Just read through that again. Wow, amazing!! You predicted 10+ of the last two wars/recessions! That war with Iran in 2008 was the worst!! It's a good thing that progressive president didn't get shot, after all, as it would have ruined our golden age/ religious reformation!

Yeah, if you distort and exaggerate what I wrote, which you always do.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yeah, if you distort and exaggerate what I wrote, which you always do.

Distort what?

It is difficult to conceive of a Republican administration assuming this activist role, so the U.S. president elected in 2000 will probably be either a Democrat or the standard bearer of a new progressive party.

The most important concern is safety of the new U.S. president. Since the 2000 conjunction again falls in an earth sign, the pattern of deaths in office every twenty years may return. Many other signs confirm the danger, including Mars at 20¡ Gemini in the Twelfth House in the chart of the New Moon following the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction of 2000. The eclipses of November 23, 2003, April 8, 2005, October 3, 2005 and March 29, 2006 bear watching, particularly if the new president's birthday is close to these dates (or in early to mid June). If a presidential death happens, it will occur in 2001, 2003, or 2005 after re-election, if past patterns hold. Obviously, the vice- presidential candidates in 2000 must be chosen with great care-a Dan Quayle will not do! Another Aquarian, Dick Gephardt, could get the nod, however-if he doesn't win the top job himself

Whoever is elected in 2000 will also face foreign challenges immediately, since it looks like Uncle Sam will be gearing up for war in the fall of 2000.

After the December date, the U.S. could suffer losses in a serious naval engagement

2001

Whether we go to war or not (and I hope we don't), the years 2001-2002 will probably live up to their mythic significance. Great breakthroughs in space travel will be made, especially in satellite technology. Progress toward a manned expedition to Mars may happen. Conflicts over who has the right to launch and orbit in space will have to be dealt with. From late 2002 through the spring of 2003, many significant, innovative health and welfare programs could be approved. Electronic media will be used to give everyone access to work and education. It will also be an excellent time to streamline the bureaucracy (Saturn trine Uranus) so that these programs will be workable for years to come and help safeguard the security of the people. Either now (2001-2003) or later (the 2020s), this could include a plan for a guaranteed annual income. This currently "unaccepted idea" could be made possible if unearned investment income were distributed more fairly.

An eclipse aligned with Saturn and Pluto in May and June 2002 indicates another decisive moment. Danger to the president is shown, too.

There may be yet another clash in the Mid-East in the year 2003, which will cause more economic anxiety for the U.S. and intense diplomatic efforts in the summer.

While foreign affairs may be easier after 2002, domestic affairs will be harder. Expect a season of discontent in the fall of 2003. The war, the Mid-East troubles, or the resulting financial controls could help trigger a recession.

The year 2004 begins with Mars in Al Gore's solar degree-a danger signal to him if he is president. People will be demanding measures for economic recovery, and unrest is possible in Los Angeles or elsewhere in early 2004. The eclipse of April of that year could also signify renewed struggles over religious issues like abortion. In September and October 2004, members of religious or ethnic minorities will be demanding their rights (Mars-Jupiter in Virgo), and important social measures could be taken. Military altercations could occur in Asia or the Middle East in the spring or fall. After more severe economic shortages in the winter of 2004-05, new financial policies and social programs will gradually bring relief.

A Democratic (or progressive) president may well be re-elected on a close vote in 2004, despite doubts over his or her handling of the economy. Whoever wins, the planets show economic restructuring and financial reform during the next presidential term.

(Hah)

In July 2005, Saturn enters Leo for a two-and-a-half year stay. This could mean serious government-supported efforts directed toward creative projects, bringing the artistic "golden age" to a climax.

Pluto on the Midheaven in the 2006 eclipse chart may mean America is becoming the center of the spiritual, New Age Renaissance

Let's hope the idealistic president elected in 2000 doesn't suffer the same fate as Kennedy did.

