The thing about using astrology to predict Presidential elections…

I came to astrology as a skeptic some 22 years ago in 1990. I stayed a skeptic for another ten years—while studying and doing charts. I was looking for some kind of human trick that I never found. There are still a few forms of astrology that I’m skeptical about, but not because I doubt astrology itself as much as the practitioners and their practices.  No astrological field seems riper for my concerns than those astrologers who practice mundane astrology. Mundane is taken from the Latin word “mundus” for the world; so this astrology is concerned more with the worldly affairs of a particular place at or for a specific amount of time. The practitioners of this art would be more concerned with political elections, for example.

Like other forms astrology, there are a lot of ways to do mundane astrology. Many of these techniques would be foreign to the average person who might only know their sun sign, moon sign or rising sign. But the key thing to know is that astrologers focus their attention on procedures for checking and cross-checking possible outcomes, mostly relying on several kinds of astrological charts & techniques.  This is something that many astrologers do most times when they analyze a chart or make a prediction, whether it’s for an individual, an event or a group.

I’m ultimately arguing that this is perhaps the best way to practice astrology, an astrology that “checks” the astrologer using a cross-tabulation of “data” that might confirm or challenge his or her expectations.  However, you can’t completely get around the astrologer’s own bias or expectations. And that’s okay. These biases are much smaller for most other things like doing natal charts, because perhaps we may have less ideologically at stake. (Although it can sometimes be hard to look “objectively” at your own chart or the chart of someone close to you.)  I also recognize that there may be many other astrologers who can read mundane charts without their analyses reflecting their biases as much as mine might for this election.  But many don’t.  And that’s the thing about using astrology to predict Presidential elections.

Take for instance this analysis by a Dr. Standley, who I suppose is an astrologer as well as a doctor of chiropractic medicine. I don’t know Dr. Standley personally, and I couldn’t find anything on her site about her credentials as an astrologer.  However, she’s a sterling example of why I’m skeptical of mundane astrology.

I only heard of her when a few of my twitter followers asked my opinion on her mundane prediction for the coming election. To her ultimate credit, her prediction was correct.  She says, “I suspect the voters will want some more kisses and another round of Obama is what we will have.”However, what’s interesting is how she came to her prediction and why. Her bias is clear and she says as much: she thinks the Pisces (Romney) would be better for us.  I think that’s perfectly fine, but I notice how she makes her astrology fit her thinking. And that’s what I find the most annoying about many astrologers practicing mundane astrology.

There are several red flags flying throughout her whole post, so let’s parcel out only a few tattered ones. The first major flag for me was that she didn’t seem to know the birth times for 3 out of the 4 candidates. Not only are ALL the birth times known for ALL of the candidates at the time she wrote her post, a Google search would have rendered the answer, if she wanted to know. I’m sorry but that looks like plain old laziness.

Dr. Standley does a comparative analysis between both the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees for each party.  She also analyzes how their charts interact with what’s happening in the night sky during the last month before the election. What’s interesting is that she goes on at great length about how the dynamic between Obama, Biden, the 2008 transits and the current night sky all come together to signify what she believes is a “love illusion of hope and change” that will never come to fruition.  She never returns the favor for the Romney/Ryan ticket, even with something positively biased.

Astrologers will recognize that she whizzes by some pretty hard hitting compatibility between Romney and Ryan, like their Saturn-Moon square or their Neptune-Mars square.  However, NO commentary on what that means for America like the Venus-Neptune square for Obama/Biden.  Zilch! That’s too bad, because if she had found the birth times for Romney and Ryan, she might have seen that the pair also has contrasting rising signs too! (Romney is 0 Gemini and Ryan is 0 Sagittarius.)  SPOILER ALERT: They couldn’t be more different in how they approach life.

Instead she only focuses on Romney’s transits and placements. Interestingly enough, she keys in on the transiting Jupiter in Gemini and “North Node goodness” on Romney’s North Node, Jupiter and moon. Here’s where ancient principles of astrology provide a wisdom that actually bore out…and she seems to have missed this.

A transiting Jupiter in Gemini promises a lot, but delivers little. A transiting North node in Scorpio could be a short-lived boon for Romney’s Jupiter in Scorpio, but a fallen moon in Scorpio sours it all.  This suggests at least two possible outcomes: Romney’s own insecurities and fretfulness (signified by his moon in Scorpio) overtakes his fortune, causing misfortune. Or his moon in fallen dignity suggests that people just don’t favor him for reasons out of his control. I think both are true. If Romney hadn’t veered more to the political Right during the GOP primary season to win the nod, he wouldn’t have had to etch-a-sketch himself as a moderate a month before the election. I also think it’s true that he wasn’t liked as much as Obama, as was evident during most of the election cycle with his low favorables.  (Apparently, NJ Gov. Chris Christie thought similarly.  When asked why Romney didn’t win, he said, deadpan, “He didn’t get enough votes.”)

Regardless, it was wholly predictable from Romney’s chart, whether you used the actual birth time or not, that there would be some challenges to Romney’s good fortune.  Nonetheless, it’s another red flag that Dr. Standley never entertains those possibilities and only focuses on Obama/Biden’s aspects, rather than Romney’s own obvious issues. published a handy round-up list of astrologers who predicted this election.  They list other mundane astrologers whose other astrology work I genuinely respect and trust.  31 out of 45 of these astrologers got things right.  That’s nearly 70%!  Anyone in the astrological world knows that this is sort of a minor miracle. It’s very rare to get 7 out of 10 astrologers to agree on that much, including the 5 out of 5! astrologers who predicted an Obama win at the UAC 2012 Presidential Election panel.

I’d like to focus on what method seems to work best with their mundane efforts, though many of them use different techniques.  Notice I’ve made a distinction between method and technique. For instance, most scientists use “the scientific method,” but use different techniques, strategies, instruments, etc. to arrive at their results. I think the method I discuss holds up, even for most of the astrologers who made the wrong call as well. Any astrologer worth his or her salt is going to get a prediction wrong. But what’s important is why and how that happens.

