A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Fate of American Democracy (Part 2-“Going Deep” Installment) 

A lot of us are wondering lately why so many people seem to be displaying all the different types of bad behavior all at once. You might continually find yourself wondering, “What could be causing these people to make the wrong choice so consistently in so many seemingly unrelated situations?” The dishonesty, belligerence, tribalism, brashness, and rule-breaking misbehaviors that many people now suddenly display all at once seem unrelated, so it’s puzzling why they’d all be on the rise at the same time. Yet, there actually is a simple explanation that can tie today’s cacophonous social decline all together into a single unifying picture. This article is my attempt to outline that explanation and paint that picture.

The current unraveling of American/global civil society boils down to one thing: a movement toward shallowness. Yes, it’s that simple. More precisely, it’s all just the result of embracing, dignifying and committing to human shallowness. In past articles, I’ve referred to this as committing to “selfishness,” because selfishness is the main expression of shallowness. But, this article will make it clear why focusing on shallowness itself is necessary for understanding the mechanics of America’s current ethical backslide.

Shallowness in itself is not a problem. In fact, shallowness and depth work hand-in-hand in a healthy human being. But glorifying human shallowness and dismissing human depth is a big problem, especially when it occurs on a large scale in a community. The glorification of shallowness and dismissal of depth is spreading across the US almost as quickly as the last dangerous epidemic did.

For simplicity of wording in this article, whenever I refer to “shallowness” or “shallow people.” I’ll be referring to a shallowness that is embraced, or even glorified, as a replacement for depth. So, it should be clear that what I’m identifying as a huge problem is when a commitment to shallowness is used as a replacement for depth. Whether we are deeper people or shallower people is ultimately a matter of degree. Yet, people tend to fall on one side of the line or the other in the majority of their behavior, so I’ll speak of people as “deeper” or “shallower” in this article for the sake of simplicity. Hopefully, it will be clear that I’m essentially just trying to point out the urgent need for people to stay on the “deeper” side of that line.

There are 9 key problems that accompany such shallowness and make it easier to recognize:

1) Selfishness: trying to fulfill oneself through one’s personal conditions, not through one’s deeper identity. Shallow people will choose feeling good over being good, if they can’t have both at once (I’ll elaborate on this later in this article).
2) Double Standards: selectively applying ethical guiding principles in order to improve one’s personal conditions, which actually just amounts to not really believing in or embracing ethical principles.
3) Poor, Absent, or Misleading Reasoning: failing to apply the principles of reason, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Shallow people will choose the good feelings that bad reasoning offers, rather than the bad feelings that good reasoning offers, if they can’t feel good from good reasoning. When the truth hurts, deeper people are more likely to accept it anyway, while shallower people are more likely to avoid it or seek an “alternative” truth. Shallow people are also much more likely to unhesitatingly embrace claims that they want to be true, without scrutinizing the reasoning behind those claims. They may innocently fail to see their lack of reasoning, though, because our faithfulness to the principles of reason arises only from our deeper level, so shallow people may simply not sense when they are departing. From reason.
4) Willingness to Deceive or Embrace Falsehood: misusing language or reasoning to persuade others to believe something that is false (because one’s personal conditions will improve if others believe that falsehood), which is an anti-social abuse of the trust of others.
5) Seeking Unity through Hatred or Exclusion: selfishness is debilitating, isolating and antisocial, and is therefore accompanied by feelings of weakness, loneliness, and vulnerability. So, shallow/selfish people feel an unconscious urge to connect with others for support. Yet, their lack of principles makes them unappealing allies to principled (deeper) people, and that lack of principles offers nothing deep to bond them with other selfish people either, so shallow people can only bond together through things they have in common like a common hatred (or a common love of something superficial, like their skin color).

6) Hostility: identifying/posturing as a threat to others. When one has abandoned the principles that could have enabled them to defend themselves against opposition, they try to scare off opponents instead.
7) Never Apologizing. Apologies are our way of acknowledging that we acted upon the wrong principle and that we will embrace the correct principle in similar future scenarios. It’s how we show that we actually do know what principle we should have acted upon, and that we are indeed committed to that principle. This reassures the other person that they can trust us to behave better going forward. We should expect others (and ourselves) to not apply to right principles in decision-making on occasion, but when someone shows that they feel such decisions need no apology, they’re showing that they don’t think they have any obligation to adhere to the right principles. That’s a sign of a commitment to shallowness.
8) A Fierce Sense of Freedom. Having rejected the guiding principles that should constrain their actions, shallow people feel very free, and fiercely guard that feeling of freedom against the constant threat of being shackled by the ethical principles that ought to constrain their behavior and decision-making.
9) Divisiveness. Ethical principles are what hold a community together, in our actions and in our feelings towards each other. Shallow people don’t subscribe to such principles, so they have no goal of preserving the cohesiveness of their community. This means that when they lose their fear of punishment or censorship for their lack of principles, they’ll act without any concern for preserving the social order.

Before going into more detail in this article, I’ll just give a simple overview of how shallowness supports unethical behavior, and then I’ll also summarize how too much shallowness leads to social collapse. Afterwards, I’ll lay out the actual mechanics of that shallowness in the remaining sections of this post.

How Shallowness Leads to Unethical Behavior:

a) The laws, ethics, and social rules of healthy societies (both Christian and non-Christian, past and present) tend to center around the basic principle behind the Golden Rule, “Do onto others as you would have them do unto you” (Mathew 7:12). This principle just says that we should behave towards others in the ways that we would want them to behave towards us, if we were them, in their situation.

b) Successfully applying the Golden Role requires empathy. The Golden Rule asks us to imagine ourselves as another, in their situation, which is exactly what empathy is.

c) Empathy requires depth of thought, or a deeper orientation in ourselves.

d) Shallowness doesn’t allow that depth of thought or that deeper orientation.

e) So, from shallowness, we can’t be guided by empathy, and therefore, can’t apply the Golden Rule, and therefore, don’t feel morally obligated to follow most laws, ethics, and social rules.

How Too Much Shallowness Leads to Social Collapse

People who commit to shallowness will rarely, if ever, feel morally obligated to follow laws, ethics, and social rules. The stronger that commitment is, the stronger their inclination to misbehave is. So, when shallow people do obey laws, norms and rules, it’s not from any desire to be in harmony with others or to play a role in sustaining a healthy society. Instead, they obey out of a fear of punishment or out of a shame of being unlike the rest of the community who seem to obey willingly.

If too many people become strongly committed to shallowness, therefore, the shame that holds back their misbehavior will disappear, as those people begin feel empowered by their community’s acceptance and validation of shallowness. This first leads to the kind of misbehavior that those shallow people can enact without legal punishment. Then, as this disappearance of shame emboldens some shallow people to seek positions of power, even the laws themselves that restrain misbehavior will be destabilized. At this point the entire system that holds society together will start to unravel and collapse.

The dam that has long held back public misbehavior in America is breaking, due to the rise of shallowness

Another big problem resulting from shallowness is that shallow people don’t commit to the principles of reasoning or rational thinking either. When we reason, we use the rules of rational thinking to arrive at the truth, generally with an openness to whatever that truth might be. Yet, this openness requires a self-surrender that can only be found at the deeper level of our identity—the level that shallow people avoid. Since shallow people thus generally lack the self-surrender needed for such openness, they are more likely to selectively use, or “cherry-pick,” the rules of rational thinking. This lets them “prove” a truth that they like or dodge a truth that they don’t like. The more they dislike a potential truth, the less likely they are to engage the rules of reasoning that would prove that truth. In short, shallowness destabilizes reasoning.

Shallow people can be very clever and persuasive, however, in arguing for want they want. It’s just that their arguments will often be full of flaws or incomplete, particularly when they’re reasoning toward something they want to be true oraway from something they want to be false. Shallow people will conveniently misconstrue or mischaracterize situations or rationalize decisions more often than deeper people, for example. Deeper people may still make those same mistakes, but they will be less inclined to do so when making decisions that might negatively affect others, because deeper people are more empathetic, and thus will be more usually moved by ethical principles than by their personal desires, when they can’t follow both.