In September 2007 he may have to respond to violent incidents there against Americans. The U.S. could strike out at Iran late in the year or early in 2008, when Mars turns stationary in Gemini

The total eclipse on August 1, 2008 (during which Mars in 18¡ Virgo opposes Uranus) may also signify shady U.S. dealings abroad in 2008, and a resurgent counter-culture at home (Venus exactly opposite Neptune). There could be unrest among the poor. This plus the other possible scandals may make it difficult for any incumbent liberal administration to hang on in the 2008 elections, despite their many accomplishments. The Republicans will probably win the election, either this year or in 2012.

The ferment will rise to fever pitch in the Fall of 2009 and seriously threaten the peace among some nations. Until 2010 any conflict will probably be limited to isolated riots or terrorist bombings, and revolution will be directed toward churches and ideas; but by January it may become a major international stew.

2010 looks like a year of sudden, cataclysmic changes and drastic, forced new beginnings. This titanic, historic T-square involves the same four planets as the T-square which coincided with the Great Depression. The solar eclipse in July could trigger a major, worldwide financial collapse.

There is no doubt in my mind that the years 2010 and 2011 will be the most difficult of any we face in the next half-century.

major war may break out in August 2010. If this happens, the refugee problems will be even worse. Central Asia is the most likely battle scene, but America's involvement there would be only economic. The worst war clouds will pass as the T-square dissolves

In the fall of 2010, the charts continue to show Jupiter and Uranus together, setting off huge cosmic fireworks of change. Late 2010 and 2011 will be a great opportunity for reform movements to mobilize action. Swift progress could be made, motivated by the continuing economic crisis. The powerful, depressing Saturn singleton in Libra continues from November 2010 to August 2011, putting a damper on the chances for recovery. It could also mean, however, that the 2010s will be an opportune time to change the constitution in many countries, as leaders try to make the world's economic and political system more just and effective. Since the crisis in 2010 will be so acute, right-wing conservatives may not be able to hijack the thirty-year cyclic return of Saturn to Libra and turn it into another celebration of greed, though they'll try.

But by 2011 (especially around April 23 or August 25), the American people could be calling to "Make the New World Order safe for democracy," leading to U.S. intervention by 2012.

September and October 2011 may see some swift and decisive revolutionary or military actions. Right afterward, Mars begins a long stay in Virgo, inciting dissension by humble groups in society and/or action by America's or Russia's defense establishment. Indications point to U.S. intervention in Central Europe and the Middle East. During the next solar eclipse in May 2012, Mars in Virgo will be on the Midheaven in Washington. Expect military action by the U.S., as America feels again it must defend its ideals by throwing its weight around.

In July 2013, Saturn and Jupiter (with Mars) form a magnificent grand trine with Neptune. These same planets were also in grand trine when the U.S. constitution was created. People will be calling for constitutional changes in this period too, and this could be the time they happen. Many countries may agree to share scarce resources on an international basis and protect the environment. New global rules for sea, space, and electronic travel will be made. With Saturn transiting Scorpio (in powerful mutual reception to Pluto in Capricorn), the new mass mind will be firmly grounded in worldwide economic cooperation. The most enlightened leaders will be those who are most attuned to this new Great Mind of Humanity-and to the need to act together and save the planet we all share. July 2013 may see many people make communal experiments in their own lives, as they seek to live these ideals.

You've pretty much predicted a new war or golden age every year. What's amazing is not the couple things you could claim as being right, but the extent to which you got almost everything completely wrong.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Distort what?

Everything you write is a distorted, over-simplified and mean reaction to your distorted perceptions. That's why you are on ignore, and will stay there.

You've pretty much predicted a new war or golden age every year. What's amazing is not the couple things you could claim as being right, but the extent to which you got almost everything completely wrong.

I did an analysis of my predictions for these years, and though I got a lot of things wrong, I was amazed that I got more right than I thought, even within these quotes. Small details and idealistic stuff like "many people make communal experiments" I got wrong, but I predicted at-least 50% of the major events of the last 40-plus years, according to a list I made here for another skeptic.

The USA usually goes to war when Jupiter is near its return (to its place around Gemini/Cancer in the horoscope of the USA), though not during every return. I discussed that in my videos.
http://philosopherswheel.com/hna.html
We did have a danger of intervention during this current cycle, in Syria last year. The next 2 months will be the last chance for the USA to intervene during this cycle. If it doesn't though, some things we will have done during this return, may lead to interventions in future cycles (circa 2025, 2037).