I would say that all of the astrologers who predicted an Obama win used conventional techniques from whatever tradition they practiced, whether Hellenistic, Vedic, Uranian, modern Western, or medieval. A few may have used different times or charts for particular events, like Alan Oken’s Election Day chart for when voting ends in Hawaii or the Gemini-rising USA chart used by Gar Osten, but the techniques were standard. What’s more important is that most of the astrologers “cross tabulated” their data against multiple sources or charts to extract a meaning. I elaborate a little upon this method in “A Day to Testify,” where I explain that multiple means of corroboration allows an astrologer to test if something is true by multiple approaches. It’s comparable to how a lawyer might grill or interrogate a witness on a stand.  Ultimately, this method holds up the best.

Many of those who foresaw a Romney win also used a “cross tabular” method, with various techniques. Only 3 astrologers out of 14 used a method that could be described as unconventional, because there was nothing cross tabular, they used eccentric techniques or both. For the most part, these astrologers didn’t betray a bias in method or political stance, like Dr. Standley above, so we can count their inaccuracy as just getting it wrong, not doing it wrong. Perhaps they saw advantages where there were none, using much of the same data as the other astrologers. It happens. However, it’s William Stickevers’ technique and method, #10 on the round-up list for “Astrologers Who Predicted That Romney Will Win,” that stands out as the most wayward to me.

I know William personally and we got into a series of heated discussions about his method and forecasts on his Facebook page until he blocked me from it. My key points I made to him then are similar to the ones I’m making now.

His technique is to cast political contest horary charts, as he calls them. Horary astrology is one of the oldest forms of astrology. It’s used to cast a chart for when and where a particular question of concern is understood by an astrologer. William also uses event charts, like other astrologers listed in the round-up.  William has cast a chart for when Election Day begins in Dixville Notch, New Hampshire (opposite to what Alan Oken does for Hawaii, but not unconventional)  and then overlaps that with the foundation chart for the state of Virginia. No problem with any of that, although it’s largely based on his own technique and ideas that he  put Virginia as “ground zero.” (Below)  The problem is with political contest horary charts.

First, let’s take William off the hook a bit about that.  There are a number of astrologers who use horary charts to attempt to call all kinds of contests, from football games to elections.  I just think it’s a bad practice.

Horary is one of the more intimate branches of astrology because a question asked by someone is juiced by the personal energy and emotion of the person asking the question. That’s why astrologers discourage people from asking questions that really are none of their business or are “too large” to answer, like “Did Muhammad speak with the angel Gabriel?” or “Will the Knicks when the championship this year?” The last question, however, could be a suitable question if asked by a Knicks player rather than just a fan.  Again, the idea is to keep horary confined to answerable question that are fueled by emotional or personal relevance to the person asking the question (called the querent).  So if someone were going to ask a question of about the truthfulness of Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) message, then I would have to recognize that its importance isn’t exclusively relevant for me, despite the fact I’m a Muslim.  Considering it’s not, my question is not a suitable horary question.

If individuals can ask a question about a general event that affects millions of people and yet have no direct significant contribution to the event, we could expect millions of horary questions about the same event with no one having any foreseeable and exclusive claim to being right.  I think a horary about a political race BY a candidate in the race is very different from an astrologer soliciting the oracle of horary because he’s curious or even concerned about the fate of the WHOLE country. There’s just not enough to juice, to borrow a concept from astrologer/author Geoffrey Cornelius, based on a presentation he gave at UAC 2012.

However, conventionally traditional astrologers who use techniques similar to William’s wouldn’t have a problem with using a chart for when and where a contest begins (or perhaps ends.) But those are event charts, not horaries. Oddly, William has used both event charts and actual questions to inform his predictions, giving them both the unusual title of a horary forecasts.

Likewise, take William’s final general election horary forecast. Apparently he’s cast “horaries” based on the final publishing polling reports from Rasmussen Reports, based in Asbury Park, NJ. Again, remember, horaries relate to questions and customarily are done for the place where the astrologer has understood the question.  I’m pretty sure William wasn’t in Asbury Park for each report, so the charts based on these reports are actually event charts, not horaries. Unfortunately, for all of astrology, a chart can only be as correct as the data, and it should be as related to the event it attempts to “measure.” So William is really “measuring” the reports, as an event, and NOT the event he wants to measure, which, I think, is the election. It would be comparable to giving more primacy to the chart for when my birth announcement appeared in a particular newspaper over than my actual birth chart! This is where William’s problems become most glaring and compounded.

It’s commonly understood during the campaign and most definitely now post-election that Rasmussen’s polling reports were consistently biased for the Republicans. It would be one thing if William cross-tabulated data from multiple polling companies, like Nate Silver measured statistically along with multiple indicators suitable to his profession, but apparently William didn’t. (It would also be an awful lot of work to look at the “horaries”/event charts of all those reports, but it would definitely sway his work away from an obvious bias. It would be a far, far better method, despite its unconventionality.)

In the end, it looks like William’s work became the victim of a series of biases that were neither rooted in fact or conventional astrology practice. Virginia did not become “ground zero” and Romney won only one of the battleground states that William said he would win…and at a far narrower margin than William predicted.  Unfortunately, William was convinced of the accuracy of his unusual technique and he thought that my problem with his techniques was because his predictions didn’t support my pro-Obama findings or support the forecasts of the “powers that be.”

The truth was that I thought he was looking for an anti-Obama route to justify a Romney win and found one by tricking out his astrology as objective, accurate and unbiased.  The truth was literally in his strange pudding. After all, why Rasmussen reports versus Pew, Ipsos, Purple strategies, or PPP? The fact that he leaned on them as hard as he did was a clear indication that he wasn’t being a maverick at all. Unfortunately, William has realized much of his error too late, but still seems adamant about the correctness of his method. I think that’s the biggest loss.

During our FB post wars, William asked a very good question, “Why didn’t I make any election predictions of my own?”  My answer at the time was because I barely believed in mundane astrology, so I had no reason to seek an answer about the election using that form of astrology. I also said that I so rarely had seen it done well by modern astrologers that I didn’t have much faith in the art.

My thinking has changed a lot during this election. I still don’t feel compelled to seek astrology as a guide when statistical data, demographics, hearing the candidates from all sides and my own amateur, yet studied approach of American culture and politics give me so much more clear cut information. Like I said, I predicted an Obama re-election about a year ago using my own critical reasoning ability and common sense. (I think the GOP field was too weak to have a candidate who could challenge a mostly popular President, in short.) Look, Ma, no astrology!  I prefer to use astrology for regular people and situations where there’s not enough “real world” data to make decisions or be informed.