Because of differences between people, there will always be a wide range of people who are deeper and who are shallower. As I outlined above, shallower people are generally not inclined to follow ethical rules. So, their rule-following behavior will usually be motivated by a fear of punishment, embarrassment, etc., and not by any personal alignment with the beliefs and principles that make deeper people feel accountable to others. If deeper people seem to be in power and in the majority, then the shallower people will feel self-conscious about their natural inclination toward rule-breaking, and thus, will follow the rules from shame. This enables shallow people to behave ethically without being ethical.

Yet, people generally feel anger towards the things that conflict with what they want. So, shallow people will generally hold anger towards those who seem to expect them to follow rules that they don’t want to follow and who make them feel ashamed. In other words, shallow people will resent deeper people. From the perspective of shallower people, deeper people seem to:

a) limit their freedom of action and expression,

b) make them feel wrong or bad,

c) make them feel inferior, and

d) wrongly hold/use power

(among other common grievances).

Until recently, many shallower people sensed that they were missing something, due to the contrast with deeper people, because the mere existence of deeper people continually highlights a better, healthier way of being. This made shallow people feel cautious about their rule-breaking inclinations, or they may have been somewhat aware that their reasoning ability was subpar or unreliable. In any case, shallow people were more likely to sideline themselves on big issues, out of self-doubt or concern about their limitations. In short, they took some responsibility for their own disinclination to follow society’s rules and norms.

How Shallow “Norm-Busters” Legitimize and Glamorize Shallowness

With that in mind, let’s imagine now what would happen if an extreme but shallow norm-buster rose to power and fame in a society like ours, where shallow people typically exercised self-restraint due to shame. The norm-buster’s norm-busting would implicitly challenge the legitimacy of the norms themselves and challenge the authority of the deeper people who promote and support those norms. Thus, shallower people would see this norm-buster as a type of messiah who liberated them from their “oppression” by deeper people. The norm-buster’s rise to power would legitimize norm-busting. This would delegitimize the society’s norms and rules, and instead, legitimize or glamorize the rule-breaking inclinations that shallower people have. It also would delegitimize the deeper people who advocated for obedience to those norms and rules.

Notice how we are not yet talking about political parties here. The deeper people in power can be in any political party, or no political party at all. This is because it’s not their party that’s being delegitimized, but their principles. Norm-busting delegitimizes principles, not parties per se. If a political party has generally lost touch with its own principles as a matter of practice, then the deeper people within that party who still maintain those principles may look like party members “in name only,” because the rest of the party no longer identifies with those principles.

By delegitimizing the deeper people of the society, the norm-buster signals to shallow people that their long-standing resentment towards those deeper people was valid all along. This will make the shallow people feel resentful for having been “unfairly mistreated” by deeper people. If the norm-buster rises to the highest level of power, then this will signal to those shallow people that the deeper people in power, along with their rules, are in fact inferior. If norm-busting and rule-breaking is legitimized at the highest level of power, then the rule-following prescriptions of leaders at lower levels of power will seem unnecessary, feeble, or even malicious. So, the deeper people who prescribe rule-following will look like they deserve resentment, scorn, and even retribution from shallower people, and always have.

Shallow people will then reach a state of resentment, hatred, or even vengefulness toward deeper people. This common hatred will be enough to unite them as a group with loyalty to each other. Even though they’re propelled almost entirely by self-interest, and not by any deeper principles that they share with each other, their shared hatred toward deeper people will bond them with feelings of love and kinship towards each other. Such love and loyalty will be fragile (inevitably shallow people will conflict irreconcilably with each other, too), but it will be enough to enable shallow people to work and plan effectively together.

Notice, though, that what they’ll work toward will likely be fueled by their common hatred of an enemy, because they have no other uniting principle. Thus, their loyalty will merely be to their group itself, and not to any guiding principles shared by the group. So, another type of behavior that can help us identify shallowness is strong group loyalty in the absence of any unifying guiding principle (a common hatred or a common love of something shallow is not a guiding principle). This intense but fragile loyalty stems from inescapable feelings of desperation that arise from prolonged shallowness. The more one commits to shallowness, the more unstable one comes to feel. This growing instability leads to an increasing sense of desperation. Shallow group loyalty then seems to be the only available solution.

This is where “group think” becomes dangerous. Committedly shallow people are driven by self-interest and hatred, not by the ethical principles that ordinarily limit our sense of what behavior can be justified. Dismissing the ethical principles that normally limit behavior, committedly shallow people working together will feel free to do almost anything to a perceived common enemy, particularly as their collaboration is based in hatred of that enemy. This is a stark truth. The Holocaust is just one example of that stark truth. There have been many other examples, and it looks like we’re on the cusp of another.

Committed shallowness on a large scale is disastrous to a society.

Over the last few years, certain groups of people are increasingly embracing shallowness and committing to thinking at shallow levels, to the point that they no longer feel the need to limit their misbehavior. This is being reinforced and accelerated by media platforms that are increasingly dignifying, or even glorifying, serious misbehavior. The long, tight conjunction of Saturn and Ketu in 2019-2020 triggered this mass inclination toward misbehavior, just as a similar long and tight conjunction in 1870 triggered the ruthless Jim Crow movement against African Americans, and another in 1939 triggered the German people’s receptivity to Hitler’s barbarism toward Jews and other perceived enemies of Germany.

So, I think we need to understand just how serious the current problem of shallowness is, and how hard it will be to solve in time to prevent American civil society from effectively collapsing.

The rules of a healthy society, both legal and social, are like a dam that keeps society from being swept into the frothy rapids of anarchy. America is like a town built beneath a brilliantly engineered dam that suddenly starts to show signs of cracking. Since no one has seen a time when this trusted dam did not hold, the townspeople will be slow to believe that the dam is actually just moments away from failing.

The reason why I don’t think we can avoid some type of major social collapse is that we don’t have a viable way to correct these problems soon enough:
1) The Pandora’s box of shallowness has already been opened, and there doesn’t appear to be a way to put shallowness back in the box before it wreaks havoc. Or, to use a better metaphor, the cancer of shallowness has already metastasized at this point, and the factors that are accelerating its spread are stronger than they’ve ever been. People who already leaned towards shallowness are feeling liberated by the message that they finally can embrace their shallow inclinations fully, after always having felt ashamed and marginalized for those inclinations until now. That liberation is so intoxicating that they’ll never want to embrace the principles that previously seemed to enchain them (at least not until they see the hidden poison within their newfound sense of freedom).

2) We won’t be able to convince these committedly shallow people that it’s ethically important or rational to embrace those principles, because you would need to use the principles of ethics and reason to convince them of this, and those are the very principles they have dismissed! You can’t argue that it’s rational to embrace those principles, because they now feel free to ignore the rational principles behind that argument. You can’t argue that it’s ethical to embrace those principles, because they also feel free to ignore the ethical principles behind that argument as well. Meanwhile, their lack of reason and ethics enables them to enthusiastically embrace the storyline that they are the actual heroes of the moment, and the deeper people who oppose their behavior are their dangerous enemies. They’re like five-year-olds who have locked themselves inside the family vehicle and decided that they know how to drive. Well happen, when empowered by the car keys and liberated from the parents’ restraint, they foolishly dismiss the parents’ dire warnings and enter the freeway heading the wrong direction? They won’t understand the seriousness of their folly until after causing a disaster.

3) Millions of shallow people are all getting the message from the large media companies that they’re free to bypass the principles of ethics and reason. In other words, they’re developing into a vast unified community that doesn’t believe it needs to behave itself or think clearly

4) That community is increasingly arming itself with weapons and priming itself with violent feelings towards its perceived enemies, namely, deeper people who are not joining them in their folly.

5) There’s no “middle-ground” between shallow people and deeper people that could provide an off-ramp from their conflict. There’s no reconciliation between unethical and ethical people or between reasoning and unreasoning people. These are not two sides of a spectrum that can be reconciled by compromises in one direction or the other. They are instead like the binary positions of an “on/off” switch. One side wants the switch on, and the other wants it off. One side insists on empathy and reason, and the other side rejects both. So, there’s no “unifying message” that can bring these two sides together, as long as shallow people want to exercise the power of leadership but refuse to make proper use of the place of depth in themselves in doing so. Their shallowness cannot substitute for their own depth. So, deeper people will naturally always work to prevent the pitfalls and dangers of letting shallower people take charge. Many types of political leadership are simply not appropriate for shallow people. Being a political leader generally means applying ethical principles from a place of caring about others equally, without regard for your own personal interests or benefits. Shallow people generally can’t separate their decision-making from their personal interests and benefits.

