats them. Plus, there are other factors to consider besides astrology!
Oh well, it won't take long to post that again:
past general elections, candidates and scores:
Obama 8-2, Romney 11-5
Obama 8-2, McCain 9-10
Bush 15-3, Kerry 7-9
Bush 15-3, Gore 13-6
Clinton 13-2, Dole 9-12
Clinton 13-2, Bush 15-6
Bush 15-6, Dukakis 5-15
Reagan 14-4, Mondale 8-14
Reagan 14-4, Carter 13-0
Carter 13-0, Ford 14-6
Nixon 12-4, McGovern 8-8
Nixon 12-4, Humphrey 12-7
Johnson 12-9, Goldwater 20-10
Kennedy 13-7, Nixon 12-4
Eisenhower 15-8, Stevenson 10-20
Truman 18-3, Dewey 4-6
FDR 13-5, Dewey 4-6
FDR 13-5, Wilkie 7-6
FDR 13-5, Landon 6-18
FDR 13-5, Hoover 6-13
Hoover 6-13, Smith 7-7
Current candidates
Clinton 9-8,
O'Malley 14-14
Sanders 10-0
Trump 15-4
Bush 16-6
Rubio 17-12
Rand Paul 12-8
Fiorina 13-10
Christie 16-15
Huckabee 6-6
Santorum 7-7
Jindal 13-14
Cruz 4-6
Carson 3-4
Graham 2-3
Gilmore 10-12
Kasich 7-15
I don't know most of the candidates' rising signs and planets, but it's clear that Jupiter or Uranus rising helps, and many planets rising helps. Rising sign means "personality" which is more important these days. Hillary has Uranus rising, as did FDR. Johnson had 5 planets rising including Jupiter; Bill Clinton had 4 including Jupiter. Reagan also had Jupiter rising.
Mars rising can be very interesting though. Goldwater had Mars in Scorpio rising, the astrological epitome of "extremism." Trump also has Mars rising, as did LBJ. Very aggressive. Trump's Mars rising is in Leo, the arrogant egotistical sign.
By the way, Mars is also one of Bill Clinton's 4 rising planets. Interesting too! It is in Libra, the sign of indecision and evasion. Did I, or didn't I? "I smoked, but I didn't inhale." "It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is."
The new moon before the election in 2016 favors the party in power.
That's a whole other post!
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-02-2015 at 05:50 PM.
Geriatric? If we are discussing candidates in their seventies, consider the term "young old".
Is this the method you are referring to?
In this method, I use the exact time of the new moon preceding the election. I look at the signs on the Ascendant (eastern horizon or rising sign) and Descendant (setting sign in the west). The Ascendant represents the challenging party, and the Descendant represents the incumbent party. All signs in astrology are linked to a ruling planet (excluding Pluto). Whichever ruler is highest in the sky wins.
That's the new moon before election method, yes.
Candidate scores refer to individual horoscopes; the new moon method refers to the fortunes of the party in power (occupying the White House). It seems not to work very well if the electoral vote contradicts the popular vote; the method seems to refer to the popular vote. Nevertheless by a razor-thin margin, the method did predict Bush would win in 2000.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-02-2015 at 04:24 PM.