However I also have found a better class of mundane astrologers who show that mundane forecasting can be done well. I’ve also gotten clearer that what makes for a mundane astrology (or most other forms of astrology) done well isn’t simply a matter of nailing the right outcome. I think what matters most is using a method that minimizes your bias, giving the astrologer his or her best shot at accuracy.  A successful astrologer uses techniques, conventional or unconventional, to hear the testimony of multiple charts, planets, or various points with as little noise as possible. An astrologer’s main job is to make sure that he or she is hearing each “key witness” with as little internal or external disruption as possible.

An accurate outcome is sweet if you nail it with a technique that gives you the clearest sounding testimonies. But even if you get it all wrong, as some astrologers did and do, the key questions are “Were you listening?” or “Were you straining to hear what you wanted to hear?” I think most astrologers were listening well. Some others were listening well enough, but heard too much static that distracted them. Fortunately, there were only a few who could stand to get their hearing checked.

17 Responses to “The thing about using astrology to predict Presidential elections…”

  1. Theodore White Says:

    Sam, as an expert mundane astrologer I would like to question your ability to question Mundane Astrology and on your comments on William Stickevers.

    For one, the word is “mundus’ – meaning the world, and mundane astrology is the core of Astrology itself. I was a student of Charles Jayne, the mundane astrologer who forecasted World War II and the co-founder of the Vertex.

    Also, the professional astrologer William Stickevers was a lot closer to being right than being wrong about this most recent general election. His methods used were validated. If not for a few tweaks, the election would have been another story.

    I also question bias. You know, it works both ways. I consider you picking on William Stickevers is biased and that you should come correct, apologize to him and then refrain from attacking other astrologers for being right, or for being wrong for that matter.

    And, I will explain why this is so. Please bear with me. Thank you.

    I applied my own mundane methods to call for the re-election for President Obama. I also forecasted Obama to win back in 2008 when many astrologers (some of the same today who said that McCain would win) and who also predicted that Hilliary Clinton would be the nominee. I was attacked for forecasting Obama in the 2008 contest; yet I was correct. See how this works?

    I respect William Stickevers for doing what most astrologers will not do – and that is to forecast and to be ready to be in error, since that is what forecasting – not predicting – is about: putting yourself out there, on the line and being ready to be right or wrong.

    However, as any true forecaster knows, one can be right for all the wrong reasons and be wrong for all the right reasons. These are the fine subtle lines Samuel that you should be aware that exist in mundane forecasting.

    Let us also remember that electional astrology is also part of the Mundane method, as is the reading nativities.

    Again, nativities are part of the advanced branch of Judicial Astrology, which is the mundane branch. Let’s not forget that either.

    All the tools we use in astrology are applicable. I, for one, am not biased. This is perhaps because when I first see charts I always see the weather and climate first, then I look at whatever is there in the nativity, the secondary progressions, in the electional or the mundane.

    I called both presidential elections, for President Obama, in 2008 and in 2012 based on mundane methods. I also forecasted the full moon superstorm of Oct. 29, 2012 but few noticed until the storm arrived.

    Methodologies work as they are adeptly applied.

    Saying that, the truth is that are few skilled astrologers in the world. Even fewer astrologers are knowledgeable and experienced in Mundane Astrology when they had plenty of opportunity over past decades to learn, but most just went about staying with natal and psychological astrology – to their error.

    In light of all the global events since 2008, many are now playing catch-up, pretending to forecast, pretending to ‘predict,’ but you don’t learn mundane astrology in a couple of years and it is quite difficult to master it in that time. It takes decades for many and for most – never. Even fewer astrologers still can forecast the weather and climate.

    The great majority of astrologers out here now who are in congratulatory mode on this election were not there in 2008 and are NOT there every year on a GREAT number of issues and events that are of significant importance – such as the global economic crisis, to just name one. Many don’t practice mundane astrology but presume to be in a position to criticize it exactly because they themselves are not proficient in the expert mundane practice.

    That needs to change.

    I don’t like it when these elections roll around every four years and astrologers who use the absurd term ‘predictive astrology’ fall all over themselves trying to prove they can ‘predict’ something. Exactly what are they doing during the interim years when mundane astrologers like me are forecasting their asses off?

    Then, after the election is done, and the ‘who predicted right and wrong’ prediction game is over (while downing people like William for being wrong) these ‘astrologers’ proceed to retreat into their non-predictive cocoons feeling all ‘sage’ telling everyone they ‘predicted’ the election winner so that they can be seen as being ‘astrologers’ who can predict. That is total bullshit.

    If you notice, William Stickevers has been forecasting on the economy for some time – correctly forecasting a series of critical events that I have also forecasted myself. Why is it somehow okay to harp on him for the Obama-Romney election race, but not to say anything when he is correct?

    It is shameful for anyone to come down on an astrologer of this caliber for being wrong on a national election. William’s methods are sound, again, for but a few tweaks in this particular election, however, I shall show him where those tweaks are located so that he can do what I can do. That’s how much I respect William for putting himself on the line in forecasting.

    Never attack a true astrologer, even in political contests, since politics, as we all know, can be a heated topic even in families. Mundane astrologers know some of the secrets of God. That deserves your respect and I’ll be damned if I will allow attacks on skilled astrologers without rebuke and correction to follow.

    Forecasting – not ‘predicting’ – is serous business. It is my expertise and I am well-acquainted with being right and being wrong in forecasts. It is a science that only the masters practice as an art. Only those who are immature would dare to come down on another astrologer for being ‘wrong’ when most don’t forecast worth a nickel themselves – preferring to arm-chair quarterback AFTER THE FACT.

    We’ve got a serious problem in astrology with a majority of astrologers who do not forecast. They show up at conferences and pretend that they are astrologers who forecast and come off with bogus astrological methods to claim that they ‘predicted this’ and ‘predicted that.’ Nostradamus wrote a curse against them and Ptolemy himself called them ‘rascals practitioners.’

    We have a serious problem with them today and it pisses me off because conventional science uses those ‘astrologers’ to then tell the public that astrology is a pseudo-science.