The only way for these shallow people to see the need to embrace the principles of ethics and reason will be if they see the terrible effects of abandoning those principles for themselves. In other words, only after they crash and burn will they be able to see the mistake of abandoning principles. This is exactly what happened to the Germans following World War II. They were blindly intoxicated by Hitler’s validation of their shallowness, until they were sobered by the defeat of their own nation in war, and they saw for themselves how their shallowness caused so much grotesque and shameful cruelty against Jews and other innocent people. Like children who realize their waywardness only after killing their parents in a drunken revolt, those Americans currently intoxicated by shallowness will likely realize their misguided behavior only after they have destroyed the very home that sustains and nourishes them. They won’t realize that they’re ruining their own country until they behold their country in ruins.

The movement toward shallowness has too much momentum to be stopped by willpower anymore, in my view. Short of a miracle of divine intervention, I don’t see how it can be stopped until the intoxication it offers gives way to the stark sobriety of actually witnessing the destruction it will eventually reap. I’m sorry if this sounds dark and heavy, but I’ve been seeing this brewing for years, and I don’t feel good about not conveying what I’m seeing any longer. Please stay positive and cheerful, and also be prepared for what may be coming soon.

Legitimizing the Shallow Non-Principled Stance on a Large Scale
To be clear, the human shallowness behind the savagery of ugly periods was always there, masquerading in one form or another to conceal the abandonment of ethical principles underneath. The view, “the ends justify the means,” for instance, is really just a way of saying that it doesn’t matter what principles are applied, so long as the objective is achieved. So, this stance simply amounts to denying the legitimacy of ethical principles. One political party is adopting the “ends justify the means” approach almost exclusively now. It’s no surprise, then, that in the last two major elections, this party also did not even advance a party platform to state its guiding principles, in defiance of the longstanding custom before elections.

The biggest norm-buster perhaps in American history is the current effective leader of that party. Many followers applaud that norm-busting style, as if it offered some kind of social progress or improvement. Yet, norm-busting amounts to rejecting the principles that underlie the norms, so those followers also do not uphold those principles either. The more norms and rules that are broken, the more underlying principles are rejected. This is only good if those discarded principles are bad.

If the principle behind a norm are good, then busting that norm is bad. Like crazed children in mutiny against their parents, people are committing to shallowness and abandoning good principles.

As shallowness is increasingly embraced, ever more shallow people are calling for killing people in the other party. This is an example of rejecting good guiding principles and applying the crudest principle of all to solve a problem: kill your opponent. That principle requires no reasoning or understanding. This shows how the most committed shallow people now feel that their shallowness is valid and dignified, and that it even trumps the most basic principles, like that of respecting human life (i.e. killing as a last resort)

Listening to reason, or exercising the patience to reason one’s way through a problem, is an example of adhering to the principles of sound thinking. Another expression of adhering to principles of sound thinking is being willing to admit that one simply doesn’t know the truth when one doesn’t have enough information. If one doesn’t know that an election was stolen, for instance, it’s not a reflection of sound thinking to insist that the election was stolen.  One can certainly raise the question and seek proof of such a theft, but without that proof, there’s no rational justification for insisting that a theft definitely occurred.

Why Norm-Busting Messiahs Make Huge Social Conflict So Hard to Avoid

A huge problem is that, as long as a norm-buster like the one described above is seen as noble and good, shallow people will fiercely defend his image. The norm-buster reflects the inner nature of shallow people, so if the norm buster looks noble and good, then shallow people will feel that their shallowness is noble and good as well. They’ll also feel that their rule-breaking inclinations and their level of reasoning were valid all along, and this will give them a euphoric feeling of liberation and vindication. It’s as if, after feeling inferior, wrong, and enchained for so long, they finally get to feel dignified, free, right, and validated. They’ve witnessed that deeper people commonly seem to experience such feelings, but now they get to have those feelings. Although it’s nice when people have such feelings, it is a huge problem in this case, because those shallow people will see that norm-buster as like a messiah who gives them those feelings. They’ll never want to return to their prior worse-feeling state, so they’ll fiercely fight for the norm-buster’s honor under the mistaken belief that if the norm-buster turns out to be bad, then so will they. They’ll also see deeper people as having wrongly deprived them of their dignity and validation, so they’ll see deeper people as not entitled to dignity or validation, now that the roles seem to be reversed.

This is why it’s very difficult for shallow people to see their norm-busting messiah as anything but perfect, honest, noble, and invincible. Their newfound feelings of freedom, dignity and validation seem to be inextricably tied to the fate of the non-buster. If he turns out to be bad, so too will they, by extension. If their devotion to him turns out to be a mistake, then their improved self-image will seem mistaken also.

Another huge problem is that, since government is the primary administrator of rules and norms (because rules and norms often get codified into laws), if shallow people fully embrace the norm-busting inclination in themselves, the government will begin to look like their enemy. Once government and law enforcement itself have been identified as the enemy, shallow people will see them as justified targets of their anger. But, again, they’ll no longer see any limits on their behavior toward their enemies. That’s why I’ve been feeling for few years now that shallow people are likely to cause violent civil turmoil in the US, although I have been holding off in saying so. At this point, I feel it’s a disservice to hold my tongue any longer. We all need to stay continually at peace with ourselves, yet it’s also helpful to see what challenges that inner peace may face in the near future. Be ready for shallow people to become increasingly violent over the next few years. Nothing seems to be limiting their movement in that direction at this point.

Yet another major problem is that the only way to reach these shallow people and show them why their commitment to shallowness is a mistake would be through sound reasoning. However, the commitment to shallowness itself makes shallow people reject sound reasoning, if they don’t like the truth to which that reasoning leads. Shallow people need to see that there’s a deeper way to think of themselves, and they need to see how deeper thinking offers all the good feelings that norm-busting seems to offer. They need to understand how operating from a deeper level makes people feel stable and dignified both in themselves and in their relationships with others (because others naturally appreciate our ethical and rational decision-making). Yet, such learning would reveal their current mistaken orientation, and their shallowness makes them avoid reasoning when that reasoning will reveal an embarrassing or uncomfortable mistake that they have made. They’d rather feel good in a protective bubble of untruth than reason their way to the solid ground of a painful truth.

The only way I can see a sane path out of our current problem is if the media outlets that are reinforcing the shallowness movement were to somehow reverse course and increasingly start promoting depth and discouraging shallowness. Of course, those outlets could never do so explicitly, but their coverage could do so implicitly. But, I just don’t see that happening. Those outlets are driven by financial profit and it’s extremely profitable to promote shallowness to those who want to validate their shallowness. Conversely, if your audience is primarily shallow people, then a message of depth will not be profitable.

Now, let’s dive into the inner mechanics of how such a mess arises…

The 2 Basic Levels of Every Person’s Identity

People effectively have two primary levels of thinking, or two levels that we can identify with, and most of us continually switch between these two levels every day without realizing it. We can call these the “individuated” level and the “non-individuated” level (I believe a similar notion is found throughout human psychology, although it’s not obviously tied to the same insights and explanations posted here).

The individuated level is the shallower level. In short, it’s the level that distinguishes us from other people. Identifying with the individuated level is natural and not bad in itself; it’s just the shallower way to think of yourself. Some people lean more towards this level and others lean more away from it.

The non-individuated level is the deeper level. Some people lean more towards this level, while others lean more away from it. Identifying with the deeper non-individuated level is a bit more complicated to describe, but this kind of identification is also natural and is critical for human well-being on many fronts (e.g. psychological health, societal health, sound reasoning, ethical decision-making). I’ll explain why in a moment.

Shallowness occurs in us whenever we identify with the individuated level. There are many characteristics that make you appear and feel different from others, and when you identify with those characteristics, you’re identifying with the shallower level of yourself.

The individuated level arises from, and consists of, all the ways that we learn to think of ourselves as an individual. Any attribute that can be used to separate us from at least some other people is part of our individuated identity. We can be separated from others by our sex, our age, our language, our group memberships, our skin color, etc., and the collection of all these differentiating attributes gives us our individuated identity.

