It's in the "stars" (predicting by astrology and other means)

[Marypoza]

(01-01-2017, 12:09 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It was very unusual to see a new moon before the election that so starkly resembled the charts of the nominees. I don't know if that's a new trend; if so it might bode well for Terry McAuliffe, whose chart most resembles the 2020 new moon before election. Sometimes I can see some slight resemblances in past elections to candidates, like Mars in Virgo rising for 2000 (Dubya had that sign position of Mars). Click on the link in my previous post to see Trump's chart and how similar it is to this new moon chart, or see below the new moon charts.

Let's see if I can retrieve that New Moon Oct 30 2016 chart:







Note Pluto in Leo above Mars; different symbol above (circle above crescent above cross) from the new moon chart's use of the PL glyph for Pluto.

-- l looked @ this chart which you posted on New Yrs Day. See that hook thing retrograde in Aquarius? What is that thing?

If it is not Ceres than yeah, l agree with you, the Donald has no grand trines. But if it is Ceres, than he has  2. If we use the dwarf planet Pluto in a chart- &  we all do- then we should also use the dwarf planet Ceres, which is much closer to home & therefore more influential. There is an astrologer up in Dayton (near here) who assigns rulership of Virgo to Ceres

I just doublechecked. That thing is Ceres

https://books.google.com/books?id=VIAo1X...es&f=false

[Eric the Green]

(02-02-2017, 01:35 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Eric, have you seen this?

https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2016/11/...irth-time/

Of course I have mentioned here the uncertainty of Hillary's birth time. If it was 8 PM, as I originally thought, her score is lower and she has no Jupiter rising, which I saw as a significant positive factor based on history. Looking at the various accounts and facts listed on the astro.com website with her chart, I still think 8:02 AM is correct. But it's not a certainty.

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Clinton,_Hillary

[Eric the Green]

(02-02-2017, 03:05 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-01-2017, 12:09 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It was very unusual to see a new moon before the election that so starkly resembled the charts of the nominees. I don't know if that's a new trend; if so it might bode well for Terry McAuliffe, whose chart most resembles the 2020 new moon before election. Sometimes I can see some slight resemblances in past elections to candidates, like Mars in Virgo rising for 2000 (Dubya had that sign position of Mars). Click on the link in my previous post to see Trump's chart and how similar it is to this new moon chart, or see below the new moon charts.

Let's see if I can retrieve that New Moon Oct 30 2016 chart:







Note Pluto in Leo above Mars; different symbol above (circle above crescent above cross) from the new moon chart's use of the PL glyph for Pluto.

-- l looked @ this chart which you posted on New Yrs Day. See that hook thing retrograde in Aquarius? What is that thing?

If it is not Ceres than yeah, l agree with you, the Donald has no grand trines. But if it is Ceres, than he has  2. If we use the dwarf planet Pluto in a chart- &  we all do- then we should also use the dwarf planet Ceres, which is much closer to home & therefore more influential. There is an astrologer up in Dayton (near here) who assigns rulership of Virgo to Ceres

I just doublechecked. That thing is Ceres

https://books.google.com/books?id=VIAo1X...es&f=false

Astrologers don't always agree. If you think Ceres is as important as Pluto; go for it. I would not go that route myself. But I do include Ceres in charts, as you can see.

[Eric the Green]

(02-02-2017, 03:01 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 02:58 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 02:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 02:36 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 02:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't know; I'd need your time and place of birth as well as your date.

March 19th, 1986, about 3 in the morning.  Fairfax County Hospital, just outside of DC.

Your score is 9 - 9. Better than mine, but quite mediocre. But, you might be able to give Newt Gingrich or Al Franken a run for their money. They have the same score as you.

No mas, por favor. No Mas! No need to do this for others, please.

Woo, in your face, Newt Franken! 

Out curiosity, where are my negatives coming from?  I mean, since you've already done the work. 

Oh gee, no I only took a tally. But remember they are not negative per se. They are only unfavorable for getting elected president of the USA; that's it!

Let's see if I can remember off-hand. Sun conjunct Mercury, Moon opposite Neptune, Venus trine Uranus, Mars conj. Uranus and one more I can't remember. OK, Moon sq Venus.

[Marypoza]

(02-02-2017, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 03:05 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-01-2017, 12:09 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It was very unusual to see a new moon before the election that so starkly resembled the charts of the nominees. I don't know if that's a new trend; if so it might bode well for Terry McAuliffe, whose chart most resembles the 2020 new moon before election. Sometimes I can see some slight resemblances in past elections to candidates, like Mars in Virgo rising for 2000 (Dubya had that sign position of Mars). Click on the link in my previous post to see Trump's chart and how similar it is to this new moon chart, or see below the new moon charts.

Let's see if I can retrieve that New Moon Oct 30 2016 chart:







Note Pluto in Leo above Mars; different symbol above (circle above crescent above cross) from the new moon chart's use of the PL glyph for Pluto.

-- l looked @ this chart which you posted on New Yrs Day. See that hook thing retrograde in Aquarius? What is that thing?

If it is not Ceres than yeah, l agree with you, the Donald has no grand trines. But if it is Ceres, than he has  2. If we use the dwarf planet Pluto in a chart- &  we all do- then we should also use the dwarf planet Ceres, which is much closer to home & therefore more influential. There is an astrologer up in Dayton (near here) who assigns rulership of Virgo to Ceres

I just doublechecked. That thing is Ceres

https://books.google.com/books?id=VIAo1X...es&f=false

Astrologers don't always agree. If you think Ceres is as important as Pluto; go for it. I would not go that route myself. But I do include Ceres in charts, as you can see.

-- well it's orbit is shorter than Pluto's, so it's influence is more personal in nature, whereas Pluto's influence is generational, & while it can be influential in personal horoscopes is more influential in mundane horoscopes

I notice they also use Earth in that chart

[Eric the Green]

(02-02-2017, 02:52 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 02:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I have lost track for now of my source for copying charts, so this image will dissappear soon. This, like McAuliffe's chart, is for 12 Noon; the Ascendant is unknown and the Moon's aspects are tentative and inaccurate.
http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?&nhor...1486063119

I have scored it 19-8 pending more info on his birth time.

He has some great aspects, like a sextile of Jupiter and Uranus aligned with his Sun opposing Jupiter and trine Uranus. These are all worth points in my score. Venus makes powerful trines and sextiles to a Saturn-Neptune conjunction and to Pluto-Moon. He gets some positive points out of those too. Saturn conj. Neptune is notable for occurring in the charts of Lincoln, FDR and Kennedy. As such it can indicate both greatness and fatal destiny. If he's elected in 2020 that would be something to watch and be careful about. Others who had this conjunction include John Edwards, who is about the same age as Sherrod. A Moon-Mercury trine gives him the ability to use the media well.

He has some unfavorable aspects as well, amounting to 8 points in my current estimate. These can signify that he can have some rough times or get pretty rough himself: Mars sq. Saturn and Saturn sextile Pluto. Mars opposite Uranus can be reckless or radical, as in Howard Dean's case, but (as with McAuliffe's square as well) does not appear to have an unfavorable effect on candidates' chances overall. Jupiter square Pluto also adds a reckless element to his personality that is quite unfavorable, but the Moon square to Jupiter that comes along with it is very favorable. Moon square or opposite Jupiter makes a candidate's generosity and optimism quite active, accessible and easily expressed, as we saw in the case of Ronald Reagan among others.

-- yeah his Moon conjunct Pluto & Saturn conjunct Uranus stabilizes the upredictability of the Jupiter/Uranus sextile. At any rate we are happy with him as Sen. His Sun is conjunct the MC, which can indicate bigger & better things careerwise as well.

So far he doesn't appear to be positioning himself for a 2020 run like Tulsi & Liz are. But we still have a couple yrs to go so we'll see

We don't know yet if his Sun is conjunct the MC; this is just a 12 Noon chart which we cast for people for whom we have no birth time. Of course, every such chart shows the Sun conj. the MC!

Brown has Saturn conj. Neptune, not Uranus. Jupiter sextile Uranus is quite favorable. Jupiter square Pluto can be unstable. Pluto shows up very powerfully in all my stats, one way or the other. Ceres I'm not sure about, but I doubt it seriously. Astrologically (rather than astronomically) speaking, this may because Pluto has a strong link to power, especially the collective power of organizations and civilizations. A candidate normally must be able to use Pluto power well, I conclude, in order to get elected president and do the job well. But Trump himself seems to have little connection with Pluto. It's all about his "populist" Jupiter-Uranus, and his Mars energy. Now Obama, on the other hand, had some powerful, favorable Pluto aspects.

[SomeGuy]

(02-02-2017, 03:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 03:01 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 02:58 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 02:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 02:36 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: March 19th, 1986, about 3 in the morning.  Fairfax County Hospital, just outside of DC.

Your score is 9 - 9. Better than mine, but quite mediocre. But, you might be able to give Newt Gingrich or Al Franken a run for their money. They have the same score as you.

No mas, por favor. No Mas! No need to do this for others, please.

Woo, in your face, Newt Franken! 