    Samuel, I note this comment of yours –

    “My thinking has changed a lot during this election. I still don’t feel compelled to seek astrology as a guide when statistical data, demographics, hearing the candidates from all sides and my own amateur, yet studied approach of American culture and politics give me so much more clear cut information. Like I said, I predicted an Obama re-election about a year ago using my own critical reasoning ability and common sense. (I think the GOP field was too weak to have a candidate who could challenge a mostly popular President, in short.) Look, Ma, no astrology! I prefer to use astrology for regular people and situations where there’s not enough “real world” data to make decisions or be informed.”

    Samuel, Astrology are the cycles of Time in motion in Space. It is ALL THE TIME and all around you.

    For you to say, Look Ma, no astrology!” bemoans the fact that you believe that astrology is somehow intellectually and reasoned away as if Astrology is only in a book? Or when you decide to pay attention to it?

    No, it is not. It is all the time. Every square foot of everything in this solar system is covered in lines of powerful lines of electromagnetic and kinetic influence. Those are stellar, lunar, and planetary. There is no escaping it whatsoever.

    Astrology, like it or not, is with us all. No matter where we are or what we are doing. While some say that they don’t ‘believe’ in astrology, I always respond that that is their problem, since Astrology surely believes in you.

    Now – saying that, it is quite a easy matter to use ‘common sense’ and ‘critical reasoning ability’ when it comes to a two-horse political contest. It is quite another to forecast it and other events using astrological means.

    And common sense is not the sole resident of non-astrologers, or astrologers for that matter – but the Astrology always is a player, and a major one at that.

    Remember that mundane astrology is built on statistics as well. It has centuries of data based on direct observations of the inclinations and influences of the celestial bodies on the Earth and those who live on it.

    For you to assume (and you do assume) that mundane astrologers do not use demographics and statistics, as well as common sense, is silly to say the least.

    We mundane astrologers do not wear dark hoods and robes pontificating about the mysteries of the universe in some hermetically-sealed atmosphere. I am a black man, a professional astrologer, a journalist, mundane astrologer, an expert forecaster as well as a polymath.

    I am a modern man, and a mundane astrologer living – and forecasting – in the real world.

    I agree with your comment here, where you say, “However I also have found a better class of mundane astrologers who show that mundane forecasting can be done well. I’ve also gotten clearer that what makes for a mundane astrology (or most other forms of astrology) done well isn’t simply a matter of nailing the right outcome. I think what matters most is using a method that minimizes your bias, giving the astrologer his or her best shot at accuracy. A successful astrologer uses techniques, conventional or unconventional, to hear the testimony of multiple charts, planets, or various points with as little noise as possible. An astrologer’s main job is to make sure that he or she is hearing each ;key witness; with as little internal or external disruption as possible.”

    My answer to this Samuel is that this is done by simply reading all the relevant stellar and planetary configurations and synthesizing them. I do it all the time in my mundane, electional, natal and astrometeorological work. However, know that few astrologers in the world are able to conduct themselves well enough to being together all the data without bias – those who say that they were right in this election were just as biased.

    Saying that, those currently congratulating themselves for ‘predicting’ the most recent election should stay out here and not retreat back into their usual state of non-forecasting mode.

    Rather, congratulate and celebrate those who took the time and effort, as William Stickevers did, to put himself on the line to forecast.

    I would like to see those ‘astrologers’ who now bask in their singular glory at this time continue to ‘predict’ to see if they are able to discover why being ‘wrong’ can be just as important as being ‘right.’ For THAT is how we learn to forecast.

    Thanks for your attention to my long response.

    • return2thesource Says:

      Hi Theodore,

      I think this is the second time that we’ve had a lengthy exchange since we’ve connected on facebook in nearly two years. Thanks for writing. But there are a few problems with your comment about my post. First, I will not apologize to William or you for my post. I critiqued William’s work as I had been doing since last year before he blocked me. So there is no post-mortem, “I told you so,” gotcha! review or analysis with his work. I’ve said on my blog what I was saying, for the most, part on his page, minus the snark, banter, and woeful discussions that he and I had about race, my chart and the “powers that be.”

      Honestly, I’m at a loss as to why you’re on my page, and not William. I see clearly that he has my post on his fb page, and I read much of the defense that you have here on his page. Except you’ve elaborated at great detail.

      See, I don’t think William’s methods are valid at all. In fact, please name the astrologer who uses event charts as horaries as he does, past or present? I did some research on William’s methods and they are heterodox at different scales. Is it okay to do horaries for political contests? Yes, but most horary astrologers find it ill-advised, including John Frawley, who’s already a bit of a bad boy in the astrology world. Is it okay to use event charts? Yes. By the way, event charts are not electional–you have to elect dates as an astrologer to make something electional. However, an elected event can be an event chart…once the date’s elected. So I’m having a hard time why you keep defending William’s practice when he didn’t elect anything. He practiced a judicial astrology for an event. And that’s where he became the most woefully heterodox–constructing event charts based on his bias, not relatable, “objective” events like the actual election or any other “objective” event like candidacy announcement charts or…anything. So I didn’t attack William, in my post. I attacked his method and technique. I stand by that, because I can cite convention. For all your putative learning, you’ve yet to cite a source that does exactly what William does.

      So why William? Why my bias against him? Well, I was pretty upfront about that. I know him; I talked with him about his bias as he was building his case for the GOP nominee…and the dark horse for his party that never came…; and frankly, by his method and attempt at specificity, he got the most wrong. So I figured his work was a superb example of how not to do mundane astrology. And the proof is in the pudding: nearly everything he thought would be true wasn’t. This also included the surge that he thought would happen for Romney in the summer that didn’t. I didn’t include that because I stuck with what I could quote from his webpage, not what I remember from his FB page.

      As for your and his predictions about the economy, I’ve noted that over the last year or so, too. And I don’t know how either of you think you’re even close or on the money. You both have been predicting episodes of doom and gloom that have not surfaced in the US. That doesn’t mean they won’t, but I pay attention to timetables, per my skeptic roots. And so far, you’ve both been predicting an economic downturn for awhile. Ultimately, I think we’re heading toward an economic downturn, perhaps in the next month. But that’s not ONLY based on astrology. That’s an informed common sense. However, that doesn’t negate that William has been predicting an “Obamageddon” for two years. And it didn’t happen.

