[Editor’s note: Alex’s original article predicting Walker’s likely defeat is available here.]
Omelettes all around! There’s enough cosmic egg on my face to accommodate everyone!
Frequent readers of my work will attest that I rarely predict; most of my articles chronicle events after the fact, explaining these in terms of celestial patterns involving deep space points and asteroids. Part of the reason for this is Black Holes themselves, which defy prediction, and, as noted in the preceding article, can be “hazardous” to anticipate.
Black Holes have two major thrusts—one is instability and dramatic changes in the status quo reality; the other regards their function as points of energy attraction and energy drain. In the case of the Wisconsin recall, I mistakenly assumed the result of their effects would be change, which is a more common manifestation of their energies, when in reality, they were operating in this instance more in the mode of energy drain, given the vast amount of resources of money, time and energy which were expended to no purpose in the recall, leaving matters just as they were before. (Well, perhaps not quite—in addition to the Walker recall attempt, four newly elected Republican state senators were up for recall, and one of these, Van Wanggaard, appears as of this writing to have been ousted by challenger John Lehman; if this is so, then Democrats regain control of the Wisconsin upper house, making passage of Walker’s future agenda very difficult, and perhaps effectively neutering him politically.)
The only other anomaly which I cited in the article is one with a performance much easier to predict, when I anticipated high voter turnout from Mercury on a Quasar. That prediction was accurate—with 2.5 million votes cast, the recall brought out more voters than the 2010 election which first installed Walker, with 2.1 million votes. Several polling places ran out of ballots, and in many precincts long lines of voters remained when polls officially closed.
The other reason I don’t generally predict is that, in recent years, my work has become increasingly focused on the use of personal named asteroids, and I have serious misgivings about the level of causation they embody. That is, are they co-creative energies, or merely descriptive?
If the Wisconsin recall is any indication, then they seem to be descriptors, not determiners, and their use as predictive tools is likely ineffective. In hindsight, seen as descriptors only, without any weight given to any causative effect, most of what I wrote does apply as a description of the day’s events:
- asteroid Barrett with Sun/Venus as an indicator of Tom Barrett’s prominence for the day,
- its square to Mars signaling his challenge to Walker,
- its opposition to Nemesis/Hidalgo defining his role as avenger of the people and champion of the oppressed;
- asteroid Walker with Sisyphus depicting a replay of the 2012 match-up, and with
- Varuna as a determiner of his legacy,
- its square to Eris marking the atmosphere of discord he had engendered in the state;
- asteroid Scott with Uranus as a sign of the rebellion Walker faced.
If this article had been written as a post mortem, as most of my pieces are, then the error of anticipating an outcome from these asteroid placements would have obviously been avoided, but much of what was said would still have applied.
In general, this was an analysis of the day itself, an attempt to determine an outcome based solely in the isolation of the moment, with little reference to the candidate’s natal charts, which I do not have in full. Obviously, astrology is more complex than that, but my experience of analysis of events in hindsight led me to anticipate a probable outcome, which was in error. Given that asteroid placements here do not appear to have been determinative, then the answer to what occurred in Wisconsin on Tuesday would lie in the transits and progressions active in the charts of the two competitors, which is information I do not possess.
I want to add a final word about vote fraud. The specter of this was alluded to in the article, and was raised by Republicans in advance of the recall vote. I want to make it very clear that I am not alleging fraud in this case, but I do want to stress that given the state of election technology in America today, there really is no way to know with any degree of certainty that any official outcome accurately reflects the votes actually cast.
It has been repeatedly demonstrated how pathetically simple it is to alter vote totals in e-vote systems. The capacity to do so exists, and certainly the will to do so is not lacking, and currently there is no adequate system of verification to ensure that vote tampering is not occurring, in any race from county comptroller to US president.
This represents one serious threat to our democracy currently; another has been on display in the recall campaign, which is the unlimited amounts of money from undisclosed donors made possible by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Walker raised a total of nearly $31 million for this recall, almost two-thirds of it from undisclosed out-of-state contributors, to Barrett’s $4.5 million, only 25% of which came from beyond Wisconsin’s borders.
The ability of powerful interests to buy elections with unlimited contributions, or to steal via vote fraud those elections which they cannot buy, has created a parlous state of elections in the US, one which has serious consequences for the world’s oldest democracy.