Point to something I distorted. This is just like your "amazing" prediction record. Much talked of, but poorly demonstrated. You basically predicted a war every year or so. You also got the culture stuff, the recessions, and the politics completely wrong.

Ukraine PM: Russia Backed Sunday's Unrest in the East

Once, as a small boy (relatively speaking) back in the 90s I was at a party on the lower east side and we were hanging out snorting coke in one of those closet-sized bedrooms.

Some guy opens the door and says: "wow are you guys snorting coke? Do people still do that?" Well yes, people did - and I'm sure still do.

But inciting (and probably more like organizing) protests and unrest in order to create a pretext for invading a country? Do people still do that? Well, maybe, right?

I was beginning to think that the only vital role Russian ultra-nationalists played (remember them? in Hollywoodland along with some Cossacks they hijacked the president's plane [who himself I believe was a better looking version of not-to-be-President McCain *]) was a stand-in role for jihadis (who apparently it would be too upsetting to have blow up Baltimore).

But this thing is starting to sound vaguely Prussian. And lib Hitler (it's a term of endearment, really - it's getting so far out from 2008 that I'm thinking some people won't get that it was actually a way of mocking the people who thought that about her) is starting to sound right about him. Well, whatever, right: if this thing escalates I think Putin could end up paying a price, maybe an expensive one. (Or maybe I just hope that.)

* Anyone remember "rogue state rollback"? I had this idea for a tv show called that. It would star John "Fu**ing" McCain and the premise was something like (intro trailer vo by Don LaFontaine) "libs have taken over all branches of the government. America has gone soft. Freedom is in peril." But a reclusive Texas billionaire (named Larry H Hagman to have been played by Harry Hagman [with manservants Corey Haim and Feldman {this show would've had half its cast drop dead}]) has the answer: John McCain. With a rag tag band of misfits and toughs (featuring rapper Coolio) they travel the world in search of terrorists, sexual predators, and chicas. Their mission: restore order, peace, and security. Their choppers: Hueys (decked out by that guy who used to play Harlan Arliss on CHiPs). Theme song by Mike Post with additional licks by ZZ Top.

If you're of the persuasion that this 4T is going to contain a total war, then this longread is for you.

www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war

Originally Posted by Bronco80

If you're of the persuasion that this 4T is going to contain a total war, then this longread is for you.

www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war

I do have a quibble with the flow chart. Total nuclear war does not mean the end of everything. It is merely a door. It is a door from what we all understand to be modernity, to a new mode of existence. That mode of existence would contain elements unknown to all but the most primitive societies, elements absent from the so called "Civilized World" for about the past 1000 years. So in a sense, a 1000 year regression. But in another sense, by breaking the taboos regarding use of superweapons, suddenly, the use of superweapons would become normal and customary in subsequent conflicts. They will be used repeatedly for all eternity.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I do have a quibble with the flow chart. Total nuclear war does not mean the end of everything. It is merely a door. It is a door from what we all understand to be modernity, to a new mode of existence. That mode of existence would contain elements unknown to all but the most primitive societies, elements absent from the so called "Civilized World" for about the past 1000 years. So in a sense, a 1000 year regression. But in another sense, by breaking the taboos regarding use of superweapons, suddenly, the use of superweapons would become normal and customary in subsequent conflicts. They will be used repeatedly for all eternity.

This is a variation on the argument by Einstein that he couldn't know what weapons would be used to fight World War III, but World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones.

Baby boomers would conduct a nuclear WW3 if the worst happens with the same incompetence with which they have conducted all of their other affairs. I can picture the boomer leaders in their continuity of government Underground Bunkers:

Baby Boomer President: Status report

Xer General: The enemy nukes have hit several of our ICBMs but the good news is that the majority of our ICBMs have checked in and are still intact; Mr. president satellite reports indicate that a second wave of enemy missiles are approaching North America, probable targets west coast and east coast Major cities.

President: Order a Retaliatory strike, order them to primarily target enemy missile bases.

General: Mr. President, Russia (or insert China, Iran, NK or some other country here) has started a total war with us, we should launch a countervalue strike which would permanently eliminate their industrial base and ability to pose, the enemy does not care to make such considerations for us, It is them or us, we should pay them back in full for starting this.