      Lastly, since I just mentioned common sense, I guess I should clarify my position on astrology. I think judicial astrology also wisely includes considerations before judgment and strictures for a reason: it’s not prudent to scan the stars for every moment or everything. Some of God’s secrets He wisely keeps to himself, and astrology isn’t always the way to gain access to them. That complements my rational approach to astrology as well. I could either use astrology to elect a time to go to the bathroom, or I could just trust my bladder, for example. I usually go with my bladder. But there are some things that happen in my life where I need better or different indicators. Then I reach for astrology. Or I do so for my clients. When it comes to some mundane predictions, I think it’s a vanity project for many astrologers, as you said. I don’t have that kind of vanity, whether it’s buttressed with method or not. This post called out the astrologers, two by name, who played the vanity game, but with piss-poor methods. One got it right and one got it wrong. I gave my reasoning and examples. You’ve given me your outrage and apologetics. Hit me up when you have logic, examples and clarity to buttress your claims.



  2. Theodore White Says:

    I have plenty of logic and examples, you can find all of them on my forecasting site, Global Astrology.

    I’m on your page Samuel because I read your blog, as I do others when I have the time. Often I don’t respond, but in this matter, especially when it came to mundane astrology, I felt that I must, so I did.

    I’d like to clear a few things up that you seem not to have taken to heart before you responded to me.

    First, you said, “Is it okay to use event charts? Yes. By the way, event charts are not electional – you have to elect dates as an astrologer to make something electional. However, an elected event can be an event chart…once the date’s elected.”

    That really is a play on words. Electional charts can be cast – and I’ve cast thousands of them on many events. What is known as “political astrology” falls within the codicils of Mundane Astrology and this is where Electional Charts, cast for events, such as political elections are made. So I don’t see your point.

    Second, I disagree that there was any ‘vanity game’ going on, or on your contention about ‘piss-poor’ methods. And, you are in error to claim that “it’s not prudent to scan the stars for every moment or everything.”

    That is wrong, for it is Man’s right to do so and we are given that right by the Immortal God, for we suffer by means of ignorance – not by the freedom of gnosis, that is knowledge. One does not place a candle under a bed.

    While your ‘bladder,’ as you say, may serve you, it has little to do with mundane astrology, or with forecasting, of which I am expert.

    I forecasted the economic crisis long before anyone was even considering it, or thought it possible in our times. All of my forecasts are recorded and took place long before the events. I did this by astrological means that is, mundane astrology.

    I would also caution you about your contention on the economy as well Samuel. The ‘crash’ has already happened. I called it. The economic crisis is much more than your common-sense ‘economic downturn.” It is far worse than that.

    We are entering a time akin to the 1930s in this decade and it was my forecast of this as far back as 1999. I stated this repeatedly in the 2000s and again, reasserting how close we were getting to it back in 2006.

    What you and everyone is experiencing is an illusion – the markets being held up by central banks, printing fiat money. This is truth. Now, I don’t know about this term “Obamageddon’ that used as that sounds like political posturing since it was not Obama who caused the economic crisis, but I do know who forecasted it and that was me.

    What you are thinking is that there must be some singular popularized event to hold your attention, like the 1929 Crash, well, even that event took place gradually. It is a mistaken view of history, which of course, mundane astrologers well know. In this cardinal crisis decade, in later years, you will come to see what I have said to be true. I did this by means of mundane astrology.

    As for William Stickevers, I debated William on his analysis of the recent general election, so I am better qualified than you to say what his work was, but you said, “So I figured his work was a superb example of how not to do mundane astrology…”

    That is not true. William’s work had many of the elements he needed to do the electional work. He was also closer to being right than wrong and I told him so and repeat that here to you because it is true.

    It would be wise of you to reach out to William and to mind calling out other astrologers publicly on what you consider to be ‘wrong’ predictions because there are many things you are not aware of about the future. I am also sure Samuel, as with all of us human beings, that you do not consider yourself to be ‘right’ all the time, no? I surely do not and I am in a better position to claim this, yet, I do not. I let my work speak for itself.

    That is why it would show class on your part to reach out to William. Do not allow ideology or bias, no matter what they are – to cause splits. It is unwise and has implications for the future. Be mindful and very thoughtful of this.

    Samuel, as I said, I am in a much better position than you to call William out since I forecasted Obama’s re-election and debated William on the pre-election analysis, but I do not say that because a person was wrong that mundane astrology is suspect. I know better.

    Moreover, I could teach both you and William how to forecast not only elections, but the weather, the climate, geopolitical events, religious and social events along with many other events – by means of Natural and Judicial Astrology – that is the RIGHT of man to know and to do.

    Mundane astrology is the most serious of the priori-based sciences. You would be wise to first study that which you do not know before opining at length on such matters and the practitioners thereof.

    Knowledge is the cure for ignorance, not the other way around.

    In this election, it was simply what William missed, but so did many astrologers who also chose Obama correctly. And those methodologies I read, or the lack thereof, of those who picked Obama were also in error.

    The point I am trying to make here to you Samuel is that there are many things that you are NOT seeing with Mundane Astrology in general and with William’s methods in particular that blinds you and it is far from ‘piss poor.’

    We do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    For instance, did you know what when all the configurations show something must happen and when it does not, that in mundane astrology that shows the Hand of God? This is one of the most important tenants of the deep esoterica of mundane astrology. Those things that must happen under configurations and that do not surely show divine intervention. I have seen it before.

    Lastly, you say, “When it comes to some mundane predictions, I think it’s a vanity project for many astrologers.”

    Well, you could not be more in error on this. There is nothing ‘vain’ about mundane astrology. It is the Mother of Astrology and those who practice it who I have read and also met, certainly are not vain. I know that I am not.

    What is vain, are those who try their hand at what they call ‘predictive astrology’ such as those playing Nostradamus in this general election who then pat themselves on the back as being ‘predictors’ when I know that they are not. I never see the great majority of these ‘astrologers’ forecasting in the years between elections and none of them are mundane astrologers.

    Mundane Astrology also seeks to avert disasters that are seen by the Signs given by the Divine. That is its purpose. So, I gently suggest to you Samuel that before you conjecture as you do on Mundane Astrology that you first seriously study it – in-depth – before making assertions that are simply not true, or to ask a mundane astrologer.

    “When we treat people merely as they are, they will remain as they are. When we treat them as if they were what they should be, they will become what they should be ” ― Thomas S. Monson, Pathways To Perfection.