The individuatedidentity is a helpful part of us that keeps track of our individual qualities, and we often must react to our environment based on those qualities. We remain aware, for instance, that we’re a woman, a vegetarian, a member of a certain family, a Yankees fan, an alum of a particular school, etc. Then, this awareness helps us make choices, like what food to order at a restaurant, which bathroom to use there, or which table to join after using that bathroom, or when to cheer at the game after dinner.

It really is as simple as it sounds; every quality that can potentially distinguish us from others is part of our individuated identity. Again, it’s normal to have an individuated identity. It’s just not the only possible way to think of ourselves, and it’s an incomplete way to think of ourselves.

The non-individuated level of our identity, on the other hand, is just the place in our awareness, or the way of thinking of ourselves, that isn’t affected or constrained by the factors that seem to separate us out from others. This is a place in us, or a way of thinking of ourselves, that is prior to the feeling of individuation (I’ll further explained that idea below). We feel very comfortable and centered here, but just not characterized by any individual attributes. The qualities that characterize this level are universal to humans, and we only experience them at this level. These are qualities like a feeling of unity and equality with others (which we then manifest outwardly as innocence, respect kindness, and fairness), a serene tranquility and centeredness, a steady joyful contentment, and a general sense of well-being (these are also, not coincidentally, the qualities that we experience when we are in what psychologists call, “the zone”). When we are identifying from this non-individuated place, there’s a tangible feeling that we are somehow deeper in ourselves, so describing the non-individuated level as the deeper of the two levels should help readers develop a sense of when they are actually identifying with this level.  

To put it another way, each of us has an individuated kind of identity that makes us the unique and interesting individuals that we are. Meanwhile, we also have a deeper way of thinking of ourselves that ignores the things that seem to differentiate us from others, makes us feel contented and stable, and allows us to recognize what we have in common with all people. This non-individuated level may sound esoteric, but most people actually spend many parts of their day in that deeper level of identity, without even realizing it. In fact, during deeper thought or imagination we often unknowingly slip into this level. Whenever we leave behind any of the qualities of our individual identity consciously or unconsciously, we automatically must slip into the non-individuated level in order to do so.

It’s as if we just put in the clutch on the individuated identity whenever we dis-identify with any current attribute. And this makes sense, too. If we’re able to spontaneously drop or adopt attributes that we identify with in the moment—like we do in deep thought or as actors do for a living—then we must be able to access some layer of our identity that is something like a “blank slate” in order to do so. This is the base level of each person’s identity, upon which we layer our individual attributes. The non-individuated level of identity is this blank slate, and we use it often without even realizing it. When you imagine yourself as older, skinnier, richer, wiser, or as becoming part of a group, etc., you’re operating at least momentarily from this blank slate level in order to modify your identity. We can all recall instances where we were so deeply immersed in thought that we were not thinking of our own personal attributes for that time. We may also reach the non-individuated level in that way or in meditation or prayer as well.

Perhaps the most familiar way of accessing the non-individuated level is to “put ourselves in another’s shoes.” In such instances, we might momentarily adopt the conditions and attributes that we see in another person in order to experience what it may be like to be them. This is empathy.

To bring this all back to the focus of this article, when we apply the principles of ethical decision-making and rational thinking, as we continually must do in our daily lives, we inevitably must think from the deeper non-individuated level of our identity. Recall how I said in #3 above, “Empathy requires depth of thought, or a deeper orientation in ourselves.” A commitment to reason requires the same depth also, as I’ll try to explain in the next few sections…

How the Location of Our Identity Can Shift Between Levels

Why is the deeper non-individuated level of identity such a big part of ethical decision-making and sound reasoning? To understand why, we need to look at how our identity can shift between levels and what it even means to “identify” with something. Understanding these things will somewhat awkwardly require us to deeply discuss things that we usually don’t even think about…

Whenever we experience anything at all—a visual image, a sound, a thought, a feeling, or whatever else—three things always happen:

  1. We observe or “witness” the experience we’re having, whatever it may be
  2. We observe it from our vantage place, wherever that place may seem to be
  3. We observe as ourselves, whatever we may take ourselves to be

To understand ethical decisions and reasoning, we’ll only need to address 2 & 3 (although interesting things can be said about 1 as well).

At every moment, our attention is focused towards something, like an object we are seeing, a feeling we are having, a problem we are contemplating, etc. But, at the same time, our attention is also focused from somewhere. That is to say, we can focus our attention from more than one place in ourselves. Not only can we focus our attention from different parts of our body (as we might do in moments of physical pain or during sex, for instance), we can also focus from different levels of our awareness. More specifically, we can focus from the shallower individuated level or the deeper non-individuated level. This is why we have expressions like, “apologizing deeply,” or “coming from a very deep place.”

We are generally very aware of what we are focusing towards, but we are generally far less aware of where we are focusing from. We don’t realize that we can focus on the same thing from different places or “levels” in ourselves. For instance, if you first focus on a breakup decision from your feelings of resentment that your partner routinely embarrasses you with your friends, but you then focus from your compassion for the childhood trauma that made your partner so insensitive, your observation point may have just transitioned from your individuated level to your non-individuated level without your realizing it. Conversely, if I’m lost in deep thought about solving world hunger, and then suddenly feel excited about a way to personally profit from a solution, my focal point just transitioned in the opposite direction.

What I’m trying to make clear here is that we are all very capable of shifting our focus between the deeper and shallower layers of our awareness, even if we don’t realize that we routinely exercise this ability.

A Deeper Look at How We Identify with the Two Levels

Let’s look more deeply now at what our identity even is. Just as I mentioned above, we’re always focused towards something and from somewhere, but we also focus as whatever we take ourselves to be. This is the identity part of our experiences.

That identity—your identity at any given moment—is simply whatever the word “I” means to you in that moment. This really merits repeating:

Your identity is whatever the word “I” means to you at any given moment.

What’s important to note here is that the meaning of “I” will be different for you in different contexts. When you say, for example, “I’m an average height,” the word “I” refers to your sense of yourself as a human body. By contrast, when you say, “I can see how I hurt your feelings,” the word “I” may refer to the deeper level of yourself where you can imagine yourself in another person’s shoes. These are just 2 examples of how we can easily shift our understanding of what “I” means for us.

In short, we easily can and do shift our identity.

Again, we’re always focused towards something, and we are always focused from somewhere inside us. We also identify somewhat with the place we are focusing from, as if that place were somehow sustaining our very existence. We don’t actually need to do this, but if we don’t deliberately refrain from doing so, then we’re likely to identify by default with whichever level were focusing from.

Notice, then, that if we generally feel that our environment is sustaining us, the feeling of stability and safety of our own identity will depend on how stable and safe that environment feels, regardless of what we take ourselves to be. If you’re identifying with an environment that feels unsafe, you’ll reflexively feel unsafe also.

If we’re focusing from a place that somehow feels unstable, therefore, we will also feel unstable ourselves (unless we can deliberately dis-identify with that place). The individuated level, or the individuated way of thinking of ourselves, feels like an unstable place. The “9 key problems that accompany shallowness,” which I mentioned above, all amount to different expressions of selfishness, and selfishness is debilitating, isolating and antisocial. So, the individuated level feels unstable, unsafe and lonely.

Thus, a problem naturally arises for anyone who doesn’t dis-identify with the individuated level. People who are committed to shallowness are choosing to not dis-identify with the individuated level. They are choosing instead to avoid the non-individuated level, which is the always-available alternative to the individuated level. This choice makes them unable (unwilling, really) to access the non-individuated level.

The non-individuated level, in contrast to the individuated level, naturally feels stable. We feel safe, comfortable, and connected with others when we focus from this level because that is the level of our awareness where those feelings originate. Just as we can’t help but feel the warmth of the water when we dip into a hot tub, we can’t help but feel these feelings when we dip into the non-individuated level.

The non-individuated level gives us feelings of safety and stability about the outer world as well, because operating from the non-individuated level provides the grounding for ethical decisions and sound reasoning, as I will explain next. Ethical decisions and sound reasoning make us feel stable and safe because well-reasoned decisions yield largely predictable results, and ethical decisions generate goodwill from others towards us, which makes them see us as allies and not as enemies. People generally support and don’t attack their allies, but they do attack and don’t support their enemies.

