Ĝ. Bejm

After looking back through past divinations, I wasn't able to discern any particular pattern or rule to use to determine how long the chart should apply. At this point, I'm not sure where to go from here. My initial experiments haven't panned out, though that negative result is still useful data. Trying to explain the charts to others also led me to refine the process for rendering images of them, so that was useful too.

Oddly, this whole process seems to work better when applied personally. Those private charts have tended to be more spot on. One hypothesis, out of the many that are possible, is that Ogham is a more personal divination method and works best applied "locally" whereas astrology is a more impersonal one. (That isn't meant to be a value judgment of one over the other, as each has its place.)

Even though the predictions didn't work as well as I hoped, I'll still leave them up. Maybe I'll think of a new approach to try later. Maybe someone else will see them and find inspiration to build a better method.

Here's the December 4 chart. Digging into it, things look pretty benign, or even potentially promising.
( Read more... )

The December 4 chart has run its course, so let's see how the predictions held up. (The July 4 chart remains in effect until December 4.)( Read more... )

Here is the December 4 chart for the United States. At first glance it may look a tad pessimistic, but unpacking it I found it more hopeful than it initially seemed.
( Read more... )

Based on the timing rules I've been using, the March 4 chart has run its course, but the July 4 chart still applies through early December. That means this is just a recap; the next new chart is three months away.
( Read more... )

The way I've been interpreting these charts, the March 4 chart still has two months to go. Tomorrow's chart will layer on top of it, so I wanted to pause and check where things stand so far.

( Read more... )

January's brief reading needs only a brief review. In short, the chart was spot on, but my reading wasn't quite as good.

First of all, I predicted fewer assorted calamities. The last two months have been a good reminder that there's more than one way to relieve tension, which is where I went wrong in my reading. The direct way is what I assumed: relaxing the tension. The indirect way is for the stressed object to fail under the strain. We thus saw political tensions erupt in a violent confrontation at the Capitol, and the Texas power grid buckle under the pressure of a severe winter storm.

As for the courts, Chief Justice Roberts made a savvy decision. The second Trump impeachment left almost no one satisfied, but the Supreme Court managed to stay out of the way as the process ran its course.

So I'd say the chart is two for two, but I myself only get half credit for my reading. This is indeed a learning process.

Looking back at my predictions from July, originally I planned to go bullet by bullet, but there's really only one I have comments on: I misread the situation in the courts. From all the chest-thumping over the years, I bought into the hype and expected a contentious fight once Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat opened up. Instead, Trump was able to get his nominee confirmed with little more than some jaw-jawing from the Democrats.

Following that, at the other court levels there was a wave of post-election lawsuits that were pretty much uniformly rejected across a variety of jurisdictions and judges. My reading back in July of a controversial court decision doesn't quite fit there either. On both counts, I think I missed the mark there.

Overall, though, I'm reasonably pleased with how I did. Tomorrow I'll generate the next chart and get it written up and posted over the next few days.

So... like I said, things have happened. It's time to look back at how I did with my predictions from July 4th of last year. It's going to be a rough ride, but I think I've learned something useful from it.

( Read more... )

Now that we have an official pandemic on our hands, I figured it was worth revisiting my July 4 forecast. I still stand by most of what I wrote. I expect the overall death toll in this country to be manageable at the societal level, though individual families will be rightfully mourning those who pass. I expect the stock market in July to resemble the stock market in July 2019 -- it won't be at the all-time highs, but it won't be Depression 2.0 either.

There is one new possibility, though, I wanted to discuss. Ur is loosely analogous to the Death card in Tarot. Yes, it can mean death, but 99.9% of the time it's metaphorical. (Indeed, I usually read Ur upright as burying/ending and reversed as uncovering/revealing.) However, in the context of a pandemic, particularly one that disproportionally kills older patients, there is the possibility that in this specific situation it could mean a death, particularly since it's paired with reversed Iodhadh (not lasting / time coming to an end). From its placement in the 11th house (lower chamber of Congress), my best guess is that -- if this is the correct reading for those symbols in this context -- it's Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who's at risk.

I don't see this as a contradiction. It is possible for a pandemic to both have an overall low death toll but for some key person to die nonetheless. In the scheme of things we can still hope that the 10th house/11th house cluster refers to a political victory/defeat, not to survival/death, but given the unusual circumstances I wanted to at least flag the possibility.