    God Bless,
    Theodore White, mundane Astrolog.Sci

  3. return2thesource Says:

    First off, Theodore, I would never have you as a teacher. You assume much, read less and bloviate too much for me to ever want to be your student. When I say you “read less,” I’m specifically referring to you reading my reply comment to you AND what’s in my post. I never said I blamed any astrologer for being wrong. I blamed them for why they were wrong. We all get it wrong sometimes. The key is understanding why. You seem to think that William got more right than wrong, and that lets me know that you see things way differently than I do. And perhaps most people I know. I see no evidence of this.

    And the fact that you don’t know that Obamageddon came from William’s own mouth, repeatedly, makes me wonder how much you’ve been talking with him rather than being a benevolent patriarch/sychophant. As I said in my post and my reply to you, I dialogued w/ William about this election for close to 9 months before he blocked me from his page. So I don’t know how you’re debating him makes YOU more qualified than I am. That makes no sense to me.

    I also stand by my calling mundane astrology a vanity art for many. You even said as much. You just make a careful distinction between those who newly predict and yourself. That’s fine. But here’s the kicker: it’s decidedly vain for the most part because most of our culture pays to astrologers calling elections with a grain of salt or for entertainment. Likewise, there are a few astrologers who are called to service for prominent public and private people, but that’s a relatively small number. And, in my experience, many of the ones who do that are relatively unknown, especially by name. If you think your predictions matter on a global scale, you’re delusional. It might be nice if more people did listen to us, but with piss-poor methods like William’s for this election, I doubt.

    What’s fascinating is that you’ve made your replies a referendum on you and your astrology. Theodore, I don’t know you. I’ve not scanned your work. You weren’t listed in that round-up at In fact, this is the most we’ve interacted. But we’re not hitting it off too well. You come off condescending and defensive. Odd, because I didn’t attack you. I didn’t even attack William. I critiqued his work, and I critiqued his work with evidence and detail. I could have cited the opinions of other notables in the field from how William Lilly cast mundane charts, to John Frawley, to Lee Lehman, to more. But I didn’t. I wanted to keep my post accessible and relatively short. However, you assume way too much, even about yourself.

    Like I said, I don’t know your work. But both you and William seem to think that you were the only astrologers who forecast the 2008 recession or the one to come. I got news for you. A lot of astrologers did, including me. It’s not that hard to see, beyond the common sense indicators for those who’re paying attention. So, I can’t get with the predictive dick-sizing. My original post was not about predicting wrong. It was about using methods that make no sense. I asked you a question in my last reply that you didn’t address, so I’m going to ask it again: show me a classical or modern astrologer who uses event charts as horaries and bases the times for the events for an election based on published reports…of one organization? I’m willing to bet you won’t find anybody, and there’s a good reason for that–it doesn’t make sense.

    What’s more, I still don’t understand how you use the term electional. As I’ve learned electional, it means to elect a date to do an action. For instance, if I advise a couple to get married today at 5:23p based on setting the angles for them, etc. that’s an elected chart. If I meet the couple next week and they tell me that they got married w/o the advice of an astrologer at 5:23p today, then that’s an event chart. That’s when something happened as scheduled. Same with elections. No astrologer elected to hold a voting election at the start of Mercury Retrograde. That was was the event…as scheduled by the constitution. So it’s not a play on words. Event and electional charts represent two different things, by definition and intention.

    Anyway, I get your defending your friend. He was mine too. But I’m saying the same thing to him now as when we were friends. Friends don’t let friends predict with wack methods. Now if you want to clarify why it’s not wack, I’m not all ears. But I don’t need another essay on why you’re awesome.

  4. return2thesource Says:

    Oops, I meant to reply, ” Now if you want to clarify why it’s not wack, I’m ALL ears.” Thanks!

  5. return2thesource Says:

    Actually, Theodore, if anybody should go on an apology tour is William. He can start with Chris Brennan, whose work he insulted in March when Chris went on Fox News and predicted an Obama then. William did a rumor horary to determine whether Chris was lying/wrong or not. He reasoned that this was the case. Ummm… And then during my epic long exchanges with William, I guess William got so frustrated that he resorted to predicting that Saturn was going to teach me the errors of my ways with regards to astrology. That’s when I definitely got nasty. I was hurt that William would do that to me. I’ve never used his chart against him. (For awhile, I didn’t even know his actual chart.) Then he blocked me and we haven’t talked since.

    So it’s doubly galling that you would be on my page demanding an apology to a great mundane astrologer like William (and you, I guess) when you’ve taken no stock of what’s transpired in the past. I mean, did you even scroll down William’s FB page to inform yourself about my previous discussions with William before coming on my page requesting me to apologize and desist from my critiques? Yes, sir, you have some nerve. I definitely will check out your work. I have my suspicions of you, too.

  6. Theodore White Says:

    The ‘nerve,’ sir, is on you Samuel. I wrote clearly, responding in kind to your write up. You can easily ‘check out’ my work as a mundane astrologer as I forecast publicly and have for years.

    But, Samuel, for you to answer in such an immature and rude way to a master astrologer; while refusing to even accept the fact that you are not versed in mundane astrology to be in any position to say the things that you have while at the same time attacking personally by throwing out such immature comments as “I have my suspicions of you, too,” just goes to show how correct I am.

    So, be a man and a professional about it, not a boy. Invest and spend your energy and time actually learning about the topic of mundane astrology of which you speak, rather than to act out in this high school behavior. That is not professional in the least.

    Leave that behind. Be a man, not a child. And we can meet anytime Samuel to discuss your ‘suspicions’ of me since I am from Philly too and also know New York quite well. I have no problem with saying what I mean and meaning what I say. Respect is a two-way street.

    • gimelresh (@gimelresh) Says:

      Actually, it looks more like you’re upset that Samuel won’t bow down to you, some arrogant dude who has the temerity to claim he’s a “master astrologer”, when you come off more like a internet crazy person. Having read what you’d call forecasts and I see as stream-of-consciousness rants with little to no discernible astrological method or reasoning, I don’t think you should hold your breath before Samuel, I, or anyone else for that matter, gives you the time of day, much less the “respect” you feel you deserve for whatever it is you think you do.

  7. return2thesource Says:

    Theodore, the only person who’s convinced that you’re a master astrologer is you. There’s no evidence. There’s no testimony from another source. Plus I’m always gonna be suspicious of a dude who has to tell you that he’s a master anything on someone else’s webpage. So now that it’s clear that I won’t bow before a “master astrologer,” you can run off doing something…masterful…and go teach William how to be a master astrologer.