So, let’s look at how the non-individuated level provides the grounding for ethical decisions and sound reasoning.

How Ethical Decisions and Reason Arise from the Non-Individuated Level of Our Identity

Let’s take a moment to think of the world in which our dreams take place. That world does not exist anywhere outside of you, and yet you experience it as a vast expanse within which virtually anything can appear to happen. This lucid inner world is often referred to as your “consciousness.” It is the animated realm of experience that is sometimes also referred to as your “awareness.” We’ll use both terms

Notice that even when you’re awake, there still seems to be such a world. It is, for instance, the world within which you create daydreams, where you envision the future, relive the past, contemplate potential outcomes of choices, do math, get lost in music, or construct hypotheses, among countless other mental activities. To put it simply, your awareness is the familiar expanse or mental universe within which all your thoughts, visions, and feelings happen and are experienced by you (by “mental world,” I don’t mean the entire inventory of all your thoughts, but rather, the seemingly vast space within which those thoughts and mental images seem to occur and exist).

What’s most important to notice about the mental expanse of our awareness is that virtually anything can appear to happen in it. That is, our awareness is like a blank slate upon which anything can be drawn or written. In your awareness, a microscopic epileptic rhinoceros can refuse to yodel, an invite-only tropical picnic for prime numbers and vowels can be crashed by all the punctuation marks, and a pair of levitating napkins can bicker with each other all day in Pig Latin. Our awareness is like a sea of possibilities, or a universe of potential, that we can tap to mentally accomplish virtually any mental objective that we decide to accomplish.

I’m highlighting the infinite potential of our mental universe in order to illustrate an extremely important, but little understood, feature of our awareness, namely, that the infinite potential of our awareness allows us to imagine or experience ourselves as virtually anything. You can imagine being a rock, a tree stump, a locomotive, one of those bickering napkins, etc. Many readers may even be able to recall dreams in which they experienced themselves as being someone other than the person they are in waking life. I, myself, have dreamed a few times that I was someone else. In fact, the experience of being someone else in one of those dreams was so realistic that I very briefly still identified as that other person even after I awoke. Perhaps some readers can recall similar experiences in dreams, but for those who cannot, past daydreams or deliberate thought experiments may provide similar experiences instead. The simple point I’m making is that, because we experience our awareness as an infinite realm of potential, we can experience ourselves as virtually anything within that realm. We can identify with almost anything.

One of the things that we can identify with is any other person that we’re aware of. To do this, though, we have to go to a deeper level of our awareness. We have to pull away from the individuated level, where we already have a detailed identity, and we must go to the blank-slate level of our identity underneath.

The point here is that, in order to identify with others, we need to be able to go to a deeper level of our awareness than the individuated level. This is why empathy only occurs at the non-individuated level of our identity.

The reason why it’s a problem to be stuck in shallowness, therefore, is that we can only feel empathy from our deeper level, and not from shallowness. Yet, empathy is an absolutely crucial part of maintaining civil society, because this ability drives nearly all truly healthy social behavior, and even plays a key role in healthy inter-personal communication and fully understanding others. Without depth, empathy is inaccessible, and inter-personal relationships quickly deteriorate (or don’t even develop).

Most of us have a sense that putting ourselves in another’s shoes is a good idea at times, but as I suggested earlier, few people recognize that the ethical rules of nearly all societies are essentially founded upon this basic exercise behind the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”)

To know if something is what “you would have them do unto you,” you need to be able to envision yourself in another person’s circumstances (or in their shoes) and imagine what it would be like to be them and have that thing done to you. In other words, you must withdraw from your individuated identity and imagine being that other person. You have to imagine yourself as them in their circumstances, not you in your own circumstances. To do that, you need to be able to disconnect with the individuated level.

Another poorly understood but crucial role that empathy plays is in inter-personal communication. We can communicate just fine at a basic level without empathy, and such communication happens all day everyday without issues. However, empathy, or being able to put yourself in another’s shoes, can dramatically enhance communication, because good communication obviously revolves largely around having a correct and full sense of what another person is trying to convey.

Think of all the examples of miscommunication that occurred because the intention behind one person’s words were misconstrued. People who can readily tap empathy will habitually listen to others from the deeper level. This enables them to, not merely hear another’s words, but also get a good sense of the intent behind those words. This ability also helps in understanding what someone is trying to convey, when there may be multiple potential interpretations of their words. Being able to put yourself in the shoes of a speaker can greatly enhance your ability to understand them and avoid miscommunication.

This means that our ability to identify with the non-individuated level plays a key role in everything from just understanding each other better, to successfully mediating conflicts or understanding an opponent’s actual position in an argument. This is why people stuck at the shallow level are generally not as good as deeper people at understanding others, resolving conflicts, and treating opponents fairly in arguments.

This last point unfortunately means that it’s extremely difficult to resolve differences with shallow people. They are generally more inclined to misconstrue communication, perpetuate conflict, and not even acknowledge another person’s point in a disagreement. If enough people get “stuck” at the shallow level of their identity, then healthy and honest communication in their community can become increasingly rare.

At the non-individuated level, what it means to be “good” is to simply be identified with that level itself, because the principles that ground the non-individuated level are themselves good, so when we act from our identity with those principles we identify with goodness. Plus, identifying with the non-individuated level makes us feel that we are caring, healthy, safe and noble.

By contrast, at the individuated level, what it means to be “good” is for the characteristics or condition of our individual identity to be good. That is to say, since we identify there with our individual characteristics, if those characteristics do not seem to give us a good status at a given moment, then we won’t feel that we ourselves are good at that moment. If all you can identify with is a list of characteristics and conditions, and you can’t go to the deeper level where you always feel whole and content regardless of those characteristics and conditions, then your identity will not feel good whenever your list of characteristics and conditions doesn’t feel good to you. This makes your sense of your own goodness unstable.

In short, there is no sense of well-being for committedly shallow people outside of their list of characteristics and conditions. That’s why they’re extremely sensitive to criticism at any level.

For example, if a shallow person has white skin, then they will identify with their white skin and rely partly on that attribute for their sense that they are good. But, if they’re reminded of historical moments when people with white skin did awful things, they’ll be likely to feel that, since white skin is being associated with bad people, they themselves are being portrayed as bad. So, their sense of whether they are good or bad will change, depending upon how their list of attributes looks at an given moment.

Similarly, if a shallow person belongs to Political Party X, and some members of Party X are portrayed as having done bad things, then that shallow person will reflexively feel bad about themselves. Since they rely upon their membership in Party X to feel good about their identity, and membership in Party X is being associated with bad behavior at the moment, they’ll feel that their own goodness is in question. If that shallow person only knew how to reach the deeper non-individuated level in themselves, then they could easily feel at peace despite their membership in Party X (they could, for example, point out that the wrong-doer wasn’t behaving according to the principles that they adhere to from the deeper level of their identity). But, sadly, as simple as this solution may be, it is not easy for shallow people to understand.

So, shallow people will feel bad about themselves if any of their characteristics or conditions doesn’t feel good to them. They’ll routinely try to find characteristics and conditions that make them feel better, or at least make them feel “better” than others. This is especially common for strongly committed shallow people because they’re stuck at the individuated level and thus fully identified with their characteristics.

Another big problem of identifying with the individuated level is that the self-surrender needed for applying the principles of reasoning is only accessed from the non-individuated level. Self-surrender is necessary whenever the reasoning process leads you to a conclusion that you dislike. Applying the principles of reason and accepting that conclusion requires surrender. You can indeed still apply the principles of reason from the individuated level at times, but you can only surrender to the discomfort of those principles if you are operating from the non-individuated level. If applying those principles leads to an undesirable conclusion, it will be hard for anyone stuck at the individuated level to carry out that reasoning. Shallow people, therefore, have much more willingness to circumvent the reasoning process.