Out curiosity, where are my negatives coming from?  I mean, since you've already done the work. 

Oh gee, no I only took a tally. But remember they are not negative per se. They are only unfavorable for getting elected president of the USA; that's it!

Let's see if I can remember off-hand. Sun conjunct Mercury, Moon opposite Neptune, Venus trine Uranus, Mars conj. Uranus and one more I can't remember. OK, Moon sq Venus.

Sociable, driven, quick-talking, maybe a little corrupt... these are NEGATIVES for politicians?  I would have thought they were prerequisites! 

Fair enough, I appreciate the effort, Eric.

[Marypoza]

(02-02-2017, 03:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 02:52 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 02:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I have lost track for now of my source for copying charts, so this image will dissappear soon. This, like McAuliffe's chart, is for 12 Noon; the Ascendant is unknown and the Moon's aspects are tentative and inaccurate.
http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?&nhor...1486063119

I have scored it 19-8 pending more info on his birth time.

He has some great aspects, like a sextile of Jupiter and Uranus aligned with his Sun opposing Jupiter and trine Uranus. These are all worth points in my score. Venus makes powerful trines and sextiles to a Saturn-Neptune conjunction and to Pluto-Moon. He gets some positive points out of those too. Saturn conj. Neptune is notable for occurring in the charts of Lincoln, FDR and Kennedy. As such it can indicate both greatness and fatal destiny. If he's elected in 2020 that would be something to watch and be careful about. Others who had this conjunction include John Edwards, who is about the same age as Sherrod. A Moon-Mercury trine gives him the ability to use the media well.

He has some unfavorable aspects as well, amounting to 8 points in my current estimate. These can signify that he can have some rough times or get pretty rough himself: Mars sq. Saturn and Saturn sextile Pluto. Mars opposite Uranus can be reckless or radical, as in Howard Dean's case, but (as with McAuliffe's square as well) does not appear to have an unfavorable effect on candidates' chances overall. Jupiter square Pluto also adds a reckless element to his personality that is quite unfavorable, but the Moon square to Jupiter that comes along with it is very favorable. Moon square or opposite Jupiter makes a candidate's generosity and optimism quite active, accessible and easily expressed, as we saw in the case of Ronald Reagan among others.

-- yeah his Moon conjunct Pluto & Saturn conjunct Uranus stabilizes the upredictability of the Jupiter/Uranus sextile. At any rate we are happy with him as Sen. His Sun is conjunct the MC, which can indicate bigger & better things careerwise as well.

So far he doesn't appear to be positioning himself for a 2020 run like Tulsi & Liz are. But we still have a couple yrs to go so we'll see

We don't know yet if his Sun is conjunct the MC; this is just a 12 Noon chart which we cast for people for whom we have no birth time. Of course, every such chart shows the Sun conj. the MC!

-- ok, l didn't notice that. My bad

Eric Wrote:Brown has Saturn conj. Neptune, not Uranus. Jupiter sextile Uranus is quite favorable. Jupiter square Pluto can be unstable. Pluto shows up very powerfully in all my stats, one way or the other. Ceres I'm not sure about, but I doubt it seriously.

[/quote]

-- yeah, Neptune, l wrote the wrong planet

[Marypoza]

(02-02-2017, 03:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 02:52 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 02:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I have lost track for now of my source for copying charts, so this image will dissappear soon. This, like McAuliffe's chart, is for 12 Noon; the Ascendant is unknown and the Moon's aspects are tentative and inaccurate.
http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?&nhor...1486063119

I have scored it 19-8 pending more info on his birth time.

He has some great aspects, like a sextile of Jupiter and Uranus aligned with his Sun opposing Jupiter and trine Uranus. These are all worth points in my score. Venus makes powerful trines and sextiles to a Saturn-Neptune conjunction and to Pluto-Moon. He gets some positive points out of those too. Saturn conj. Neptune is notable for occurring in the charts of Lincoln, FDR and Kennedy. As such it can indicate both greatness and fatal destiny. If he's elected in 2020 that would be something to watch and be careful about. Others who had this conjunction include John Edwards, who is about the same age as Sherrod. A Moon-Mercury trine gives him the ability to use the media well.

He has some unfavorable aspects as well, amounting to 8 points in my current estimate. These can signify that he can have some rough times or get pretty rough himself: Mars sq. Saturn and Saturn sextile Pluto. Mars opposite Uranus can be reckless or radical, as in Howard Dean's case, but (as with McAuliffe's square as well) does not appear to have an unfavorable effect on candidates' chances overall. Jupiter square Pluto also adds a reckless element to his personality that is quite unfavorable, but the Moon square to Jupiter that comes along with it is very favorable. Moon square or opposite Jupiter makes a candidate's generosity and optimism quite active, accessible and easily expressed, as we saw in the case of Ronald Reagan among others.

-- yeah his Moon conjunct Pluto & Saturn conjunct Uranus stabilizes the upredictability of the Jupiter/Uranus sextile. At any rate we are happy with him as Sen. His Sun is conjunct the MC, which can indicate bigger & better things careerwise as well.

So far he doesn't appear to be positioning himself for a 2020 run like Tulsi & Liz are. But we still have a couple yrs to go so we'll see

We don't know yet if his Sun is conjunct the MC; this is just a 12 Noon chart which we cast for people for whom we have no birth time. Of course, every such chart shows the Sun conj. the MC!

Brown has Saturn conj. Neptune, not Uranus. Jupiter sextile Uranus is quite favorable. Jupiter square Pluto can be unstable. Pluto shows up very powerfully in all my stats, one way or the other. Ceres I'm not sure about, but I doubt it seriously. Astrologically (rather than astronomically) speaking, this may because Pluto has a strong link to power, especially the collective power of organizations and civilizations. A candidate normally must be able to use Pluto power well, I conclude, in order to get elected president and do the job well. But Trump himself seems to have little connection with Pluto. It's all about his "populist" Jupiter-Uranus, and his Mars energy. Now Obama, on the other hand, had some powerful, favorable Pluto aspects.

-- that's true about Pluto wrt organizations & civilizations. Which is why in general it's more important in mundane charts & long term forecasting (for instance, how many ppl have a Pluto Return, which the United States is due for in a few yrs. I'm gonna stick my neck out here & say the Pluto Return is important in determining the outcome of the 4T) but yeah, if it is heavily aspected in a personal chart it carries more weight. Same for any planet

The influence of Ceres, since her promotion to dwarf planet, needs to be studied more. The aforementioned Dayton astrologer is one of the few l know of doing research. I find it interseting that NASA has sent probes (New Dawn & New Horizon) to both dwarf planets around the same time. I think we need to probe Ceres astrologically too

[Eric the Green]

(02-02-2017, 03:41 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [quote='Marypoza' pid='19895' dateline='1486065909']

Astrologers don't always agree. If you think Ceres is as important as Pluto; go for it. I would not go that route myself. But I do include Ceres in charts, as you can see.

-- well it's orbit is shorter than Pluto's, so it's influence is more personal in nature, whereas Pluto's influence is generational, & while it can be influential in personal horoscopes is more influential in mundane horoscopes

And in the case of candidates for president, their charts must be considered "mundane" in this respect, because we're talking about who can get elected president. And the actual president's chart becomes mundane because what he does and what happens to him affects the nation. The president (and his/her "personal" traits) personifies the nation while (s)he's in power.

[Marypoza]

(02-02-2017, 03:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 03:41 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 03:05 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Astrologers don't always agree. If you think Ceres is as important as Pluto; go for it. I would not go that route myself. But I do include Ceres in charts, as you can see.

-- well it's orbit is shorter than Pluto's, so it's influence is more personal in nature, whereas Pluto's influence is generational, & while it can be influential in personal horoscopes is more influential in mundane horoscopes

And in the case of candidates for president, their charts must be considered "mundane" in this respect, because we're talking about who can get elected president. And the actual president's chart becomes mundane because what he does and what happens to him affects the nation. The president (and his/her "personal" traits) personifies the nation while (s)he's in power.

--dunno if the Donald wants 2b considered mundane, but yeah l'll go with that as a matter of principle

[Eric the Green]

(02-02-2017, 03:53 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 03:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 02:52 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 02:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I have lost track for now of my source for copying charts, so this image will dissappear soon. This, like McAuliffe's chart, is for 12 Noon; the Ascendant is unknown and the Moon's aspects are tentative and inaccurate.
http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?&nhor...1486063119

I have scored it 19-8 pending more info on his birth time.

He has some great aspects, like a sextile of Jupiter and Uranus aligned with his Sun opposing Jupiter and trine Uranus. These are all worth points in my score. Venus makes powerful trines and sextiles to a Saturn-Neptune conjunction and to Pluto-Moon. He gets some positive points out of those too. Saturn conj. Neptune is notable for occurring in the charts of Lincoln, FDR and Kennedy. As such it can indicate both greatness and fatal destiny. If he's elected in 2020 that would be something to watch and be careful about. Others who had this conjunction include John Edwards, who is about the same age as Sherrod. A Moon-Mercury trine gives him the ability to use the media well.