  8. Theodore White Says:

    Samuel, first off, quit being trite. This ‘dude’ is a well-known mundane astrologer, astrometeorologist as well as a professional diagnostic natal astrologer. I’ve earned it after 40 years in Astrology. Source that. You can find my own work on my forecasting site, Global Astrology.

    Anyone who has attained the level of mundane astrologer is a master astrologer. Get your facts straight.

    Second, no one has asked you to ‘bow down’ to anyone, certainly I have not. But you haven’t learned respect. That’s why you cannot respond to my comments on your own with resorting to insults. That is uncalled for.

    Third. one of the reasons why you don’t get respect is because you don’t give it.

    What I find that spurious about you is that for someone who claims to be an astrologer who takes considerable time to put down another astrologer.

    And now you’re doing the same with me and I forecasted Obama’s re-election – so you are proving my point.

    You need to read much more and study that which you do not know about mundane astrology. You certainly are not anywhere near there according to your own comments on the practice.

    Rather, you would prefer to be rude, stubborn and act like a child. That is NOT the mark of a professional astrologer and no, I would not teach you because clearly, at this juncture, you are not at the stage where you are willing to learn anything with such a “piss poor” attitude, using your words and condemnation of William.

    Two wrongs do not make a right Samuel. Get your math straight.

    When you are ready to act your age and not your shoe-size, then perhaps we can talk. Until that time, try learning more about the history of astrology in general and mundane astrology in particular before you attempt to put down that which you do not know.

    And quit with the child act Samuel. If you want to be among grown-ups, then behave as one.

  9. return2thesource Says:

    Theodore, I’ve never heard of you in over 20 years of doing astrology. You have no books out, you speak at no conferences or events (on record) and no astrologer I know or respect has heard of you except in a negative light. So why would I know you? I give respect where respect is due. You came on MY page telling that I should recognize William and you as master astrologers, without any notable reason why I should. You apparently have no sense how condescending that is. You also said I have no busy criticizing another mundane astrologer, when I’ve studied the very methods that William has studied.

    You’re right: you never said the word “bow,” but you said I should “congratulate and celebrate” astrologers like William. Listen, William, made a mistake and we all can make mistakes. But he stands by his mistake as a virtue and I critiqued why it isn’t. That’s it.

    Dude, I give respect where respect is due, and you haven’t earned it from me or anyone I know. So I don’t care what you think. Especially a person who quotes Prince without giving due attribution. You’re delusional. Seek help.

  10. Theodore White Says:

    At least you heard me and corrected your “mundo” to the PROPER term “mundus” in your piece as I pointed out. And if you never heard of me in your 20 years of astrology that’s your problem, not mine. I’m here nonetheless and have been working for a long time in astrology and forecasting. You will also see two books of mine out in 2013-2014.

    In the meantime, there’s no ‘delusion’ here except by means of your own immaturity, which isn’t professional in the least.

    So when we meet up I will expect you to come correct. You may feel it’s okay to put down mundane astrologers from your high horse, but I don’t stand for that shit Samuel. So we’ll meet up and see which side is up.

    You can always disagree while being respectful without dissing. But you haven’t forecast anything to come off as if you are in any position to diss others who do. You haven’t earned that right Samuel – and you know it too.

    Respect is earned and you ought to show it. Be a man, not a boy. Come correct before we meet up and we shall meet. Word.

    • return2thesource Says:

      Well, Theodore, when you’re right, you’re right. And that’s been my whole point. Do you really want to lecture me on professionalism or maturity? Then let’s recall the most immature and unprofessional thing that’s happened here, in my opinion. You came on my page to defend yourself and William demanding an apology to William and to recognize his greatness (and apparently yours) without referencing one practitioner or scholarly astrologer who does what he does. You haven’t even talked about your own thoughts on his method. Just your herefore unsubstantiated claim that it’s right. And anyone reading this thread will note that this is what I’ve continuously asked for. And you’ve come back with only chiding me, but nothing that I’ve asked as evidence that I should see William or you differently.

      Having gone to your website now and looking at your work, I have to say that you’re not the ranting mess you seem, but you’ve also shown no evidence that you’re any more a master astrologer than many other good astrologers I’ve met…or me. You nailed Sandy, and for that I’ll give you credit. But your other posts are pretty much of the ilk I describe in my post: your opinions masked by astrology. In this case, I find the work of Tim Bost, Bill Merdian and others far more detailed and predictive than yours. In fact, William shows his work WAAY better than you. I think you might do better learning some things from him, actually. And that’s my other point. I never said that William was a horrible astrologer. I know that’s not true. He got sloppy. I’ve seen his other work, like his work on Barbault cycles. And though I’ve found that those also didn’t hold up as well as he maintains on closer scrutiny, he showed astute research and I’m honored to have learned those from him.

      But your posts are pretty standard for a mundane astrologer, except for those posts like the rambling Hippie post that’s just your layman’s take on your obsession with baby boomers, your generation. That’s fine and fair. I sometimes do the same thing.

      Here’s what I see, Theodore, as you blather on about respect, my manhood, stepping correctly, etc. I see an autodidact who who works hard in a limited capacity in mundane astrology, but hasn’t achieved the intellectual or scholastic rigor to sift between his opinions, researched fact and practice and a neutral tone. I mean, Is ” mundane Astrolog.Sci” a degree designation? I googled it and you’re the only person who does it. That’s what someone does who wants proof of some kind of standard education when they don’t have one. It’s kind of pathetic, actually.

      Anyway, what I’ve done above is sifted between my opinions, researched fact and practice and delivered it in a mostly neutral tone, including the fact that I’ve had personal and acrimonious contact with a critiqued astrologer upfront. The proof of the research, though I cited no sources that I could have, is that you’ve yet to answer any of my specific questions as to who else in our 6000 years of mundane astrology does what William did with this election. Not once did I decry William’s qualifications as a mundane astrologer. Only a very specific method he used for this election. It was a laser strike. You’ve come back with cannons of loud report, but no heft. That’s poor ballistics.

