Predicting Election Results with Astrology

April 1, 2016

Star Code Readings for Australian Election 2016:

ALP Bill Shorten >> Short answer >> ALP will win.

LNP Malcolm Turnbull >> Short answer >> LNP will lose.

Australia’s Chart Reading for #Election2016 #Ausvotes >> Short Answer >> Hung Parliament with negotiated ALP win.

The chances of accurately predicting an election by pollsters and journalists are pretty dismal. If I toss a coin, there’s a 50:50 chance of being right. That’s not bad compared to some political commentators’ predictions.

A few years ago I came across an interesting article that said nearly 80% of astrologers who attempted, accurately predicted the 2012 USA Election outcome at least 3 months and one 26 years before hand! In his 1976 book “The Astrological Chart of the United States, from 1776 to 2141” Gar Osten wrote that the year 2012 would see the “re-election of the incumbent president”.

Intrigued I looked further into it because an 80% correct result is not bad considering most mainstream media had written Obama off before the election. A prediction 26 years beforehand is mind blowing.

I looked into each of the astrologers’ forecasting methods and predictive techniques. I wanted to filter out all approaches that were foreign to my approach and/or would require a level of expertise I didn’t have. By the end of this looking I found one I could adapt to my approach.

It was the simplest.

Now, I’m aware that most of you reading this have a critical and sceptical view on astrology.

For this reason, I’ve wracked my brains over how to structure what I want to say about the coming election because I use astrology as a tool for understanding life. If I wasn’t using this tool to make sense of current political atmospherics and wrote an opinion piece instead, I’d have no worries. For some reason the mention of astrology gets peoples’ backs up and they immediately throw an Art that works with Time into the recycle bin.

Most people are happy to read opinions and commentary based on other biased opinions and commentary churned out in mainstream media. An opinion based on astronomical data ie number, generated by an active imaginative interpretation of this is “superstitious”. However, an opinion based from within a Press Gallery Reality Bubble is not. Is the Press Gallery commentary scientific? No, just an opinion embalmed in a mainstream media consensus reality.

The stars and planets I’m concerned with are archetypal forces (Carl Jung), mytho-poetic currents within humanity. Astrology for me is a means of exploring the edges of rational thought as it touches the unknown. The horoscope is like a semi permeable membrane, it can suspend the ordinary associative processes of the mind and allow a different kind of attention to manifest. This attention, striking off from the symbolic elements of the horoscope gives a different kind of mind environment. Psychologists call it imagination.

JUng collective unconscious

Diagram from:

This way of looking at astrology is not accepted by most astrologers because it banishes star forces, energies, vibrations etc of the external planets and stars. This way of looking at astrology is troublesome for many because it says there is NO intrinsic meaning to the planets. It also points the way to divination. Divinatory astrology puts it on par with other mantic arts – like Tarot and the I Ching. To many astrologers this is anathema because they like to consider it as a “science”.

Some have referred to this kind of astrology as Hermeneutic Astrology:

Hermeneutics is the study of meaning, of how we arrive at our interpretations of things. In the context of astrology the term implies a turning away from the common assumption that a fixed astrological meaning is simply “there”, in front of us, as some sort of fact of nature. The hermeneutic inquiry in astrology reveals the essential dependency of the meaning of symbols on the act of interpretation of that meaning. Seen in this way, horoscope interpretation involves something other than a supposed pre-existent meaning waiting to be decoded, and depends both on the context in which meaning is sought, as well as on the intentionality of the one making the interpretation.” (Cornelius, Geoffrey, C. 1994. “The Moment of Astrology: Origins in Divination”)

jung archetypes

I like to consider this way of looking at astrology as a poetic interpretation of astronomical data. Poetry from numbers and geometry – active imagination in action. The calculations and the process of symbolising are just a pretext to occupy the conscious mind. The complexity of nuance and context for symbolising engages the rational mind while the REAL work is done by the broader and more holistic unconscious. This unconscious insinuates “meaning” beyond the logical limits of rational “complexity”. So, my manner of working these “complexities” is to treat them as a long Zen Koan and the Sky Map – Horoscope as a Yantra.

One can explore consciousness and imagination deeper and look at the structures of mind and the material that appears as is done in various and diverse ways by Phenomenology. I just like to play on the edge of reason, that spot between sanity and insanity, where all the wild creatures are 😉

Sometimes, in flickering moments, astrologising can be vision. A “vision – feeling” into another world that is holographic in structure, energetic and alive. In these rare glimpses, a human and the universe are seen as the same organism. As above so below, Hermes Trismegistus says. A different relationship exists between things – or at least that is what appears when astrological Sun glasses are worn.

Here are two articles by Geoffrey Cornelius that point to a way I look at Astrology Practice “Astrology as Divination” and “Is Astrology Divination and Does it Matter?”

Below are posts in my blog which give further insight into my approach:

Guerilla Ontology

An Experiment With Astrology and the I Ching 


An Astrological Turning 

I’m reminded of a Zen saying, “Don’t look at the finger pointing to the Moon, look at the Moon.”

All this astrological stuff is just a pointing finger.

My finger points to >>

Bill Shorten

Bill Shortn Natal Chart SF

Malcolm Turnbull

Turnbull SF Natal

Tony Abbott

abbott natal


Aust Natal SF


As I write this ……

September 17, 2009

twitter-snake-handAs I write this and you consider the meaning of what I write I doubt that you will take the factual, scientific way to understand what I write.

The scientific “objective” way dictates that you look at only the empirically observable and measurable to ascertain meaning. This means, taking it “literally” (and this is the only scientific way to take it) that you will look at the scribbles or the type, analyze the chemical constituents of the ink, the angle of pressure of the scribble or the level of impact pressure of the fonts, consider the type of ball point pen, fountain pen, pencil or printer or screen. If you are considering a hand written piece, you will consider the forces that pushed the pen, the fingers attached to the hand. You may perhaps even analyse the skin and the temperature which surrounded the hand when the writing occurred.