When we’re identified with the individuated level, it feels like we need the conditions of that identity to be good in order to be good ourselves. If our conception of our individuated self doesn’t provide us with a self-image that feels good in the moment, then we’ll feel that something needs to change in order for us to feel better. So, to feel better, we’ll either need to let go of our individuated level itself, which amounts to identifying with the non-individuated level, or we will need to find an alternative to reasoning. Those who are committed to shallowness, and are thus committed to the individuated level, therefore frequently seek “alternatives” to reason. They can still make use of some of the steps of rational thinking in order to appear to make a sound argument, but they will often not be reasoning properly because they’re simply not committed to proper reasoning.

An unfortunate side effect of failing to reason properly is that it can also lead to feelings of instability.  Committedly shallow people feel unstable, because they will often sense on some level that they are not actually reasoning their way through many tasks that require reason. It’s also worth noting that, when a shallow person loses an argument, this makes them unhappy with the conditions of their individuated identity. Yet, they’ll still refuse to drop that uncomfortable individuated level for the more comfortable non-individuated level, so they’ll feel stuck with their unhappiness (at least until they manage to forget the lost argument). Over time, the accumulating history of such failures and painful experiences creates a repository of wounding for the shallow person, which is inescapable without going to the non-individuated level. This conundrum is a constant disturbance for shallow people.

Fortunately, we all can instantly divest from whatever qualities have caused us pain at the individuated level. The more we live at the non-individuated level, the more we will feel healed and untouched from our past pains. Going to the deeper level of our identity is therefore healing, and thus is a crucial part of our individual and collective health and well-being.

This is why our ability to disengage from the individuated level at will is so critical to our sense of well-being. It’s also why many people instinctively engage the non-individuated level in managing pain.

Given everything I’ve said above, it should be understandable why the non-individuated level of our identity just feels better than the individuated level. The non-individuated level offers a sense of peace, well-being and freedom from danger, which makes us feel comfortable and contented. When we are at the non-individuated level, we are minimizing (not eliminating) all the reasons why we might be vulnerable to painful events (i.e. from mistakes in our reasoning, or from some kind of retaliation by those whom we hurt from our unethical decisions, etc.).

On the other hand, the individuated level offers a sense of “freedom” that just ensnares us in discomfort. We’re free to abandon the principles of good behavior and reason, but we‘re not free to decide what the consequences of that abandonment will be. In fact, those consequences are rather predictable, and they’re not pleasant, as I hope I have shown now.

Twelve Telltale Signs of Shallowness
Nobody wears a sign on their back identifying them as a shallow person, but there are a few fairly reliable ways to pick such people out of a crowd. Here are twelve such ways. Look for people who make a habit of:

1) never apologizing or admitting mistakes
2) not answering questions that have unflattering answers or that reveal their mistakes
3) exhibiting poor, absent, or misleading reasoning
4) flip-flopping on issues, changing their story, or showing an unwillingness to repeat something they said earlier, when there are now penalties for lying.
5) employing double-standards, or moving the goalposts on the standards they first set
6) urging loyalty to themselves or to specific other people instead of loyalty to principles
7) displaying selfishness or self-centeredness
8) only showing concern for “unfairness” whenever they claim to be the recipients of it
9) displaying a lack of empathy or lack of caring, or exhibiting cruelty or ruthlessness
10) attacking the messenger and not the message: distorting the image of a messenger in order to undermine the message by extension, rather than addressing an unpleasant message itself
11) hiding, misrepresenting, or clouding information, when that information would otherwise be useful for reaching an unflattering truth about them or their allies

12) uneven valuation of things: setting a low bar for accepting things that support what you want to be true but setting a high bar for accepting things that support what you don’t want to be true. Similarly, over-valuing things when they legitimize one’s self or one’s allies, but under-valuing those same things when they legitimize one’s opponents (i.e. a double-standard).

When we apply ethical principles, we often see our ethical obligation to do things that are of value to others. A commitment to depth automatically brings a commitment to applying ethical principles. This commitment, therefore, is a service not just to ourselves, but also to others (that’s partly why deeply ethical people are appreciated by their community).

Being deep is thus a hidden service to all.

So How Do We Go Deep and Stay Deep?
How does one reach the non-individuated place and come to identify with that level habitually? Because we routinely operate from the non-individuated place without realizing it, most of us are not familiar with how to access that level at will. Occasionally, however, people are “forced” into identifying with their deeper level through intense suffering, and thus, learn to access this level at will. Because we’re only vulnerable to suffering when we identify with the shallow level, prolonged intense suffering can drive us to stop identifying with our shallow level. This is why deep suffering often accompanies extremely noble lives or sainthood. But, this way of becoming habitually deep is not common, so we need another way.

The best way to access the non-individuated place in us is to consciously reach directly for it. This is an internal effort that can be made at any moment. When it’s done systematically, it’s often called “contemplation,” “meditation,” or sometimes even “prayer,” although it is known by other names. Many people even practice it instinctively, without having any name for it whatsoever.

There are countless meditation techniques, and they seem to differ from each other dramatically, but on close inspection they’re all just so many ways of accomplishing two simple things:
1) inducing us to let go of our identification with the individuated level, which largely amounts to resisting our natural tendency to attend to our sensory input (thatt’s why we close our eyes in meditation and tune out the outside world). Attending to sensory input makes us aware of the body, and this keeps us aware of some individuated characteristics, which keeps us identified with our individuated level. So, it’s harder to disconnect with the individuated level and connect with the non-individuated level when we’re attending to our senses. Meditation should thus steer us away from our senses.
2) directing our attention away from our mundane thought content, which mostly revolves around our individuated identity. Instead, we try to direct our attention towards content that characterizes the non-individuated level (e.g. recalling how it feels to be at the non-individuated level, or thinking of the caring, fulfilled, changeless identity that we enjoy at that level). To bring us to our non-individuated level, for example, a meditation technique might have us somehow visualize or merge with a gentle candle flame or a lovely flower in some mental exercise. In such an exercise, we are meant to become mentally absorbed in the qualities of that flame or flower, because these are also the qualities that we experience at our non-individuated level. Visualizing the flame or flower thus becomes a way of directing ourselves to our own non-individuated identity.

Some explicitly spiritual or religious meditation techniques may have us envision a perfect being, as with our personal conception of Jesus Christ, Mother Mary, Rama, Buddha, or any such being that we might hold in highest regard. This exercise can take us to the non-individuated level as well, because when we identify with a perfect being through feelings of love or devotion, we accordingly identify with the set of qualities that such a being implicitly represents. That set of qualities will always contain the content of our non-individuated level, so when we identify with a perfect being, we identify with our own non-individuated level. Envisioning a perfect being means, at least in part, envisioning someone who resides in the non-individuated level in themselves, and the non-individuated level is the same in all of us). When we identify with a perfectly caring, noble, contented and calm being, we also identify with the non-individuated level in ourselves, where we experience those same qualities in our own being.

After practicing such techniques for an extended period, we’ll eventually become so familiar with our non-individuated level that we can access it at will and stay there when challenges arise. I believe our challenges are increasing in frequency and intensity, so developing some comfort with a method for accessing your non-individuated identity is a very good idea now, if you haven’t already.

The main way to combat the current ethical backslide is to be deep in ourselves. To do that, meditation, prayer, etc. will provide a way of reaching the non-individuated place and will help us learn how to remain there. This is where we need to be when challenging circumstances threatened to pull us into the shallower non-individuated level, where we are less effective and happy, and where the conditions of our place in the world seem to dictate how we must feel. The current political/social environment may soon offer us more discomfort if we’re identified with the shallow level of ourselves, so we all would do well to have a technique of going deep that works for us. That way, we won’t need to be driven to our deeper identity by suffering instead, and we’ll be an example to others of how to find stability, comfort, contentedness, and sanity in a troubled world.

May we all go deep, thrive in ourselves, and heal this world…!  


A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Fate of American Democracy (Part 1-Covid Installment)

How is this even possible? How do I find myself writing about whether America, the “bastion of democracy,” can even remain a democracy much longer? 

This actually is not merely a rhetorical question, and in this article, I’m going to explain exactly how I think we have arrived at this profound historic crossroads, in which American democracy may not survive the die-out of truth and integrity that is sweeping the nation.

I’m sorry, but it really is that serious. America is obliviously speeding past the point of no return right now, so this is no time to mince words. Unfortunately, the “gentle” part of this compass needs to firm up a bit, given where we are now.