      So you can come back to my page to comment one more time, with answers to my questions and even your protestations about my lack of respect. Otherwise, I’m gonna block you and never address any of your concerns again. My replies have been my respect, but now the exercise has grown tedious. Like I said, respect is given and shown when someone shows it. You think you did when you first wrote me, but you didn’t. It was fine that you questioned my authority, but to demand that I acquiesce and recognize yours without demonstrating why is beyond the pale of arrogant. It’s foolish. Thanks for mundus. I always accept correction when it is clear that I should. Everything else you’ve said is hearsay.

  11. Theodore White Says:

    Samuel, for one, I questioned your knowledge, experience, and yes, your ‘authority’ to write as you did on Mundane Astrology, that’s all.

    You make derogatory comments about mundane astrology, about others, and then claim to know all the other mundane astrologers (whom you do not while mentioning personal favorites is not a valid argument.

    Rather than to make a clear and cogent argument, you first attempted to invalidate William Stickevers, then, you tried that on me, then my designation as a master astrologer and all things connected to it as if you are knowledgeable – when it is quite clear that you are not.

    There is always more to learn and in this case that is especially true of you.

    Superstorm Sandy was not the only time I have forecasted. I’ve forecasted many events over the years, such as the Fukushima earthquake, El Nino, La Nina, the global economic crisis, geopolitical event, weather, climate, financial and many other events of both Natural and Judicial Astrology. I am a forecasting mundane astrologer. A professional. I forecast in the real world and prove myself every day.

    Moreover, using this general election, where there were only two major candidates running is not exactly proof of your common sense, or your gut. It is a 50/50 guess.

    That had nothing to do with the techniques of advanced astrology. You cannot even pretend to claim that your ‘bladder’ or your ‘common sense’ in any way, shape or form, can be matched against astrological forecasting using the vehicle of a two-horse race election as proof-positive of that. That is a joke and you surely must know this.

    Also, I do not ramble. I am quite clear. I am also a professional journalist and writer. If you are unable to concentrate for long periods of time when you read, then it is best that you forsake ever attaining the claim of an astrologer, because strong powers of concentration is a prerequisite in this business. Having a short attention span is not a path to future success.

    So, ‘blathering’ and being a so-called ‘autodidact,’ notwithstanding, whether you want to accept what I say or not does not – in any fashion – mean that what I say is ‘hear-say.” It just means that at this time you simply don’t want to hear it.

    However, you have been corrected nonetheless. Whether you like it is not the point. It it for you to get, not to like. Be a man about it and come correct and just learn the lesson rather than to come off arrogant, stubborn and immature about it. You cannot grow and learn without accepting that. If one cannot listen then one cannot learn.

    Your choosing to invalidate me as a mundane astrologer for example is proof positive that you don’t want to hear anything that doesn’t satisfy your personal sensibilities at present.

    That is not professional either. For you to question another mundane astrologer as a peer – which you certainly are not – does not mean that you can thereby grant yourself the right to do just that without backing up your talk with your walk – and you have not done that Samuel.

    No one is trying to diss you or to put you down Samuel. You did that to William and to mundane astrology and expected to just get away with it as if you were right, and I tell you that you are not.

    This is not academia and yet you talk as if you are still in college. Going on about citing sources as if this is some college paper that has to be written is not what this is about. So don’t go there.This is the real world Samuel, the professional world. It is not school and yet you have forced me to school you on Mundane Astrology.

    What is ‘beyond the pale of arrogant’ and ‘foolish’ is to make things up that are not true. To conjecture on astrology in general and on mundane astrology in particular, and then to use your own inexperience and lack of knowledge as ‘proof’ of something is amateuristic at best and third-rate at worst. Blocking others (or threatening to) who have experience and valid views on your comments is childish.

    If you are unable to stand on the strength of your rhetoric in a debate on its own then simply do not try. However, Samuel, getting personal, taking cheap shots, insulting and trying to invalidate means you never had an argument in the first place and lost the debate before you even started.That is what is ‘poor ballistics.’

    And you’re welcome on the correction of ‘Mundus.’ For you will find in that very word the entirety of this great divine priori-science and my professional designation – which I earned with blood, sweat and tears in 40 years.

    Theodore White, mundane Astrolog.Sci

    • return2thesource Says:

      Okay, defender of William. I gave you a shot to back up what you say. You’ve just mentioned the same thing you have mentioned each reply–I’m not a professional, I should show more respect, I’m a boy,I’m should step correct, etc. (If that all sounds like 80s rap, then you’ll clearly understand how I view you.)

      Dude, let me ask you a question, to which I probably will never hear a reply, but I have to ask: you’re a professional mundane astrologer? Who pays you for that (cuz a professional is someone who’s paid for their services)? I’m pretty sure nobody. But I want you to think about that.

      Regardless, I have real professional work to do. I’m normally not this rude or dismissive, but you warrant it. Like I’ve said, multiple times, I’ve been willing to learn, if in fact, you had something to teach. You never answered my questions. You’re on repeat, and I got other stuff to do. You’ve only defended yourself again and again. I’ll spare you the effort and just discontinue our convo. Take care.

  12. Theodore White Says:

    Samuel, as a professional astrologer I have clients worldwide, and to answer your question, yes, I get paid for my services as a forecaster.

    I do a very good job at what I do professionally because I’ve worked hard to achieve it. So while you say that you’re “pretty sure nobody” pays me and that you “want” me “to think about that…” you would be wrong Samuel.

    Assumptions don’t make you right and that’s been my whole point about what you’ve written. Astrologers do not assume – ever. Either you know or you do not know about that on which you speak. That’s what separates amateurs from professionals.

    Now, that is just one of the questions I have answered in my replies to you. Whether or not you want to hear my answers is your deal, not mine. However, I mean what I say and I say what I mean.

    When you learn not to sink into being dismissive and rude – because it is unwarranted – then perhaps you will learn more about Astrology in general and mundane astrology and forecasting in particular, but your attitude to date isn’t professional Samuel, no matter which way you want to try to slice that bread.

    And that’s not stepping correct.

    As for your “…if that all sounds like ’80s rap then you’ll clearly understand how I view you…” Well, for one, you don’t view me at all, so I don’t know what that means or where you are coming from since this isn’t the 1980s Samuel. It’s 2012.

    That’s the 21st century for your information and I suggest you get your head into it. For I’ve been here a long time and am way, way ahead of you.

  13. Enriqueta Says:

    Hello, everything is going perfectly here and ofcourse every one is sharing data, that’s in fact good, keep up writing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: