Astrology and News
Barack Obama - right man, right place, wrong time
I’ve already predicted that Barack Obama will not become US president in January 2009. And that’s a tough thing to do, with Europe in the throes of Obamamania, and most of the pundits seeming to regard his election in November as a formality. However, I’m going to say it again. BARACK OBAMA WILL NOT BE INAUGURATED PRESIDENT IN 2009. If I’m wrong I’ll do a post mortem of my astrological reasoning, but I won’t be giving up astrology. Economists and meteorologists regularly mess up their predictions, without either losing their jobs or undermining their professional integrity. They usually don’t even get laughed at! Why are astrologers any different?
In the unlikely event that Barack Obama does get elected, he’ll be a one-termer and his time in office will go down as a major disappointment - he might even be competing with George Bush Junior and Jimmy Carter for title of worst post-war US president. Not because he’s incompetent, or otherwise unsuited for the presidency, but because his timing was plain wrong.
To understand Barack Obama’s poor timing, one has to understand the Jupiter-Saturn cycle. I keep banging on about this cycle, because of its massive cultural, economic and politic influence.
It’s a cycle that lasts twenty years - in other words there are twenty years between successive conjunctions. In recent history, the conjunctions have been particularly easy to follow, because they have taken place at the beginning of alternating decades: 1901, 1921, 1940-1941, 1961, 1980-1981, 2000, 2020.
The Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions represent new beginnings - the clearing out of the old, the planting of seeds. So all the optimism that surrounded the inauguration of John F. Kennedy in 1961 was entirely appropriate. Likewise with Ronald Reagan, who was inaugurated a few weeks after the conjunction that took place on New Years Eve 1980. Not everyone liked him, but he had a powerful vision of the world, that was shared by Margaret Thatcher, who became British Prime Minster less than two years earlier, in 1979.
Roughly ten years after Jupiter and Saturn’s conjunction, they form an opposition, when they’re 180 degrees apart. It’s at this stage that the cycle goes into crisis, when there’s no longer any new material being produced, when one has to deal with the consequences of one’s actions. This 180 degree aspect often coincides with economic and political turmoil, with no immediate resolution.
The current Jupiter-Saturn cycle, which started in 2000, will go into crisis in a couple of years time, in 2010 and 2011, when the opposition hits home. And already, as we move towards this opposition, America and parts of Europe and Asia are starting to feel the cold winds of recession.
So, what’s this got to do with Barack Obama?
If Barack Obama becomes president in January 2009, he’d be running straight into the Jupiter-Saturn opposition. The full impact of the Bush presidency, which started soon after the 2000 conjunction, would be starting to manifest. Or put another way, it’s like boarding a train at the last station before it reaches its destination. You can’t change where it’s going, even if you’re the replacement train driver.
As president, Barack Obama would be dealing with the consequences not just of the Bush presidency, but also of the global events that had been unleashed by the 2000 Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. It’s a train that’s going fast, that can’t change direction. And it’s pointless having brand new ideas, or hoping for something better - it’s not a time for new beginnings.
It might be helpful to go back into history, to other presidents elected at this stage in the Jupiter-Saturn cycle. George Bush Senior, Ronald Reagan’s vice-president, was elected to the presidency in 1988 - just before the 1989-1990 Jupiter-Saturn opposition. To a great extent he represented a continuation of Ronald Reagan. And his presidency saw the culmination of Reagan’s fight again Communism, with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. From a negative point of view there was a recession, that Reagan’s economic policies almost certainly contributed to. Put another way, the presidency of George Bush Senior added very little to that of his predecessor, and it certainly wasn’t inspirational.
Move back to the previous Jupiter-Saturn cycle, and the president elected at the same stage of the cycle we’re in now was Richard Nixon. Like George Bush Senior, Nixon’s message wasn’t inspirational - instead he wanted to role back the tide of ’sixties liberalism, arguably to return to the comfort and security of the 1950s.
It’s true that Nixon brought to an end an eight year Democrat presidency, in the same way that Obama is hoping to end an eight year Republican presidency. However Nixon was a reactionary, who also had a hawkish and interventionist foreign policy. There was certainly no fuzzy sentimentality as the Nixon government connived to bring down the democratically-elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile, to replace it with the brutal dictatorship of General Pinochet.
Go back twenty years, to 1948, and Harry Truman won a second term. Nothing changed.
Back another Jupiter-Saturn cycle, to 1928, and we possibly get the biggest clue as to what might happen if Barack Obama gets elected in November. In 1928 Republican Herbert Hoover won the election. He was a talented politician, who did his best for his country. And like Obama, he was Leo. However his presidency ended in failure, largely because of the Great Depression, which started in the Autumn of 1929. Hoover had to deal with the consequences of everything that had been taking place since the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction of 1921 - he was the train driver getting on board at the last station. And nothing Hoover did alleviated the crisis, at least in the popular perception.
Herbert Hoover was defeated in the 1932 election by Franklin D. Roosevelt. 1932 was the big year - the crisis was at a peak, the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit a low, and in some respects things could only get better. And because the cycle was past it’s opposition phase, someone with good ideas could come in and sort the problem out. We had a similar picture in 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected president. It’s suggested that Bill Clinton squandered his opportunity, but at least he had the opportunity.
As a point of interest, the presidential elections of 1912, 1932, 1952 and 1992 were all won by non-incumbents who went on to hold office for at least two terms - Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Bill Clinton. The exception to this pattern was Richard Nixon, who won a second term in 1972.
The next big year is 2012. This is when an inspirational politician like Barack Obama can be elected to a two-term presidency and be remembered as a saviour of the country and perhaps the world. In this sense, the 2012 presidential election probably had Barack Obama’s name on it, and he could have been the next FDR, or perhaps, on the international scene, Woodrow Wilson. Instead the best he can hope for is being another Herbert Hoover.
Though a more likely parallel is William Bryan, who lost to William Taft in the 1908 election. Bryan was a great orator, but because of Jupiter and Saturn’s configuration his liberal policies didn’t strike a cord with the American people. And those of Bryan’s policies that were palatable were stolen by his successful rival.
Barack Obama should have recognised all this. At the current stage in the Jupiter-Saturn cycle US presidential candidates who portray themselves as progressive and inspirational are unlikely to prosper, and if by some miracle they do reach the White House they’ll find it very difficult, and probably impossible, to deliver on their promises. A great shame.
Radovan Karadzic and Aung San Suu Kyi - both born on June 19 1945
A couple of days ago Radovan Karadzic, the Serbian war crimes suspect, was arrested. It’s claimed that in the mid-1990s he was responsible for some of the worst war crimes in Europe since the end of the Second World War. For example, he has been connected with the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, in which around eight thousand people were killed.
Karadzic was born on June 19 1945, and he’s therefore a Gemini. One of the features of this sign is its flexibility, and clearly Karadzic was a man of many parts. Psychiatrist and poet, politician and military leader. And in his final incarnation, just before his arrest, he was an alternative healer, living in a Belgrade housing estate. Gemini doesn’t get overly attached to its various personas, and can move from one to the other with relative ease. It also has the gift of the gab, using its verbal skills to convince people of its genuineness.
As far as the war crimes are concerned, every sign of the Zodiac can be a perpetrator. However the nature of the sign might give hints about the underlying motive. Geminis are people who often live in their heads, and they’re good at suppressing their feelings. People can be regarded as less than objects, as being ideas that can be summed up with throwaway comments. Words such as ‘you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs’ can slip effortlessly from the Gemini’s silver tongue.
Geminis have a certain tendency to split the world in two - after all, it’s the sign of the Twins. Good and bad, them and us, friends and enemies. It therefore wouldn’t be surprising if Geminis got involved in the kind of ethnic-based war that broke out in the former Yugoslavia.
However we mustn’t regard all Geminis as being cold and heartless. Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese politician and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is a Gemini. In fact, she’s born on exactly the same day as Radovan Karadzic. June 19 1945. She has stood up to the military junta in Burma for years, and is currently under house arrest.
So what’s going on? A peace prize winner and a war crimes suspect born within hours of each other… surely the final evidence that astrology’s rubbish?
Well, not really. For both Radovan Karadzic and Aung San the issues of struggle, human rights and freedom are very important. And they’re both politicians, who are currently in prison or under house arrest, whose fathers suffered, for political reasons. Karadzic’s father had been a member of the Chetniks - a royalist, anti-communist militia - and he spent many years in prison for his former allegiance. Aung San’s father, a Burmese politician and freedom fighter, was assassinated when she was two years old.
Yet Radovan Karadzic and Aung San reacted to their situations in different ways, and this might have something to do with gender. In the male horoscope the Sun and Mars are particularly significant, while in the female horoscope it’s the Moon and Venus. Karadzic has Mars in Taurus, which could make him stubborn, bloody-minded and unforgiving. Aung San also has this placement, but it won’t be quite so personal.
Both Karadzic and Aung San have the Moon in Libra. People with this placement often have a strong belief in justice, though in Karadzic’s case it became rather warped - obsessed about justice for the Serbs, and not seeming to care about the consequences of his actions for other ethnic groups. However the Moon, because of its femininity, often sits uneasily in the male horoscope, and its influence can be forgotten or twisted. Aung San, by contrast, would be much more comfortable with her Moon, and it would be a fundamental part of her self-expression.
There are other reasons why Radovan Karadzic and Aung San are very different people, despite being born on the same day. The precise time of birth is going to be important, and there’s also going to be an interaction between the horoscope and the environment. But the profound differences between these two people are no reason to doubt the essential validity of astrology.
Countess Dracula was a Leo
Countess Dracula was a Hammer horror film, released in 1971, starring Ingrid Pitt in the title role. The plot was straightforward. An ageing countess, living in Hungary, who has discovered the secret of eternal youth, or so it seems. By bathing in the blood of slaughtered virgins her wrinkled skin returns to its twenty-something best, and she can enjoy a passionate love life with the man of her choice.
Far-fetched as the plot might sound, it’s actually based on a true story. Countess Elizabeth Bathory was a Hungarian noblewoman, and according to most sources she was born on August 7 1560. Her centre of operations was Cachtice Castle, in modern-day Slovakia.
Like the Hammer Countess, Elizabeth Bathory was responsible for killing dozens ( and some say hundreds) of young women, who presumably would have been Slovak peasants. At least, she was probably responsible. The Hungarian authorities did a thorough investigation, and as punishment she was walled up in one room of her castle, where she lingered for a few years until her death.
We don’t know for sure why she killed so many people - female serial killers are pretty rare. Though clearly Elizabeth Bathory was an extraordinary person, with many sides to her character. This is the theme of the film Bathory, which was released in the Czech Republic and Slovakia last week. She was a woman of great intelligence, with excellent leadership skills, who had a hand in repelling the Turkish invaders from her little corner of Central Europe.
From an astrological point of view, Elizabeth Bathory had her Leo in Sun. Like many Leos she had enormous self-belief, but in her case it might have reached crazy levels. She was the Countess, and she could do what she liked. And unlike most serial killers, her crimes were committed with the help of her servants.
We also shouldn’t forget that vanity’s a trait that’s often associated with the sign Leo. Elizabeth Bathory was known for her attractiveness, and as a child she showed incredible vanity. So it’s possible, as her looks started to fade, that she embarked on unconventional beauty treatments. But the trouble with such treatments is that once you start them it’s difficult to stop. Particularly if you’re a Leo and you’re insanely vain and you’re a psychopath.
When will the UK housing market recover?
Or rather, when will the UK housing market hit rock bottom? In my opinion, optimistically 2012, pessimistically 2015. We should therefore expect another four to seven years of falling prices, though of course there’ll be blips on the way.
One way of understanding house price movements is to look at the twenty-year Jupiter-Saturn cycle. The current cycle started in 2000, and reaches its half-way point in 2010 and 2011.
Right now, Jupiter and Saturn are about 135 degrees apart, and Jupiter is moving retrograde. It’s a time of great negativity, and the future seems incredibly bleak.
However this 135 degree aspect won’t be in force for very long, and Jupiter and Saturn will be moving towards a more favourable, 120 degree aspect, which becomes exact at the end of November 2008. In other words, I don’t think short-term sentiment is going to get a lot worse, and from early September onwards, when Jupiter moves forward, there might be a feeling of relief.
So it’s quite possible that at the end of 2008 the housing market stabilises. There might be a feeling that the immediate panic is over, that the credit-crunch isn’t the big deal that everyone was making it out to be.
We could then see a period of calm, where things appear to be getting back to normal - and we might see a short-term rally, as buyers pick up supposed bargains. However I believe it’s only a respite. In 2010 and 2011 Jupiter is opposition Saturn, at an angle of 180 degrees, and it’s at this stage that I think house prices will really start falling.
The market could bottom out in 2012, when Jupiter and Saturn are 45 degrees apart. But more likely, it’ll be 2015, when they’re 90-degrees apart - at this stage I expect confidence will slowly be returning to the market, and it’ll be easier to look at the future with a sense of balance.