President: We are the good guys, the good guys fight by the rules even if the other side does not.

General: Mr. President. Not Nuking enemy cities would leave them in a position to easily rebuild, they would be able to rebuild their army to replace the one we are nuking, they would be in a position to conquer us if we do not take this action, because we would be crippled.

President: That will not happen, the UN would be helping us and giving us assistance to rebuild, Russia (or China, NK, or insert some other country here) would be under permanent sanctions. I trust the UN and the international community.

General: you trust the UN, the same UN that was incapable of preventing this war (rolls eyes).

President: I do, the UN will bring peace and security to the world and looks over all our interests ... (goes on some starry-eyed lecture about world peace).

In the end the US gets conquered and occupied, the final epitaph of baby boomer leadership.

The only salvageable option in the scenario outlined above is this one:

Xer General: (After listening to the boomer presidents nonsensical lecture) Aw screw it... (picks up his service revolver and shoots the president dead to assumes the commander-in-chief position himself, he then orders a countervalue nuclear retaliatory strike which is swiftly carried out).

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Xer General: (After listening to the boomer presidents nonsensical lecture) Aw screw it... (picks up his service revolver and shoots the president dead to assumes the commander-in-chief position himself, he then orders a countervalue nuclear retaliatory strike which is swiftly carried out).

Just out of curiosity, after this, who gives a shit one way or the other about much of anything?

Originally Posted by TnT

Just out of curiosity, after this, who gives a shit one way or the other about much of anything?

The majority of people who would still be alive after the fallout settled?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

The majority of people who would still be alive after the fallout settled?

I suppose my point was that the concerns of whoever was left probably wouldn't be much focused on the "Call of Duty" dramatic fantasy crapola that CH spun out. But sure - whoever was left would probably give a shit for the rest of their miserable lives.

Originally Posted by TnT

I suppose my point was that the concerns of whoever was left probably wouldn't be much focused on the "Call of Duty" dramatic fantasy crapola that CH spun out. But sure - whoever was left would probably give a shit for the rest of their miserable lives.

Yeah, CH is definitely a retard, but I don't think you've done much thinking on the issue at all. Actually looking at the studies done on the subject, from Herman Kahn's On Thermonuclear War to any of the more recent studies done by RAND or the like (as well as the historical evidence from previous periods of total war, volcanic eruptions, and other disasters) suggest that there would be sufficient amounts of people and industrial capacity left to indulge all sorts of "Call of Duty" fantasies, as it were.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Yeah, CH is definitely a retard, but I don't think you've done much thinking on the issue at all. Actually looking at the studies done on the subject, from Herman Kahn's On Thermonuclear War to any of the more recent studies done by RAND or the like (as well as the historical evidence from previous periods of total war, volcanic eruptions, and other disasters) suggest that there would be sufficient amounts of people and industrial capacity left to indulge all sorts of "Call of Duty" fantasies, as it were.

Ok. I'll check some of this out. I guess I have to admit that I've probably been influenced negatively by my fascination with Cormac McCarthy, Steven King and other post-apocalyptics, and such as "On the Beach" and "The Book of Eli." Maybe it's time to examine other, more rational examinations of the topic.

I’m surprised no one is making a connection between Hitler’s land grab of german-speaking territory in the lead up to WWII and Putin grabbing land that identifies with Russia (or in his mind the Soviet Union). Although this land-grab hasn’t continued really, other former Soviet countries (or their leadership) is worried about it like Estonia and Latvia. Who’s to say that if the Russian economy continues to decline or stagnate that he doesn’t grab more land to continue propping up the country? And although Putin hasn’t enslaved LBGT individuals in the country, he sure is showing disgust and rejecting that community. He may like to see Russia return to glory as Hitler did for Germany.

Would we do as we did, as well as the UK and France did in the lead up and let it just happen? Because we don’t want to get involved in another war?

Someone mentioned China potentially wanting Siberia, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say if a war started that China wouldn’t want the resources that are available there? They’d have a more direct route to the Arctic. Although China inherited the Soviet political system from the postwar period, it doesn’t mean they wouldn’t align with the United States in a hot war. Though I know nothing about how much Russia imports from China, but I can’t imagine it’s at the levels in which we import goods from China. China also holds a lot of our debt so that’s another thing to consider.

Sometimes I think with the upcoming crisis that if an external war doesn't start we'll end up in an internal war.

*Yawn*

Dude, the comparison between Putin and Hitler has been made ad nauseum, both here and in the MSM. Likewise between Russia and the Kaiser's Germany (made just up thread) or between China and the same.

As for our latter-day Metternichs and Bismarks hoping for a China-Russia split to prop up the US empire into the next saeculum, I suspect that ship has sailed. Who do you really think China and Russia think their most dangerous competitor is right now, each other, or us?

God, nothing convinces me more of the ongoing disastrousness of this turning then the continued bipartisan ('Murica! Gay Rights!) cheerleading of a Third World War by the peanut gallery.

Originally Posted by TnT

Ok. I'll check some of this out. I guess I have to admit that I've probably been influenced negatively by my fascination with Cormac McCarthy, Steven King and other post-apocalyptics, and such as "On the Beach" and "The Book of Eli." Maybe it's time to examine other, more rational examinations of the topic.

Yeah, I wouldn't place much credence in that sort of thing as a realistic depiction. Don't get me wrong, a total war fought with all the weapons at our disposal would be hideous, and would make WWI & WWII pale in comparison, but a stateless wasteland of irradiated carrot monsters (to borrow a phrase) and Mad Max biker gangs would not be in the cards. Here's a decent summary by a blogger, using original sources, and here is a simulation of an exchange between the US and China done by the Federation of American Scientists. Of particular note in the latter is this paragraph (from page 192):

Although such an increase in China’s countervalue deterrent capability (abovethe current 20 4-Mt warheads, 80 Mt total yield) would put many more U.S. citiesat risk, it would not significantly increase the number of casualties in the strikescalculated in Figure 94. The reason is that there are only a limited number of verylarge metropolitan areas and that – once they have been destroyed by the4-Mt warheads – the additional 250-kt warheads would have to be targeted onsmaller cities causing comparatively fewer additional casualties. Of course launchingmore missiles also would mean more warheads reaching their targets, assumingeach missile has comparable vulnerability of pre-emptive destruction, probabilityof technical failure or interception by the U.S. National Missile Defense system.500

The table in question is a couple pages above, it's a pdf.

On a similar note, do recall that nuclear arsenals are only a fraction of their peak size in the 80s, and of those only a fraction are available to fire at a moments notice. That's the real reason for counterforce targeting by the principals (presently the US and Russia), not humanitarian concerns as suggested by numbnuts above.

First off I apologize for retreading already covered ground. I'm just coming up to speed after being away from the forum for over a year. I've heard (and so not sure of its accuracy) that Germans and Russians have strongly disliked each other well before the world wars... so I imagine in that way it could be insulting to suggest such a correlation.

I appreciate the perspective because it's different from mine and I'd like to be more inline with what's true than being anything else.

I honestly don't care whether Russia or China work together or split up in anything whether is economic trade or military strategy. It's well known (I think) that China is hunting down every energy resource they can get internally instead of importing energy. I was also just presenting a possible debate on whether it is good or bad to kill off someone who owes you money they'll never pay back; 'Murica might be finding that out the hard way if we don't balance the budget eventually. Though I know a point like that probably belongs in the Politics and Economics section.

Again, I apologize for anything offensive... really no need for names calling.

Yeah, sorry man. That came out way more dickish than I intended. Yes, you could make a strong argument that the events surrounding the fall of the Soviet Union, the Iranian Revolution, and China's reforms are this saeculums equivalent to WWI, the wars in Ukraine and Syria being reminiscent of the Spanish Civil War, with Putin being a nationalist figure akin to Mussolini or (vaguely) Hitler, but only up to a point. The lead up to what's looking appallingly like WWIII has things in common with that for the previous two world wars, yet is nonetheless distinctly it's own thing and should be understood primarily on its own terms. As for the bit about economics, while interesting, you should also keep in mind that Britain and Germany were each others largest trading partners prior to WWI, and Japan and the U.S. major trading partners prior to WWII, and that lots of people at the time thought that would prevent war. Needless to say, it didn't.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

*Yawn*

Dude, the comparison between Putin and Hitler has been made ad nauseum, both here and in the MSM. Likewise between Russia and the Kaiser's Germany (made just up thread) or between China and the same.

As for our latter-day Metternichs and Bismarks hoping for a China-Russia split to prop up the US empire into the next saeculum, I suspect that ship has sailed. Who do you really think China and Russia think their most dangerous competitor is right now, each other, or us?

God, nothing convinces me more of the ongoing disastrousness of this turning then the continued bipartisan ('Murica! Gay Rights!) cheerleading of a Third World War by the peanut gallery.

China and Russia have competing interests in the vast area the Russians call the Far Eastern Federal District. It's huge, has a population of about 6 million and is a long way from Moscow. Since Manchuria and the Mongolias are just to the south, retaining this area will be a challenge for the Russians. Thrown in the vast mineral wealth that has to be there, and the ttension isn't trivial.

So are we more important to then they are to one another? Is the question even important?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

China and Russia have competing interests in the vast area the Russians call the Far Eastern Federal District. It's huge, has a population of about 6 million and is a long way from Moscow. Since Manchuria and the Mongolias are just to the south, retaining this area will be a challenge for the Russians. Thrown in the vast mineral wealth that has to be there, and the ttension isn't trivial.

So are we more important to then they are to one another? Is the question even important?

Are the Russians withholding resource sales to the Chinese? Don't you think the demographic imbalance argument would hold equally true between China and Mongolia, which has a wealth of strategic resources, a miniscule population density, a history of incorporation in historic China, and no nuclear weapons or vast armies? Have we seen any evidence of statements by high officials showing any friction over control here? Maybe there are so few people living there right now because it isn't particularly desirable to live in a frigid wasteland?

In short, do you have any actual evidence to suggest that this is anything more than wishful thinking on the part of you and John Xenakis? Tell you what, I'll throw you a bone. Russia is due for another crisis in the 60s and 70s, maybe another fifty years of global warming and resource depletion will make this trope relevant. Until then, stop talking out of your ass.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Are the Russians withholding resource sales to the Chinese? Don't you think the demographic imbalance argument would hold equally true between China and Mongolia, which has a wealth of strategic resources, a miniscule population density, a history of incorporation in historic China, and no nuclear weapons or vast armies? Have we seen any evidence of statements by high officials showing any friction over control here? Maybe there are so few people living there right now because it isn't particularly desirable to live in a frigid wasteland?

In short, do you have any actual evidence to suggest that this is anything more than wishful thinking on the part of you and John Xenakis? Tell you what, I'll throw you a bone. Russia is due for another crisis in the 60s and 70s, maybe another fifty years of global warming and resource depletion will make this trope relevant. Until then, stop talking out of your ass.

I hardly think this will be a fight. The Chinese are already there, arriving continuously and will be arriving as laborers, farmers and even business owners. At some point, this passive invasion will trigger some alarm bells, just like the island-building in the South China Sea is now. Much of the land in the far east of Russia has been Chinese in the past. I doubt that fact is lost on their leaders.

Is this a huge threat today? No. Then again, China hates to lose, and Russia feels the same.

Sure, like I said, I absolutely believe this could be an issue later on in the century. Probable, even. But I don't think it is going to have much bearing on this turning, where (semi) official mouthpieces of the regimes in question are very publicly hyping the risk of war with the US while fawning over trade and political deals signed between each other. Sorry, we're the biggest bully on the block right now, which always invites coalition building, and unlike 19th century Britain we don't have a policy of "splendid isolation" to keep us insulated.

Book, copyright 2015. Putinism Russia And Its Future With The West by Walter Laqueur.

Author discusses "the Russia idea" and Russia's search for an ideology.

The Russia Idea seems to include: The Russian Orthodox Church; Eurasianism; Russian geopolitics

For dominating Eurasia, Russians have considered Moscow-Tehran axis, and a Mosco-Tokyo axis. A Moscow-Berline axis seems to be more popular concept, though.