He has some unfavorable aspects as well, amounting to 8 points in my current estimate. These can signify that he can have some rough times or get pretty rough himself: Mars sq. Saturn and Saturn sextile Pluto. Mars opposite Uranus can be reckless or radical, as in Howard Dean's case, but (as with McAuliffe's square as well) does not appear to have an unfavorable effect on candidates' chances overall. Jupiter square Pluto also adds a reckless element to his personality that is quite unfavorable, but the Moon square to Jupiter that comes along with it is very favorable. Moon square or opposite Jupiter makes a candidate's generosity and optimism quite active, accessible and easily expressed, as we saw in the case of Ronald Reagan among others.

-- yeah his Moon conjunct Pluto & Saturn conjunct Uranus stabilizes the upredictability of the Jupiter/Uranus sextile. At any rate we are happy with him as Sen. His Sun is conjunct the MC, which can indicate bigger & better things careerwise as well.

So far he doesn't appear to be positioning himself for a 2020 run like Tulsi & Liz are. But we still have a couple yrs to go so we'll see

We don't know yet if his Sun is conjunct the MC; this is just a 12 Noon chart which we cast for people for whom we have no birth time. Of course, every such chart shows the Sun conj. the MC!

Brown has Saturn conj. Neptune, not Uranus. Jupiter sextile Uranus is quite favorable. Jupiter square Pluto can be unstable. Pluto shows up very powerfully in all my stats, one way or the other. Ceres I'm not sure about, but I doubt it seriously. Astrologically (rather than astronomically) speaking, this may because Pluto has a strong link to power, especially the collective power of organizations and civilizations. A candidate normally must be able to use Pluto power well, I conclude, in order to get elected president and do the job well. But Trump himself seems to have little connection with Pluto. It's all about his "populist" Jupiter-Uranus, and his Mars energy. Now Obama, on the other hand, had some powerful, favorable Pluto aspects.

-- that's true about Pluto wrt organizations & civilizations. Which is why in general it's more important in mundane charts & long term forecasting (for instance, how many ppl have a Pluto Return, which the United States is due for in a few yrs. I'm gonna stick my neck out here & say the Pluto Return is important in determining the outcome of the 4T) but yeah, if it is heavily aspected in a personal chart it carries more weight. Same for any planet

The influence of Ceres, since her promotion to dwarf planet, needs to be studied more. The aforementioned Dayton astrologer is one of the few l know of doing research. I find it interseting that NASA has sent probes (New Dawn & New Horizon) to both dwarf planets around the same time. I think we need to probe Ceres astrologically too

Yup; been sticking my neck out on that one for decades. And Pluto is already within orb of conjunction with our natal Pluto, so, as of our entry into Trumpland, the Pluto Return has in fact already started.

Study Ceres more; likely a good idea.

[Marypoza]

(02-02-2017, 03:41 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 03:05 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-01-2017, 12:09 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It was very unusual to see a new moon before the election that so starkly resembled the charts of the nominees. I don't know if that's a new trend; if so it might bode well for Terry McAuliffe, whose chart most resembles the 2020 new moon before election. Sometimes I can see some slight resemblances in past elections to candidates, like Mars in Virgo rising for 2000 (Dubya had that sign position of Mars). Click on the link in my previous post to see Trump's chart and how similar it is to this new moon chart, or see below the new moon charts.

Let's see if I can retrieve that New Moon Oct 30 2016 chart:







Note Pluto in Leo above Mars; different symbol above (circle above crescent above cross) from the new moon chart's use of the PL glyph for Pluto.

-- l looked @ this chart which you posted on New Yrs Day. See that hook thing retrograde in Aquarius? What is that thing?

If it is not Ceres than yeah, l agree with you, the Donald has no grand trines. But if it is Ceres, than he has  2. If we use the dwarf planet Pluto in a chart- &  we all do- then we should also use the dwarf planet Ceres, which is much closer to home & therefore more influential. There is an astrologer up in Dayton (near here) who assigns rulership of Virgo to Ceres

I just doublechecked. That thing is Ceres

https://books.google.com/books?id=VIAo1X...es&f=false

Astrologers don't always agree. If you think Ceres is as important as Pluto; go for it. I would not go that route myself. But I do include Ceres in charts, as you can see.

-- well it's orbit is shorter than Pluto's, so it's influence is more personal in nature, whereas Pluto's influence is generational, & while it can be influential in personal horoscopes is more influential in mundane horoscopes

I notice they also use Earth in that chart

-- ya know l been lookin @ that chart. I think the Donald's a pussy

[Eric the Green]

A pussy with claws tearing up the fabric of American and world life, I'm afraid.

[Ragnarök_62]

Astrology Found on Zerohedge:  

Zerohedge Wrote:Chris Dakota GUS100CORRINA Feb 11, 2017 1:19 AM
1 in 4 of US college students have a diagnosable mental illness.
40% do not seek help
80% feel overwhelmed by their responsibilities
50% have been so anxious that they struggled in school.
All of this comes out of the 60s.
Divorce, feminism, sexual revolution, mixed race children that belong to no tribe, daycare, done runned off parents, drugs alcohol, anything goes.
This is why you have these angry and combative SJW's, cultural breakdown, fractured tribe, the American experiment of multiculturalism.
I feel sorry for these kids, they are so, so lost.
All of this is shown in astrology, the sixties the seeding time for upending culture, now the backlash to it when Uranus squared Pluto from 2011 to now the last time before they separate for another 45 yrs in this current cycle
We were all victims of it, even the President.
This is the key to fixing America, traditional values and banishing the left and their destructive influence on American culture.
The President has progressed Sun in Virgo conjunct Regulus (King) it is about labor, sacrifice, humility, self examination, purification through fire.
The chart of a leader reflects the fate of a nation, in the times of Monarchy they chose the successor to the throne by his chart. But it works even if we no longer do that, its the fate of a nation.
As a nation it is healthy to admit we made mistakes, face it and fix it. (Virgo)
Virgo is health, healing and cleansing. One chart  is that of Coco Chanel she had Virgo on the midheaven, and that is cleansing. Sometimes it can be ethnic cleansing, which comes out of a diseased society.  And that time was the closing square of Pluto/Uranus in the 1930s.
The original Uranus/Pluto conjunction was exact in 1967.
I'm sure you recognize this, I'm just telling you why it is happening and why now.
The great American eclipse this summer is in the final degree of Leo, it is the closing act of pride, arrogance and the old royalty.
They dia which is why the establishment lost, it's a shift, the US Sun has progressed into Pisces the polarity being Virgo.
America retreats into itself, looks at itself, finds God and cleanses all that is unholy. It's just sooooo obvious to any thinking person who reads the sky.
But oddly I seem to be the only one who see's it.....lol
It's an amazing tapestry that is woven, the synchronicity is there at every turn you just have to open your eyes and see it. Being an astrologer is so damn interesting, you read the headlines and there are the aspects of the time. Even though you know it is coming it is still amazing to you.
When I used to do charts for people they always asked me who is the soulmate? I always said "the soulmate is the one who shows up for you"
Because life really is that simple, and that perfect.
We are going to be okay, we are going to do an autopsy on ourselves and be really, really honest about our health, cleanse ourselves of disease and promote our strengths.
If you bet, don't bet against America now.

So there's other astrologers to be found.

In reply to:

Zerohedge Wrote:

Quote:I’m not like them
But I can pretend
The sun is gone
But I have a light
The day is done
But I’m having fun
I think I’m dumb
Or maybe just happy
 
– Kurt Cobain, Dumb

My typical writing style consists of taking a particular topic or train of thought and bringing it to some sort of conclusion within a single relatively short post. Today’s topic is simply too expansive for that model, so it’ll be published in at least two parts.
This post needs to be read in the context of my last two posts. If you haven’t read those, you’ll probably have a difficult time fully grasping everything I discuss below. Here are those pieces in case you missed them the first time.
Lost in the Political Wilderness 
What is Spiral Dynamics and Why Have I Become So Interested in It?
Once again, today’s article will focus on the writings of Ken Wilber. I’ve been completely blown away by the fact that his insight into a evolutionary model of human consciousness called Spiral Dynamics, almost perfectly expresses how I feel about things despite never having come into contact with the model previously. As most of you know, I view Trump as a symptom of a diseased societal, political and economic paradigm, as opposed to the disease itself. Trump was a reaction, and the way the Democrats handled the primary was the final nail in the coffin in sealing his victory. People became so fed up with the insanity of the fake left, many of those who didn’t even like Trump decided to roll the dice with him anyway.
Ken Wilber’s recent free e-book, Trump and a Post-Truth World, takes it much further in a thoroughly enlightening manner through the prism of evolutionary consciousness. In fact, he makes it clear that the election of someone like Trump was a long time coming and, in fact, the culmination of a decades-long process of “liberal” ideology gone completely off the deep-end. Before I go any further, let me provide a quote from the book which will give you a little taste of where he’s coming from.

Quote:But one of our central points, with either major way forward, is essentially the same, which I’ll briefly summarize: the green postmodern leading-edge of evolution itself has, for several decades, degenerated into its extreme, pathological, and dysfunctional forms. As such, it is literally incapable of effectively acting as a real leading-edge. Its fundamental belief—“there is no truth”—and its basic essential attitude—“aperspectival madness”— cannot in any fashion actually lead, actually choose a course of action that is positive, healthy, effective, and truly evolutionary. With all growth hierarchies denied and deconstructed, evolution has no real way to grow, has no way forward at all, and thus nothing but dominator hierarchies are seen everywhere, effectively reducing any individual you want to a victim. The leading-edge has collapsed; it is now a few-billion-persons (or so) massive car crash, a huge traffic jam at the very edge of evolution itself, sabotaging virtually every move that evolution seeks to take. Evolution itself finds its own headlights shining beams of nihilism, which can actually see nothing, or narcissism, which can see only itself. Under this often malicious leadership (the mean-green-meme), the earlier levels and stages of development have themselves begun to hemorrhage, sliding into their own forms of pathological dysfunction. And this isn’t just happening in one or two countries, it is happening around the world.
 
Donald Trump, more than any other single factor, has (unknown to himself, or virtually anybody else, for that matter) ridden these anti-green forces to a massively surprising Presidential victory. As previous stages became, in various ways and to various degrees, activated by Trump, whether orange, amber, or red, they all shared one thing, the anti-green dynamic (a dynamic that because it was not recognized in any significant way, made Trump’s victory a stunning and unbelievable surprise to virtually everybody).
 
And—although Trump himself will do little to actually address the details of this—as each of these stages works to redress the imbalances inflicted on it by an extreme green and its aperspectival madness, the overall effects of these recent events can indeed turn out to be quite healthy, allowing evolution to generally self-correct, adopt a leading- edge that can actually lead, and thus allow evolution itself to continue its ongoing march of “transcend and include,” a self-organization through self-transcendence.

There’s a lot in there, I know.

In order to even begin to dissect all of this, we need to go back and review the color scheme outlined in his 2000 piece. In the interest of brevity, I’m going to merely focus in on orange and green. For the rest, see yesterday’s post.

Quote:     5. Orange: Scientific Achievement. At this wave, the self “escapes” from the “herd mentality” of blue, and seeks truth and meaning in individualistic terms—hypothetico-deductive, experimental, objective, mechanistic, operational— “scientific” in the typical sense. The world is a rational and well-oiled machine with natural laws that can be learned, mastered, and manipulated for one’s own purposes. Highly achievement oriented, especially (in America) toward materialistic gains. The laws of science rule politics, the economy, and human events. The world is a chess-board on which games are played as winners gain pre-eminence and perks over losers. Marketplace alliances; manipulate earth’s resources for one’s strategic gains. Basis of corporate states . 
 
      Where seen: The Enlightenment, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, Wall Street, emerging middle classes around the world, cosmetics industry, trophy hunting, colonialism, the Cold War, fashion industry, materialism, liberal self-interest. 30% of the population, 50% of the power. 
 
     6. Green: The Sensitive Self. Communitarian, human bonding, ecological sensitivity, networking. The human spirit must be freed from greed, dogma, and divisiveness; feelings and caring supersede cold rationality; cherishing of the earth, Gaia, life. Against hierarchy; establishes lateral bonding and linking. Permeable self, relational self, group intermeshing. Emphasis on dialogue, relationships. Basis of values communes (i.e., freely chosen affiliations based on shared sentiments). Reaches decisions through reconciliation and consensus (downside: interminable “processing” and incapacity to reach decisions). Refresh spirituality, bring harmony, enrich human potential. Strongly egalitarian, anti-hierarchy, pluralistic values, social construction of reality, diversity, multiculturalism, relativistic value systems; this worldview is often called pluralistic relativism . Subjective, non-linear thinking; shows a greater degree of affective warmth, sensitivity, and caring, for earth and all its inhabitants.
 
   Where seen: Deep ecology, postmodernism, Netherlands idealism, Rogerian counseling, Canadian health care, humanistic psychology, liberation theology, cooperative inquiry, World Council of Churches, Greenpeace, animal rights, ecofeminism, post-colonialism, Foucault/Derrida, politically correct, diversity movements, human rights issues, ecopsychology. 10% of the population, 15% of the power.

According to the development model, the “green” level emerged around the 1960’s and represented at the time the “leading-edge” of consciousness evolution, one step beyond of orange. It must be said that the emergence and rise to dominance of orange had represented an enormous advance in human progress; from the Enlightenment to revolutions to overthrow monarchy, to the ultimate end of slavey and an emphasis on individual rights and liberty. Orange had a tremendously positive impact on human progress.
I suspect that when many of you read his color descriptions you’ll have a similar reaction to mine when I first read them. You’ll ask yourself, how is green really superior to orange? There are two reasons why it’s hard to come to grips with this. In fact, it took me the better part of two days to think it all out for myself.
First, most of us have come to associate green, or much of what is described as liberal ideology today, as some sort of cultural mental disease irrationally obsessed with turning everyone into victims, denying truth, fighting against freedom of speech, etc. If that’s your impression, it’s not incorrect. “Green” has been going of the rails for multiple decades now, and its total failure to deliver results and inspire the national psyche was a direct cause of Trump’s election victory. This is the most significant insight Ken Wilber has regarding how the evolutionary consciousness process can be understood in terms of current American (and indeed world) politics. To conclude, many of us have a negative impression of green, because green has descended into total madness. Yet that doesn’t mean there aren’t positive attributes to green thinking.
Like most of you, when I first started reading through the color scheme descriptions, I naturally started applying them to my own life journey. When I quit Wall Street, this was clearly me discarding orange. Not discarding all of orange of course (that wouldn’t be very integral after all), but it became very clear to me that the orange mindset was no longer vibrationally consistent with how I felt and how I wanted to live my life going forward. So I moved on. I understood this part fully, but became confused because I never really identified with Ken’s description of green. After reading his latest piece; however, I understood why. Green had gone so completely off the rails it became almost impossible for a mentally healthy person to identify wth it. Then I thought some more, and realized there was a lot more green in me than I observed at first glance.
One of the most meaningful contributions of green before it got completely demented, was the perspective of humanity’s relationship to the environment and planet earth as a whole. The idea that technology had resulted in humans rapaciously exploiting the planet as opposed to living in harmony with it was a very meaningful and important realization. Equally meaningful, was an increased consciousness regarding how we treat animals. As Ralph Waldo Emerson noted long ago:

Quote:You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughter-house is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity.

A sharp focus on factory farming practices and animal treatment has been a very positive element of the wider emergence of a green consciousness. Recognizing that animals also deserve rights, even if we decide to eat them, is important. Even my move to Boulder, Colorado was an unintentional expression of greenness on my behalf. While my politics is considerably different from most of my neighbors (Boulder is a pretty green place but with plenty of higher tier thinking as well) ,it’s largely dominated by the healthy green, not the pathological green. So I really like it here.
That said, I don’t think I center around green at all, and I don’t think I ever did. I think green simply became too incredibly insane for me to ever feel comfortable with it. As such, I think I subconsciously picked some of the healthy aspects of green and incorporated them in an integral manner into who I am and moved on. I suspect many of you probably feel the same way.
Those were a few of the positive contributions I can articulate about healthy green, but understanding pathological green is far more important in order to understand where we are and how we got there, and I haven’t seen anyone describe it better than Ken Wilber. The following are excerpts from the excellent, Trump and a Post-Truth World — An Evolutionary Self-Correction:

Quote:On balance, the response to the recent election of Donald Trump as the next President of the United States has been extreme, visceral, and loudly vocal, on both sides. The supporters of Trump have often been nasty and mean in their triumphal attitude, voicing “I told you so!” and “ This finally serves you right!,” gloating over their unexpected but, they feel, totally righteous and justified win. The anti-Trump side has been, if possible, even more vocal, with people tearfully telling of how they threw up, screamed, spent endlessly sleepless nights, all but gave up on democracy and any sort of idealism at all (many of whom had promised to leave the country should Trump win), finding his election to be a victory of hatred, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all-round bad taste—and then, usually, vowing to continue “the fight” and urging their fellow Americans to fight with them, never give up.
 
Both sides, in my opinion, are caught in too narrow a view. There is a bigger picture operating here, and I’d like to outline what that might possibly be. I’ve never heard this particular view I’m about to describe be expressed by anybody, but I believe it represents a larger, more integral view, and as such can be quite illuminating—and liberating. The pain and suffering that both sides feel is, I believe, the result of identifying with a much too narrow view, and a more expansive stance offers genuine release —while still allowing one to work on whatever side one wishes…
 
As the decades unfolded, green increasingly began veering into extreme, maladroit, dysfunctional, even clearly unhealthy, forms. Its broad-minded pluralism slipped into a rampant and runaway relativism (collapsing into nihilism), and the notion that all truth is contextualized (or gains meaning from its cultural context) slid into the notion that there is no real universal truth at all, there are only shifting cultural interpretations (which eventually slid into a widespread narcissism).
 