In short, you would have looked at all the physically observable items and still would not get to the MEANING. I write, “The sky is blue.” You can verify the statement only after understanding its meaning by looking up at the sky. However, if you only analysed the ink, my fingers and room temperature, you would not get the MEANING.

Now, taking this one step or leap further, perhaps our life is a kind of writing, a kind of story written in flesh and blood and its MEANING is not measured with scientific rulers and scales but something else. Perhaps the lineaments of meaning are drawn between synchronous events, which may be called chance or even coincidence. When does chance, coincidence become synchronicity? It does so when we put in our own individual subjective feeling / understanding to it ie our MEANING.

Science has no place in this sacred space of MAKING MEANING.

Carl G Jung originally wrote the "philosophical" understanding of synchronicity.

Carl G Jung originally wrote the “philosophical” understanding of synchronicity.

Is Consciousness a function of the brain or vice versa?

February 16, 2009

Nautilus pompilius
Nautilus pompilius

Ask yourself this question: Is consciousness a function of the brain or is the brain a function of consciousness?


 If you answer that consciousness is dependent on the brain then when the body dies, consciousness disappears too. First scenario: there is no consciousness around so there is no information processing; second scenario: the body and brain rots but consciousness is still around and probably processing information that only angels, demons and gods process as well. The glare of the body life blinds consciousness when riding a living brain. Brain drops dead, consciousness remains, out of the darkness light is present – spirit would be out of our world but touching it and relating to it.

 I belong to the group that believes the brain is a function of consciousness. From this very simple belief flow many effects. Perhaps there is a matrix of consciousness which has a “geometrical – mathematical” edge of subtle manifestation. I think this is what Pythagoras was on about when he said that a stone was a piece of “frozen music” and that everything has a number basis. This matrix of consciousness has a field which includes and extends into our own “individual” consciousness. This is where consciousness is NOT a function of the brain.

 From this side of the cranial fence I believe that an ancient text such as the I Ching – the Book of Changes can assist us in our exploration of the moment, the situation of the now. The Pythagorian emphasis on Number is expressed in an amazing mantic art that is based solely on number.


The eight trigrams of the bagua (King Wen "Later Heaven" order). Two of these trigrams makes a hexagram.

The eight trigrams of the bagua (King Wen "Later Heaven" order). Two of these trigrams makes a hexagram.

 The I Ching has as its basic structure 64 hexagrams (see also this blog for picture of the 64 hexagrams)which are generated by 8 trigrams which are in themselves generated by combination of two very simple bits of information a whole or a broken line. This is what excited Liebniz when he saw the exact parallel of his binary code with the ancient Chinese Oracle which at a minimum estimate has existed for over 5000 years and worked with binary bits thousands of years ago before Liebniz was born and dreamt of calculus.  

 This coincidence was surpassed by the discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick. The way the amino acids are formed and combined to create the helix spiral of our DNA also parallels the mathematical combinations required to create a six lined hexagram of the I Ching. Dr Martin Schonberger published “The I Ching and the Genetic Code – The Hidden Key to Life” in 1973. He discovered that there was a one – to – one equation of the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching and the 64 DNA codons of the genetic code. This discovery provided Carl Jung his topic of the funeral address in honour of the great German translator of I Ching, Richard Wilhelm. He said, “It can’t remain in the dark forever, that we are touching here on an Archimedean principle, with the help of which our occidental thinking could be unhinged.” Schonberger said, “that is precisely what happened by the manifestation of I Ching code in genetic code.”


I Ching as description of Genetic Code (diagram from "Earth Ascending" Jose Arguelles.

I Ching as description of Genetic Code (diagram from "Earth Ascending" Jose Arguelles).



Here we find that an ancient Chinese text written over a course of thousands of years in its mathematical / numerological operation and in the exact binary equivalence with the genetic code shows that “consciousness” exists within the formation of the genetic code which gives every life form its unique characteristics and in the Book of Changes.

 Or is it just one big coincidence? 

Some relevant statements about how archetypes and the number form of the same, the sacred geometry of the archetypal forms are made in Robert Lawlor’s book  “Sacred Geometry”.  He defines the “archetypal”  as “universal processes or dynamic patterns which can be considered independently of any structure or material form.”He states that, ” Modern thought has difficult access to the concept of the archetypal because European languages require that verbs or action words be associated with nouns. We therefore have no linguitic forms with which to image a process or activity that has no material carrier.”Ancient cultures symbolized these pure, eternal processes as gods, that is, powers or lines of actions through which SPIRIT is concretised into energy and matter.Lawlor uses DNA as an example of the above. Genetic coding as the vehicle of replication and continuity does not lie in the particular atoms (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen or Nitrogen) of which the gene substance, DNA, is composed as these are subject to change. Thus, the carrier of continuity is not only the molecular composition of DNA but also its helix form.

 The helix, a special type from the group of regular spirals, results from sets of fixed geometric proportions. These proportions can be understood to exist a priori, without any material counterpart, as abstract, geometric relationships.Thus, one can say that the architecture of bodily existence is determined by an invisible, immaterial world of pure form and geometry.This invisible realm is part of  the consciousness of the universe. The brain is a function of this invisible innate geometry of life, this sacred geometry.

The structure of part of a DNA double helix.

The structure of part of a DNA double helix.



These refraction photos are the closest visualization that science can give with respect to the nature of atomic substance, which appears to be patterns of geometrized light energy.

These refraction photos are the closest visualization that science can give with respect to the nature of atomic substance, which appears to be patterns of geometrized light energy.