For postmodernists, all knowledge is non-universal, contextual, constructivist, interpretive—found only in a given culture, at a given historical time, in a particular geopolitical location. Unfortunately, for the postmodernists, every one of its summary statements given in the previous paragraph was aggressively maintained to be true for all people, in all places, at all times—no exceptions. Their entire theory itself is a very Big Picture about why all Big Pictures are wrong, a very extensive metanarrative about why all metanarratives are oppressive. They most definitely and strongly believe that it is universally true that there is no universal truth. They believe all knowledge is context bound except for that knowledge, which is always and everywhere trans-contextually true. They believe all knowledge is interpretive, except for theirs, which is solidly given and accurately describes conditions everywhere. They believe their view itself is utterly superior in a world where they also believe absolutely nothing is superior. Oops.
 
Beginning over two decades ago, with the book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, I summarized this postmodern disaster with the term “aperspectival madness,” because the belief that there is no truth—that no perspective has universal validity (the “aperspectival” part)—when pushed to extremes, as postmodernism was about to do, resulted in massive self-contradictions and ultimate incoherency (the “madness” part). And when aperspectival madness infects the leading-edge of evolution, evolution’s capacity for self- direction and self-organization collapses.
 
And finally, when there are no binding guidelines for individual behavior, the individual has only his or her own self-promoting wants and desires to answer to—in short, narcissism. And that is why the most in uential postmodern elites ended up embracing, explicitly or implicitly, that tag-team from postmodern hell: nihilism and narcissism—in short, aperspectival madness. The culture of post-truth.
 
Seeped in aperspectival madness, it stalls, and then begins a series of regressive moves, shifting back to a time and configuration when it was essentially operating adequately as a true leading-edge. And this regression is one of the primary factors we see now operating worldwide. And the primary and central cause of all of this is a failure of the green leading-edge to be able to lead at all. Nihilism and narcissism brings evolution to a traffic-jam halt. This is a self-regulating and necessary move, as the evolutionary current itself steps back, reassess, and reconfigures, a move that often includes various degrees of temporary regression, or retracing its footsteps to find the point of beginning collapse and then reconfigure from there.
 
Meanwhile, the leading-edge green cultural elites—upper-level liberal government, virtually all university teachers (in the humanities), technology innovators, human services professions, most media, entertainment, and most highly liberal thought leaders—had continued to push into green pluralism/relativism—“what’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me”—all largely with intentions of pure gold, but shot through with an inherently self-contradictory stance with its profound limitations (if all truth is just truth for me and truth for you, then there is no “truth for us”—or collective, universal, cohering truths— and hence, in this atmosphere of aperspectival madness, the stage was set for massively fragmented culture, which the siloed boxes and echo chambers of social media were beginning to almost exclusively promote and enhance).
 
The problem very quickly became what Integral Metatheory calls a “legitimation crisis,” which it defines as a mismatch between Lower-Left (or cultural) beliefs and the Lower-Right systems (or actual background realities, such as the techno-economic base). The cultural belief was that everybody is created equal, that all people have a perfect and equal right to full personal empowerment, that nobody is intrinsically superior to others (beliefs that flourished with green). Yet the overwhelming reality was increasingly one of a stark and rapidly growing unequality—in terms of income and overall worth, property ownership, employment opportunity, healthcare access, life satisfaction issues. The culture was constantly telling us one thing, and the realities of society were consistently failing to deliver it—the culture was lying. This was a deep and serious legitimation crisis— a culture that is lying to its members simply cannot move forward for long. And if a culture has “no truth,” it has no idea when it’s lying—and thus it naturally lies as many times as it accidentally tells the truth, and hence faster than you can say “deconstruction,” it’s in the midst of a legitimation crisis.
 
In the meantime, the leading-edge of both green “no-truth” and techno- economic “no-job” had created a seething, quietly furious, and enormously large amount of what Nietzsche called “ressentiment”—which is French for “resentment.” Nietzsche meant it specifically for the type of nasty, angry, and mean-spirited attitude that tends to go with “egalitarian” beliefs (because in reality, there are almost always “greater” and “lesser” realities— not everything is or can be merely “equal,” and green resents this mightily, and often responds with a nasty and vindictive attitude, which Integral theorists call “the mean green meme”). But the notion of “ressentiment” applies in general to the resentment that began to increasingly stem from the severe legitimation crisis that began to soak the culture (which itself was, indeed, due primarily to a broken green). Everywhere you are told that you are fully equal and deserve immediate and complete empowerment, yet everywhere denied the means to actually achieve it. You suffocate, you react, and you get very, very mad.
 
In the meantime, the leading-edge of both green “no-truth” and techno- economic “no-job” had created a seething, quietly furious, and enormously large amount of what Nietzsche called “ressentiment”—which is French for “resentment.” Nietzsche meant it speci cally for the type of nasty, angry, and mean-spirited attitude that tends to go with “egalitarian” beliefs (because in reality, there are almost always “greater” and “lesser” realities— not everything is or can be merely “equal,” and green resents this mightily, and often responds with a nasty and vindictive attitude, which Integral theorists call “the mean green meme”). But the notion of “ressentiment” applies in general to the resentment that began to increasingly stem from the severe legitimation crisis that began to soak the culture (which itself was, indeed, due primarily to a broken green). Everywhere you are told that you are fully equal and deserve immediate and complete empowerment, yet everywhere denied the means to actually achieve it. You suffocate, you react, and you get very, very mad.
 
Leading-edge green, in the meantime, had taken to pursuing what looked like oppression anywhere it could find it, and with regard to virtually any minority. This goal is undoubtedly noble and very worthwhile, but it was taken—by a zealous and now dysfunctional green—to absurd extremes, in a way that its opponents derisively called “political correctness.” is has become such a hot-point button that the political divide has now become between those who see themselves as social justice advocates—pursuing oppression anywhere, looking for “triggers,” “micro-aggression,” and creating “safe spaces”—versus those who see themselves as against an out- of-control political correctness, and standing behind the First Amendment of free speech and against what they see as hyper-sensitive liberal do- gooders who are destroying the very capacity for the free pursuit of ideas and open knowledge.
 
But the extremes of political correctness really were extreme. There was a full- edged sit-in at UCLA because a professor had actually corrected the spelling and grammar on a graduate-level exam—and the students angrily claimed it created an “atmosphere of fear.” Well, certainly when there is no truth, then forcing your version of spelling on somebody is an oppressive power-drive. In one feminist meeting, after the first speaker was given a round of applause, one woman reported that the applause gave her anxiety, and so the group voted to stop applauding for the rest of the conference. These are simply cases of a person’s hypersensitivity being taken to extremes, and instead of seeing the person as themselves perhaps suffering from an emotional problem, they are labeled “victim” and then it’s everybody else’s job to cater to their narcissistic whims.

The above should set the stage for tomorrow’s post, which will once again use Wilber’s work to show how the collapse of green led to an inevitably strong reaction on the part of evolutionary human development with the election of Trump. A dangerous regression, but a necessary consequence of green’s failure to lead properly.

I think I'm a 5 with some 7.

[Marypoza]

(02-11-2017, 02:49 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Astrology Found on Zerohedge:  

Zerohedge Wrote:Chris Dakota GUS100CORRINA Feb 11, 2017 1:19 AM
1 in 4 of US college students have a diagnosable mental illness.
40% do not seek help
80% feel overwhelmed by their responsibilities
50% have been so anxious that they struggled in school.
All of this comes out of the 60s.
Divorce, feminism, sexual revolution, mixed race children that belong to no tribe, daycare, done runned off parents, drugs alcohol, anything goes.
This is why you have these angry and combative SJW's, cultural breakdown, fractured tribe, the American experiment of multiculturalism.
I feel sorry for these kids, they are so, so lost.
All of this is shown in astrology, the sixties the seeding time for upending culture, now the backlash to it when Uranus squared Pluto from 2011 to now the last time before they separate for another 45 yrs in this current cycle
We were all victims of it, even the President.
This is the key to fixing America, traditional values and banishing the left and their destructive influence on American culture.
The President has progressed Sun in Virgo conjunct Regulus (King) it is about labor, sacrifice, humility, self examination, purification through fire.
The chart of a leader reflects the fate of a nation, in the times of Monarchy they chose the successor to the throne by his chart. But it works even if we no longer do that, its the fate of a nation.
As a nation it is healthy to admit we made mistakes, face it and fix it. (Virgo)
Virgo is health, healing and cleansing. One chart  is that of Coco Chanel she had Virgo on the midheaven, and that is cleansing. Sometimes it can be ethnic cleansing, which comes out of a diseased society.  And that time was the closing square of Pluto/Uranus in the 1930s.
The original Uranus/Pluto conjunction was exact in 1967.
I'm sure you recognize this, I'm just telling you why it is happening and why now.
The great American eclipse this summer is in the final degree of Leo, it is the closing act of pride, arrogance and the old royalty.
They dia which is why the establishment lost, it's a shift, the US Sun has progressed into Pisces the polarity being Virgo.
America retreats into itself, looks at itself, finds God and cleanses all that is unholy. It's just sooooo obvious to any thinking person who reads the sky.
But oddly I seem to be the only one who see's it.....lol
It's an amazing tapestry that is woven, the synchronicity is there at every turn you just have to open your eyes and see it. Being an astrologer is so damn interesting, you read the headlines and there are the aspects of the time. Even though you know it is coming it is still amazing to you.
When I used to do charts for people they always asked me who is the soulmate? I always said "the soulmate is the one who shows up for you"
Because life really is that simple, and that perfect.
We are going to be okay, we are going to do an autopsy on ourselves and be really, really honest about our health, cleanse ourselves of disease and promote our strengths.
If you bet, don't bet against America now.

So there's other astrologers to be found.

In reply to:

Zerohedge Wrote:

Quote:I’m not like them
But I can pretend
The sun is gone
But I have a light
The day is done
But I’m having fun
I think I’m dumb
Or maybe just happy
 
– Kurt Cobain, Dumb

My typical writing style consists of taking a particular topic or train of thought and bringing it to some sort of conclusion within a single relatively short post. Today’s topic is simply too expansive for that model, so it’ll be published in at least two parts.
This post needs to be read in the context of my last two posts. If you haven’t read those, you’ll probably have a difficult time fully grasping everything I discuss below. Here are those pieces in case you missed them the first time.
Lost in the Political Wilderness 
What is Spiral Dynamics and Why Have I Become So Interested in It?
Once again, today’s article will focus on the writings of Ken Wilber. I’ve been completely blown away by the fact that his insight into a evolutionary model of human consciousness called Spiral Dynamics, almost perfectly expresses how I feel about things despite never having come into contact with the model previously. As most of you know, I view Trump as a symptom of a diseased societal, political and economic paradigm, as opposed to the disease itself. Trump was a reaction, and the way the Democrats handled the primary was the final nail in the coffin in sealing his victory. People became so fed up with the insanity of the fake left, many of those who didn’t even like Trump decided to roll the dice with him anyway.
Ken Wilber’s recent free e-book, Trump and a Post-Truth World, takes it much further in a thoroughly enlightening manner through the prism of evolutionary consciousness. In fact, he makes it clear that the election of someone like Trump was a long time coming and, in fact, the culmination of a decades-long process of “liberal” ideology gone completely off the deep-end. Before I go any further, let me provide a quote from the book which will give you a little taste of where he’s coming from.

Quote:But one of our central points, with either major way forward, is essentially the same, which I’ll briefly summarize: the green postmodern leading-edge of evolution itself has, for several decades, degenerated into its extreme, pathological, and dysfunctional forms. As such, it is literally incapable of effectively acting as a real leading-edge. Its fundamental belief—“there is no truth”—and its basic essential attitude—“aperspectival madness”— cannot in any fashion actually lead, actually choose a course of action that is positive, healthy, effective, and truly evolutionary. With all growth hierarchies denied and deconstructed, evolution has no real way to grow, has no way forward at all, and thus nothing but dominator hierarchies are seen everywhere, effectively reducing any individual you want to a victim. The leading-edge has collapsed; it is now a few-billion-persons (or so) massive car crash, a huge traffic jam at the very edge of evolution itself, sabotaging virtually every move that evolution seeks to take. Evolution itself finds its own headlights shining beams of nihilism, which can actually see nothing, or narcissism, which can see only itself. Under this often malicious leadership (the mean-green-meme), the earlier levels and stages of development have themselves begun to hemorrhage, sliding into their own forms of pathological dysfunction. And this isn’t just happening in one or two countries, it is happening around the world.
 
Donald Trump, more than any other single factor, has (unknown to himself, or virtually anybody else, for that matter) ridden these anti-green forces to a massively surprising Presidential victory. As previous stages became, in various ways and to various degrees, activated by Trump, whether orange, amber, or red, they all shared one thing, the anti-green dynamic (a dynamic that because it was not recognized in any significant way, made Trump’s victory a stunning and unbelievable surprise to virtually everybody).
 
And—although Trump himself will do little to actually address the details of this—as each of these stages works to redress the imbalances inflicted on it by an extreme green and its aperspectival madness, the overall effects of these recent events can indeed turn out to be quite healthy, allowing evolution to generally self-correct, adopt a leading- edge that can actually lead, and thus allow evolution itself to continue its ongoing march of “transcend and include,” a self-organization through self-transcendence.

There’s a lot in there, I know.

In order to even begin to dissect all of this, we need to go back and review the color scheme outlined in his 2000 piece. In the interest of brevity, I’m going to merely focus in on orange and green. For the rest, see yesterday’s post.

Quote:     5. Orange: Scientific Achievement. At this wave, the self “escapes” from the “herd mentality” of blue, and seeks truth and meaning in individualistic terms—hypothetico-deductive, experimental, objective, mechanistic, operational— “scientific” in the typical sense. The world is a rational and well-oiled machine with natural laws that can be learned, mastered, and manipulated for one’s own purposes. Highly achievement oriented, especially (in America) toward materialistic gains. The laws of science rule politics, the economy, and human events. The world is a chess-board on which games are played as winners gain pre-eminence and perks over losers. Marketplace alliances; manipulate earth’s resources for one’s strategic gains. Basis of corporate states . 
 
      Where seen: The Enlightenment, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, Wall Street, emerging middle classes around the world, cosmetics industry, trophy hunting, colonialism, the Cold War, fashion industry, materialism, liberal self-interest. 30% of the population, 50% of the power. 
 
     6. Green: The Sensitive Self. Communitarian, human bonding, ecological sensitivity, networking. The human spirit must be freed from greed, dogma, and divisiveness; feelings and caring supersede cold rationality; cherishing of the earth, Gaia, life. Against hierarchy; establishes lateral bonding and linking. Permeable self, relational self, group intermeshing. Emphasis on dialogue, relationships. Basis of values communes (i.e., freely chosen affiliations based on shared sentiments). Reaches decisions through reconciliation and consensus (downside: interminable “processing” and incapacity to reach decisions). Refresh spirituality, bring harmony, enrich human potential. Strongly egalitarian, anti-hierarchy, pluralistic values, social construction of reality, diversity, multiculturalism, relativistic value systems; this worldview is often called pluralistic relativism . Subjective, non-linear thinking; shows a greater degree of affective warmth, sensitivity, and caring, for earth and all its inhabitants.
 
   Where seen: Deep ecology, postmodernism, Netherlands idealism, Rogerian counseling, Canadian health care, humanistic psychology, liberation theology, cooperative inquiry, World Council of Churches, Greenpeace, animal rights, ecofeminism, post-colonialism, Foucault/Derrida, politically correct, diversity movements, human rights issues, ecopsychology. 10% of the population, 15% of the power.

According to the development model, the “green” level emerged around the 1960’s and represented at the time the “leading-edge” of consciousness evolution, one step beyond of orange. It must be said that the emergence and rise to dominance of orange had represented an enormous advance in human progress; from the Enlightenment to revolutions to overthrow monarchy, to the ultimate end of slavey and an emphasis on individual rights and liberty. Orange had a tremendously positive impact on human progress.
I suspect that when many of you read his color descriptions you’ll have a similar reaction to mine when I first read them. You’ll ask yourself, how is green really superior to orange? There are two reasons why it’s hard to come to grips with this. In fact, it took me the better part of two days to think it all out for myself.
First, most of us have come to associate green, or much of what is described as liberal ideology today, as some sort of cultural mental disease irrationally obsessed with turning everyone into victims, denying truth, fighting against freedom of speech, etc. If that’s your impression, it’s not incorrect. “Green” has been going of the rails for multiple decades now, and its total failure to deliver results and inspire the national psyche was a direct cause of Trump’s election victory. This is the most significant insight Ken Wilber has regarding how the evolutionary consciousness process can be understood in terms of current American (and indeed world) politics. To conclude, many of us have a negative impression of green, because green has descended into total madness. Yet that doesn’t mean there aren’t positive attributes to green thinking.
Like most of you, when I first started reading through the color scheme descriptions, I naturally started applying them to my own life journey. When I quit Wall Street, this was clearly me discarding orange. Not discarding all of orange of course (that wouldn’t be very integral after all), but it became very clear to me that the orange mindset was no longer vibrationally consistent with how I felt and how I wanted to live my life going forward. So I moved on. I understood this part fully, but became confused because I never really identified with Ken’s description of green. After reading his latest piece; however, I understood why. Green had gone so completely off the rails it became almost impossible for a mentally healthy person to identify wth it. Then I thought some more, and realized there was a lot more green in me than I observed at first glance.
One of the most meaningful contributions of green before it got completely demented, was the perspective of humanity’s relationship to the environment and planet earth as a whole. The idea that technology had resulted in humans rapaciously exploiting the planet as opposed to living in harmony with it was a very meaningful and important realization. Equally meaningful, was an increased consciousness regarding how we treat animals. As Ralph Waldo Emerson noted long ago:

Quote:You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughter-house is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity.

A sharp focus on factory farming practices and animal treatment has been a very positive element of the wider emergence of a green consciousness. Recognizing that animals also deserve rights, even if we decide to eat them, is important. Even my move to Boulder, Colorado was an unintentional expression of greenness on my behalf. While my politics is considerably different from most of my neighbors (Boulder is a pretty green place but with plenty of higher tier thinking as well) ,it’s largely dominated by the healthy green, not the pathological green. So I really like it here.
That said, I don’t think I center around green at all, and I don’t think I ever did. I think green simply became too incredibly insane for me to ever feel comfortable with it. As such, I think I subconsciously picked some of the healthy aspects of green and incorporated them in an integral manner into who I am and moved on. I suspect many of you probably feel the same way.
Those were a few of the positive contributions I can articulate about healthy green, but understanding pathological green is far more important in order to understand where we are and how we got there, and I haven’t seen anyone describe it better than Ken Wilber. The following are excerpts from the excellent, Trump and a Post-Truth World — An Evolutionary Self-Correction:

Quote:On balance, the response to the recent election of Donald Trump as the next President of the United States has been extreme, visceral, and loudly vocal, on both sides. The supporters of Trump have often been nasty and mean in their triumphal attitude, voicing “I told you so!” and “ This finally serves you right!,” gloating over their unexpected but, they feel, totally righteous and justified win. The anti-Trump side has been, if possible, even more vocal, with people tearfully telling of how they threw up, screamed, spent endlessly sleepless nights, all but gave up on democracy and any sort of idealism at all (many of whom had promised to leave the country should Trump win), finding his election to be a victory of hatred, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all-round bad taste—and then, usually, vowing to continue “the fight” and urging their fellow Americans to fight with them, never give up.
 
Both sides, in my opinion, are caught in too narrow a view. There is a bigger picture operating here, and I’d like to outline what that might possibly be. I’ve never heard this particular view I’m about to describe be expressed by anybody, but I believe it represents a larger, more integral view, and as such can be quite illuminating—and liberating. The pain and suffering that both sides feel is, I believe, the result of identifying with a much too narrow view, and a more expansive stance offers genuine release —while still allowing one to work on whatever side one wishes…
 
As the decades unfolded, green increasingly began veering into extreme, maladroit, dysfunctional, even clearly unhealthy, forms. Its broad-minded pluralism slipped into a rampant and runaway relativism (collapsing into nihilism), and the notion that all truth is contextualized (or gains meaning from its cultural context) slid into the notion that there is no real universal truth at all, there are only shifting cultural interpretations (which eventually slid into a widespread narcissism).
 
For postmodernists, all knowledge is non-universal, contextual, constructivist, interpretive—found only in a given culture, at a given historical time, in a particular geopolitical location. Unfortunately, for the postmodernists, every one of its summary statements given in the previous paragraph was aggressively maintained to be true for all people, in all places, at all times—no exceptions. Their entire theory itself is a very Big Picture about why all Big Pictures are wrong, a very extensive metanarrative about why all metanarratives are oppressive. They most definitely and strongly believe that it is universally true that there is no universal truth. They believe all knowledge is context bound except for that knowledge, which is always and everywhere trans-contextually true. They believe all knowledge is interpretive, except for theirs, which is solidly given and accurately describes conditions everywhere. They believe their view itself is utterly superior in a world where they also believe absolutely nothing is superior. Oops.
 
Beginning over two decades ago, with the book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, I summarized this postmodern disaster with the term “aperspectival madness,” because the belief that there is no truth—that no perspective has universal validity (the “aperspectival” part)—when pushed to extremes, as postmodernism was about to do, resulted in massive self-contradictions and ultimate incoherency (the “madness” part). And when aperspectival madness infects the leading-edge of evolution, evolution’s capacity for self- direction and self-organization collapses.
 
And finally, when there are no binding guidelines for individual behavior, the individual has only his or her own self-promoting wants and desires to answer to—in short, narcissism. And that is why the most in uential postmodern elites ended up embracing, explicitly or implicitly, that tag-team from postmodern hell: nihilism and narcissism—in short, aperspectival madness. The culture of post-truth.
 
Seeped in aperspectival madness, it stalls, and then begins a series of regressive moves, shifting back to a time and configuration when it was essentially operating adequately as a true leading-edge. And this regression is one of the primary factors we see now operating worldwide. And the primary and central cause of all of this is a failure of the green leading-edge to be able to lead at all. Nihilism and narcissism brings evolution to a traffic-jam halt. This is a self-regulating and necessary move, as the evolutionary current itself steps back, reassess, and reconfigures, a move that often includes various degrees of temporary regression, or retracing its footsteps to find the point of beginning collapse and then reconfigure from there.
 
Meanwhile, the leading-edge green cultural elites—upper-level liberal government, virtually all university teachers (in the humanities), technology innovators, human services professions, most media, entertainment, and most highly liberal thought leaders—had continued to push into green pluralism/relativism—“what’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me”—all largely with intentions of pure gold, but shot through with an inherently self-contradictory stance with its profound limitations (if all truth is just truth for me and truth for you, then there is no “truth for us”—or collective, universal, cohering truths— and hence, in this atmosphere of aperspectival madness, the stage was set for massively fragmented culture, which the siloed boxes and echo chambers of social media were beginning to almost exclusively promote and enhance).
 
The problem very quickly became what Integral Metatheory calls a “legitimation crisis,” which it defines as a mismatch between Lower-Left (or cultural) beliefs and the Lower-Right systems (or actual background realities, such as the techno-economic base). The cultural belief was that everybody is created equal, that all people have a perfect and equal right to full personal empowerment, that nobody is intrinsically superior to others (beliefs that flourished with green). Yet the overwhelming reality was increasingly one of a stark and rapidly growing unequality—in terms of income and overall worth, property ownership, employment opportunity, healthcare access, life satisfaction issues. The culture was constantly telling us one thing, and the realities of society were consistently failing to deliver it—the culture was lying. This was a deep and serious legitimation crisis— a culture that is lying to its members simply cannot move forward for long. And if a culture has “no truth,” it has no idea when it’s lying—and thus it naturally lies as many times as it accidentally tells the truth, and hence faster than you can say “deconstruction,” it’s in the midst of a legitimation crisis.
 
In the meantime, the leading-edge of both green “no-truth” and techno- economic “no-job” had created a seething, quietly furious, and enormously large amount of what Nietzsche called “ressentiment”—which is French for “resentment.” Nietzsche meant it specifically for the type of nasty, angry, and mean-spirited attitude that tends to go with “egalitarian” beliefs (because in reality, there are almost always “greater” and “lesser” realities— not everything is or can be merely “equal,” and green resents this mightily, and often responds with a nasty and vindictive attitude, which Integral theorists call “the mean green meme”). But the notion of “ressentiment” applies in general to the resentment that began to increasingly stem from the severe legitimation crisis that began to soak the culture (which itself was, indeed, due primarily to a broken green). Everywhere you are told that you are fully equal and deserve immediate and complete empowerment, yet everywhere denied the means to actually achieve it. You suffocate, you react, and you get very, very mad.
 
In the meantime, the leading-edge of both green “no-truth” and techno- economic “no-job” had created a seething, quietly furious, and enormously large amount of what Nietzsche called “ressentiment”—which is French for “resentment.” Nietzsche meant it speci cally for the type of nasty, angry, and mean-spirited attitude that tends to go with “egalitarian” beliefs (because in reality, there are almost always “greater” and “lesser” realities— not everything is or can be merely “equal,” and green resents this mightily, and often responds with a nasty and vindictive attitude, which Integral theorists call “the mean green meme”). But the notion of “ressentiment” applies in general to the resentment that began to increasingly stem from the severe legitimation crisis that began to soak the culture (which itself was, indeed, due primarily to a broken green). Everywhere you are told that you are fully equal and deserve immediate and complete empowerment, yet everywhere denied the means to actually achieve it. You suffocate, you react, and you get very, very mad.
 
Leading-edge green, in the meantime, had taken to pursuing what looked like oppression anywhere it could find it, and with regard to virtually any minority. This goal is undoubtedly noble and very worthwhile, but it was taken—by a zealous and now dysfunctional green—to absurd extremes, in a way that its opponents derisively called “political correctness.” is has become such a hot-point button that the political divide has now become between those who see themselves as social justice advocates—pursuing oppression anywhere, looking for “triggers,” “micro-aggression,” and creating “safe spaces”—versus those who see themselves as against an out- of-control political correctness, and standing behind the First Amendment of free speech and against what they see as hyper-sensitive liberal do- gooders who are destroying the very capacity for the free pursuit of ideas and open knowledge.
 
But the extremes of political correctness really were extreme. There was a full- edged sit-in at UCLA because a professor had actually corrected the spelling and grammar on a graduate-level exam—and the students angrily claimed it created an “atmosphere of fear.” Well, certainly when there is no truth, then forcing your version of spelling on somebody is an oppressive power-drive. In one feminist meeting, after the first speaker was given a round of applause, one woman reported that the applause gave her anxiety, and so the group voted to stop applauding for the rest of the conference. These are simply cases of a person’s hypersensitivity being taken to extremes, and instead of seeing the person as themselves perhaps suffering from an emotional problem, they are labeled “victim” and then it’s everybody else’s job to cater to their narcissistic whims.

The above should set the stage for tomorrow’s post, which will once again use Wilber’s work to show how the collapse of green led to an inevitably strong reaction on the part of evolutionary human development with the election of Trump. A dangerous regression, but a necessary consequence of green’s failure to lead properly.

I think I'm a 5 with some 7.

-- jeez Rags, only you would post all that shit (yeah l slogged thru it all ) & then post a comment like that

[Eric the Green]

It looks like a typical reactionary interpretation of the same stuff I interpret in an idealistic, progressive way.

Spiral Dynamics as of course you know, I have given my own extensive interpretation.
http://philosopherswheel.com/planetarydynamics.html

[Eric the Green]

Who will win the presidency in 2020?

The New Moon before the election predicts the party in power will win the popular vote. It is much more likely that the Republicans win both the popular and electoral vote than the Democrats, so this indicator predicts the Republican candidate will win. Whether that will be Donald Trump is still not certain.

The added monkey wrench discovered in 2016 was that Uranus was within margin of squaring the Ascendant from below the horizon. By some reckonings (equal house system), that's near the cusp of the 4th house, and in the past when Uranus was in the fourth house during this new moon, the incumbent party lost 4 out of 5 times. It represents rebellion against the incumbent. Uranus square the Ascendant from below indicated the incumbent party would lose in 2016, even though otherwise it indicated it would win. This will happen again in 2020 for only the second time (Uranus sq the Ascendant from below, but not in the 4th by the usual house system method). So once again, a rebellion could topple the party in power. But this indicator does not have a large sample, so it's a risky prediction.

Another factor is that Jupiter will conjunct Saturn in late 2020, inaugurating a new 20-year era for the Establishment. 7 out of 11 times this has meant a change in the party in power, and from 1841 to 1961 also meant death in office for the person elected. So although 7 out of 11 is not a certain basis for prediction either, this pattern also casts doubt on whether the incumbent party will win.

Finally, and most important, is the horoscope scores of the candidates. Donald Trump has a 9-4 score. That is below average for a president, but still beats most candidates. Given that the new moon before election (although with caveats) predicts an incumbent party victory, I could not predict a Democrat would win unless his or her score is much better than Trump's. Right now, the only possible candidate who fits that bill is Terry McAuliffe, whose score is at-least 11-2. Seth Myers, who is not now in a position to run, has 20-3. Oprah Winfrey has 10-3, just a little bit better than Trump. Scores can change depending on birth time, if it becomes known. Oprah's birthtime is known.

Sherrod Brown is a maybe, with 19-8, and he has a Rust Belt electoral advantage. Another media personality, Michael Moore, has a shot, @16-6, although his Saturn at the Nadir pulls him down and discourages him from running. He would also be strong in the Rust Belt. Tom Vilsack, 15-6, would beat Trump's score, but he does not seem in a position to run. Cory Booker is often mentioned, but his score is only 6-7, although on my 2012 scoring method he was 10-3. But the older method was less consistent, less well-researched, and less empirical. Bernie Sanders @14-7 does not have a quite high-enough score, although on the older system he was 10-0. CA Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is 7-1, but 7 is a low positive score, and his Saturn Return in 2025 indicates he would lose in 2024 if he were elected in 2020. He had a much lower score on the old 2012 system.

If Trump is impeached or doesn't run again, Mike Pence might run instead. His score is only 8-7, so any Democrat with a positive score would have a decent chance to beat him. Andrew Cuomo @11-6 might be a good bet in that case. If Cuomo ran against Trump, though, he might win; but I could not predict this. Roy Cooper @10-4, Chris Murphy @9-3, and Chuck Schumer @15-8 are possibilities. Stephen Colbert @20-11 (b. May 1964) has a Saturn Return problem.

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

[Eric the Green]

There is some buzz around actor and athlete Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. I had never heard of him, but enough fans have that astro.com has a birth chart with birth time for him, with an A rating. But, his score is mediocre at best; 8-9. So I don't look for him to get very far.
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Johnson,_Dwayne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwayne_Johnson

wikipedia says he is a registered independent.

PPP polling company did a poll on him:

Looking Toward 2020:
It's very early, but Trump trails by wide margins in hypothetical match ups for reelection. He does particularly poorly against Joe Biden (54/40 deficit) and Bernie Sanders (52/39 deficit.) There's significant defection from people who voted for Trump in November in each of those match ups- 15% of Trump voters say they'd choose Sanders over him and 14% say they'd choose Biden over him.

Trump also trails Elizabeth Warren (49/39), Al Franken (46/38), and Cory Booker (46/39).

We also looked at Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson's prospects if he were to run for President as a Democrat. 36% of voters see Johnson favorably to 13% with a negative view of him, although 50% of voters have no opinion about him either way. Both Democrats (38/15) and Republicans (31/17) see him positively. Johnson would lead Trump 42/37 in a prospective contest, and wins over 15% of people who supported Trump last fall.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/...-play.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/earl...25f6b58dc9


Will Dwayne ‘the Rock’ Johnson actually run for president? ‘It’s a real possibility.’
By Marissa Payne May 10

President Johnson?
It started off as a joke, then it became more serious. Now Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson says running for president in 2020 is “a real possibility.”

The pro wrestler and Hollywood mogul made his latest quips to GQ magazine, which published a highly entertaining cover story on the star Wednesday.

Johnson said it was about a year ago, around the time The Post’s Alyssa Rosenberg published an essay explaining why Johnson could be a viable candidate, that the actor began thinking about running for office more seriously.

“There was a real sense of earnestness, which made me go home and think, ‘Let me really rethink my answer and make sure I am giving an answer that is truthful and also respectful,’ ” he told GQ’s Caity Weaver.

“I didn’t want to be flippant,” he added about what his platform might be, such as giving joke responses like “We’ll have three days off for a weekend!” or “No taxes!”

Weaver writes: “So, after all that consideration, Johnson doesn’t hesitate when I ask him whether he honestly might one day give up his life as the highest-paid movie star on earth — which is unquestionably easier, more fun, and more lucrative than being president of the United States — in order to run for office. ‘I think that it’s a real possibility,’ he says solemnly.”

Johnson’s newfound seriousness on the subject stands in contrast to his brand of humor with which he previously approached the subject. He once tweeted that if he ran for office and won that the White House better have a spot for his pickup truck.


Dwayne Johnson ✔ @TheRock
Cool piece on why I should run for President. Maybe one day. Surely the White House has a spot for my pick up truck..http://injo.com/2016/03/565994-rock-for-president/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=morning-newsletter …
5:16 AM - 25 Mar 2016


The People Are Loudly Clamoring for One Republican Actor to Save America This Election Cycle
He's certainly got the fan base...

Johnson also poked fun at his presence in the Oval Office on “SNL” in 2013 and again in 2015, when he played a hulking version of former president Barack Obama.

Johnson, however, suggested to Weaver that he’d be much more level-headed than “The Rock Obama,” emphasizing that being able to listen to those you disagree with and compromise as two features he’d bring to the job.

“When there’s a disagreement, and you have a large group of people that you’re in a disagreement with — for example, the media — I feel like it informs me that I could be better,” he said. “We all have issues, and we all gotta work our [crap] out.”

He added, “[Disagreement] informs us. The responsibility as president — I [would] take responsibility for everyone. Especially when you disagree with me. If there’s a large number of people disagreeing, there might be something I’m not seeing, so let me see it. Let me understand it.”

Johnson didn’t reveal any specific platforms he’d run on, nor did he say for which party he might seek the nomination. A registered independent, Johnson has been affiliated with the Republican and Democratic parties, having attended both national conventions in 2000 to encourage people to vote. As for whom he voted last year, however, Johnson kept that a secret, although, again, both parties sought his public endorsement, he told GQ.

“I feel like I’m in a position now where my word carries a lot of weight and influence, which of course is why they want the endorsement,” he said. “But I also have a tremendous amount of respect for the process and felt like if I did share my political views publicly, a few things would happen … I felt like it would either (a) make people unhappy with the thought of whatever my political view was. And, also, it might sway an opinion, which I didn’t want to do.”

Since President Trump was inaugurated in January, however, Johnson hasn’t remained totally silent. He made clear he had some philosophical differences with Trump’s policies on immigration when he distanced himself from Under Armour chief executive Kevin Plank in February after Plank declared Trump was an “asset” to the country for his “pro-business” and hard line immigration stances.

Johnson reiterated his difference of opinion with Trump when Weaver asked him about his views of the president’s latest executive order on immigration, which put a temporary ban on entry to the United States by people from six majority-Muslim countries.

“I completely disagree with it,” he told GQ. “I believe in our national security to the core, but I don’t believe in a ‘ban’ that bans immigrants. I believe in inclusion. Our country was built on that, and it continues to be made strong by that.”

Sounding very much like a politician already, Johnson added it’s important not to make a “snap judgment” when it comes to national-security decisions. It appears that’s how he might feel about running for office, too.

[Ragnarök_62]

https://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/1105...t-downturn

And so, the "stars are aligned for a sell off" ?   So's here's the thread to post the question, in what manner are the stars aligned to do that?

Bad moon rising for top market cap therin?

https://www.slickcharts.com/sp500

Perhaps a recession, soon?

Or technical indicator charts?  <-  These are like real astrology cause you look at imaginary lines somewhere and cast charts.