What we need now is to understand the truth, as best we can. This article is intended as a sober step in that direction. I will share a perspective that can help make sense of many social environments, including the current social environment, even though this perspective seems rare. Much of what I wish to share will be in Part 2 of this article, however, which I’ll hopefully post soon.

It’s been well over a year since I last posted, and I have so much to cover that I’m breaking this article into 2 posts (at least). Because I’ve been much less active on Facebook since last summer, my posts there don’t reach many people anymore. Yet, I haven’t taken the time to post here at all since then, so I feel the need to bring some of my posted Facebook content to this blog in a quick first installment of this article, particularly to relay what I’ve said about coronavirus on FB. I also want to quickly spit out some predictions about 2021 and beyond.

I’ll be dipping into politics more extensively in Part 2 of this article, not just to astrologically explain the political chaos that currently imperils the country, but also to more deeply explain the psychological mechanics behind why individuals are making the misguided decisions that are plunging us further down the rabbit hole. I’m going to use some very basic spirituality to explain this rampant misguided decision-making, but that will also be in the next installment of this article.

For now, I think it’s clear that covid has been used as a way to plunge the US into a chaotic tribal standoff between Democrats and Republicans. What’s not that clear is just how far we’ve plummetted, because once covid is over, the intense tribal tension will still remain.

Review of My Last Article’s Predictions
Now for the customary review of the predictions from my August 2020 post, along with a look at some subsequent Facebook posts as well…(this review is quite lengthy, because of how much time has passed)


1. In my August 10,, 2020 Facebook post about Trump, I projected, “especially in the second half of September [i.e. last Sept., 2020], he’ll severely and rashly push the limits of what’s acceptable… But I think this will quickly backfire…”

In the September 29, 2020 debate with Biden, Trump interrupted Joe Biden and the moderator, Chris Wallace 128 times—an average of more than once for every 24 seconds that they were speaking. Many Americans saw this behavior as disturbingly off-the-rails and completely “crossing the line” and developed an unfavorable view of Trump (see below charts from the week after the debate).

Trump may also have severely crossed the line by attending that debate when he knew or suspected that he was already positive for covid (his spokespeople were oddly evasive in fielding this question after his covid diagnosis became public later, and 2 of his doctors had to roll back statements that had pinned Trump’s covid case as starting before the debate). Trump announced that he had covid on Oct 2, but he had a severe case by then–necessitating oxygen and hospitalization that same day–suggesting that he may have been symptomatic around the time of the debate, less than 72 hours earlier. We may never know.

In my August 3, 2020 blog article, I also projected that Trump would “be faring much more poorly in the public eye in late Sept/early Oct. than he currently is” (i.e. faring worse than he was in Aug 2020). Then, in my August 10th Facebook post, I also forecasted, “by early/mid October, his public image and public trust will reach the lowest they’ve ever been.” 

As we saw, Trump contracted covid in very late September and was admitted into the hospital on October 2. Combined with his shocking lack of self-restraint in the September debate, this brought Trump in early October to his lowest polling numbers ever (see this additional clip from the same Oct 5th 2020 MSNBC broadcast)

Trump Polling at Historic Low in Early Oct 2020

(I also wrote on Facebook that Trump’s condition was probably much more dire than was being reported, and a recent publication just comprehensively confirmed this).

2. In my Aug 2020 blog post, I also mentioned that some astrological “ambiguity” in comparing Trump and Biden’s charts, would likely “be reflected as an ambiguity in the election results, either because the election is postponed, or because absentee ballots make the tallying very slow and controversial. This may even suggest that the courts would be involved in settling election disputes.”

We all saw how the 2020 presidential election was engulfed in controversy, and how news media outlets therefore delayed proclaiming the election outcome for an unusually long time. Over the subsequent couple months, Trump and his supporters filed over 60 lawsuits challenging the election results in various ways. The courts overwhelmingly sided against Trump’s supporters in every one of those cases, legally settling the election dispute at that time, and paving a path to Biden’s inauguration. In a lone exceptional court case, some minor provisions around voting rules were adjusted by the court, as the Trump-plaintiffs has requested, but this did nothing to advance Trump’s overall claim that the election had been “rigged” or was “fraught with fraud” as he alleged (more on this in my next post).

3. In that Aug 2020 post, I also wrote that between Thanksgiving 2020 and late February 2021, we would see the worst ravages from coronavirus, which ultimately would reveal how costly it can be to abandon truth and “sideline reality.” This online graph shows how cases started spiking in late Oct 2020, resulting in a surge from late Nov through roughly mid-February (notice the steep rise in cases in November and sharp fall in cases by the end of February):

Nov 2020-Feb 2021 Covid Case Spike

Here’s the summarizing clip from what I had to say about coronavirus in the August 2020 article:

“… it’s going to get much worse before it gets better, and we will probably be wrestling with it very heavily through next spring… Astrologically speaking, it doesn’t look like we will even enact a plan that could bring it under control until late November or early December. Moreover, whatever plan gets enacted in November/December will not be fully effective until the spring of 2021…I believe we are still going to be severely overwhelmed by [coronavirus] for about another 7-10 months [i.e until somewhere between March and June 2021]… our progress against the virus will likely come while Jupiter and Saturn are together in Capricorn (from late Nov 2020 to April 2021). I think this is when we can expect to see a vaccine and/or some other method for arresting the virus’ progress…probably slowly starting to make progress this Dec. and increasingly so all the way into May of next year.”

You can see from the same online graph and the image below that, from March to June, the case rates began to look like they were coming under control:

Covid Cases Plateau by June 2021

Interestingly, although I did not bother to mention that November 20th 2020 was the precise day when Jupiter would be entering Capricorn (the precise day when Jupiter and Saturn would begin transiting through Capricorn together), this was nevertheless the same day that Pfizer applied for emergency FDA use authorization for its vaccine. I see this as astrological evidence that the Pfizer vaccine is indeed a solution to the covid pandemic, and not the insidious medical trojan horse that so many believe it to be.

Pfizer received that emergency use authorization on December 11, and the vaccination campaigns began immediately thereafter. From then onward, it was a desperate race to see how quickly the vaccination campaign could start to bend down the spiking covid case rates.

In my experience, around the end of May, it really started to feel like we were hitting our stride with the vaccinations. American children as young as 16 years old were even made eligible for the vaccine in May, and 12-to-16-year-olds became eligible on June 1. To date, over two-thirds of the country has received at least one vaccination shot, so we are approaching herd immunity. New coronavirus case rates in June hovered around 11,000-15,000, a dramatic drop from the high of over 300,000 cases on January 8, 2021 (But, as this clip shows, the case rates have risen since June, due to the new “Delta” variant (which I will discuss in the predictions section below):

Final Covid Predictions

I didn’t focus past June 2021 in my August 2020 prediction, so I didn’t actually predict the end of the pandemic in my last article. I intended to post my final covid predictions much earlier than now, but I didn’t, unfortunately (I have been telling clients these predictions in readings over the last year, so they may have spread a bit by word of mouth).

My final predictions are that we’ll feel like the coronavirus is in the rearview mirror sometime around Christmas of this year or January 2022. At that point, I don’t think we’ll be dealing with any serious further variants. As I posted on Facebook back on April 11 of this year:

“The worldwide efforts to get covid under control have been very successful due to Saturn’s and Jupiter’s transit together through Capricorn (since Nov 20, 2020), which should get us to a pretty comfortable plateau in May (as discussed in the last articles on But there will be one more noteworthy push needed against covid this summer and fall (esp. Sept-Nov) as those 2 planets transit Capricorn together again one last time (Jupiter and Saturn won’t be in the same sign again until 2039). So, get vaccinated if you’re willing, but in any case, keep your kids well protected this spring and summer! We’re hitting a note of relief over the next month or so, but we’ve still got another 7-8 months left before we can really feel clear of the pandemic. I’m guessing that the ‘2nd push’ against covid will center around the new variants and children”

This seems to be pretty much where we are, and I still believe what I said above.

We now also know how incredibly transmissible the Delta variant is, so the science is telling us that it’s important even for vaccinated people to wear masks in public, because asymptomatic breakthrough cases among the vaccinated will actually shed viral loads that are 1000 times the viral loads shed in breakthrough cases of the original coronavirus variant (i.e. vaccinated people will spread the variant 1000 times as much as they will spread ordinary covid). Remember, typical masks primarily protect other people from you, even more than they protect you from others!

I apologize for never posting the article that I had also said I’d write before the 2020 election, specifically forecasting the election results. In the last year, it has been difficult even to write anything at all. If I had posted an election-prediction article before last November, however, I would not have felt very solid about predicting either candidate, largely because of the above-mentioned “ambiguous astrology” that seemed to indicate a messy post-election period. In other words, I wouldn’t have gotten much farther than I did in the August 2020 article, wherein I just mentioned some peripheral factors that might have been suggesting a win for Biden.

Another reason why I didn’t try harder to publish a pre-election article was that I didn’t want to publicize my concerns for just how far things might go out of hand right after the election. I’m relieved that things didn’t get more violent and tumultuous, (although I’m not sure this isn’t the relative calm before the storm, as my next post will make clear). With the recent reports about how Jeffrey Clark nearly convinced the US Justice Department to tell the Georgia State Legislature to consider giving its electoral votes to Trump rather than Biden (and how Clark had similar plans for decertifying the five other key swing states in the election), we are only just now beginning to learn how close America came to severely unraveling right after the Nov 2020 election. We narrowly averted potentially serious mayhem.

Please be your most noble selves, and pray that we continue to avoid the pitfalls that America is now clumsily tightroping across. In my next post, I’ll explain why I think we currently need those prayers so much…


True Love, Our Only Hope


It’s odd that something so central to the health and success of human life could be so widely misunderstood. If I had to guess, I would say that more than half of the world’s population associates the thought of love with at least partly negative experiences and feelings. I think it is for this reason that people don’t behave with more commitment and determination to love in their day-to-day life. People see happiness as their goal, rather than love itself. So, many people just think of love as a potential tool for achieving happiness.

This approach is based on a misunderstanding, though, because happiness is nothing more than our love of the present moment. So long as you love the present moment, you are happy. It’s that simple. But love plays other central roles in our upliftment. So long as you love your idea of the future, you’re optimistic. So long as you love peace, you are patient. So long as you love truly ethical principles, you will naturally be ethical. So long as you love friendship, you are friendly. So long as you love learning, you are curious. The list goes on…

Love fuels everything that is important to us in life, in other words. Continue reading “True Love, Our Only Hope”


2020: When Reality Calls

Reality is calling… Will America pick up?

About a month ago, I noticed that the US had less than 13% of the world’s coronavirus cases. As of today, we have over 33% of global cases. A country with only about 1/20 of the global population has about 1/3 of the global coronavirus cases, but just last October, America was rated the best prepared nation in the world to handle a pandemic-type health crisis, in a report issued by Johns Hopkins University.

What explains this odd situation, in which the world’s best prepared country appears to lag far behind all other developed countries in its pandemic-response efforts?

In this article, I’m suggesting that the answer is very simple: if you operate from an alternate reality, it’s very hard to have the effect you want to have on reality itself.

Continue reading “2020: When Reality Calls”


At the Crossroads: 2020 on the Horizon

As Americans increasingly polarize now around Trump’s impeachment, it’s no coincidence that, since the eve of the Civil War, we’ve only seen astrology a few times like the astrology that’s coming up next week. At this very moment, America is at an enormously important crossroads—the likes of which this country hasn’t faced since the Civil War Restoration Era. In the next few days, we will see the conjunction of almost every major planet in a very tight arc of less than 30° — which has only happened a few times since 1859. In addition, Saturn and Ketu’s 9-month-long conjunction in Sagittarius will be finishing up in the next month as well (and, as I’ve also said before, this Saturn-Ketu conjunction in Sagittarius hasn’t happened since just after the Civil War). This means that America is being pushed right now to face its own internal discord. Continue reading “At the Crossroads: 2020 on the Horizon”


The Crash Course of 2019

Not just with the stock market, but in other ways as well, society as a whole is on a direct course for a crash this year. However, the impending crash(es) that I’m foreseeing can also serve as a “crash course” on the importance of morality and the steep consequences of its absence. For this reason, I think we can envision the difficulties that are immediately in store for the US (and for the whole world, by extension) in a positive light.

Even more importantly, the best response to the crash(es) in question is our positivity and optimism, both before and after the fact. So, in this post I’ll describe how to transform the remaining tough stars of 2019 into deep spiritual growth and service to others.

Continue reading “The Crash Course of 2019”


Saturn and Ketu Are Making America Grate Again: Why Selflessness, Oneness and Compassion Are the Antidote to This Moment

Morality is taking a big hit from this year’s astrology, so I think it’s important to focus this post on the antidote to immorality. Although I will briefly touch on past and upcoming events in this article, I’m going to focus mostly on an important deeper message: selflessness is the antidote to immorality. Selflessness is actually just an identification with oneness, or “separatelessness.” In this article, I’m going to go pretty deep and get a bit abstract at times, in order to explain how morality, law, and social order revolve around selflessness. I’ll also show why the current astrology and the rising “cult of self” make selflessness so vital to everyone’s well-being at this historic juncture.

Continue reading “Saturn and Ketu Are Making America Grate Again: Why Selflessness, Oneness and Compassion Are the Antidote to This Moment”


Stock Market Supplement

With this article’s stock market prediction for next week, I may be going further out on a limb than I have ever gone with an astrological forecast — because, as of now (Friday night), there seems to be little if any indication that this prediction will be right. But, I think it would be disingenuous and cowardly to alter a prediction just because there was scant indication that the prediction would be correct immediately beforehand. So instead, I’m going to reiterate my prediction and explain its basis in this supplemental post.

For over two full years now, I’ve thought that there would probably be a stock market crash this year, and most probably this spring, and we’re finally now just a few days away from what I’ve seen as the most likely flashpoint for that crash. If the astrology I’m about to outline doesn’t foretell a crash, it still warrants mentioning in detail, because it is unusual and will indeed be impactful one way or another. Also, if there’s no crash this month or in early May, then there’s still a high probability that there would be a crash this June (or even October), so it wouldn’t hurt if I primed the pumps a bit early.

Continue reading “Stock Market Supplement”


Pre-Mueller Report Supplement

This post is just meant as a quick supplemental message ahead of tomorrow’s (Thursday’s) release of AG Bill Barr’s redacted Mueller Report (I know I promised to write about compassion next, and I will, when I finally post my next full article)…


Here are the points I wanted to get out tonight:


First of all, AG Barr has amply fulfilled my expectations that Mueller’s report would be stifled this spring (see my last article). Barr has obviously been the agent of the “favorable winds” that we foresaw in Trump’s astrology for this spring (see my last article).  But admittedly, I didn’t foresee Mueller’s timing completely correctly (and I was also wrong in saying that Trump would likely return from his summit in Vietnam with Kim Jung-un with seemingly successful results), but I’ll cover that in more detail in my next complete article.


Secondly, I’d be very surprised if Barr didn’t continue to stifle Mueller’s work in tomorrow’s redacted version of the Mueller Report, at least to an extent that politically protects Trump. There are several suspicious facts that put Bill Barr’s credibility deeply in question:


1) It has taken Barr nearly four weeks to redact a report that reportedly was written to be released to Congress quickly. That’s a suspiciously long time to do what should have been easy work.

2) Barr refused to say in his congressional testimony if he had discussed Mueller’s findings with the White House. That’s pretty suspicious, too. What was he hoping to hide? Well, it was reported today that Barr’s department has furnished Trump’s lawyers with information about the report’s findings in advance of its public release, enabling Trump’s legal team to have a “rebuttal” ready as soon as the Mueller report goes public (i.e. for damage control). That’s a very taboo favor for Barr to provide.

3) Barr explicitly asserted that the intelligence community spied on the Trump campaign—stoking distrust of the agency (the FBI) that began the investigation into Trump’s ties with Russia in the first place—even though Barr later walked back his assertion. A man who is very nuanced in his word choices wouldn’t just accuse the FBI in sworn congressional testimony of spying on a president by accident, or by reckless slip of the tongue. He was trying to protect Trump by fueling the counter-story to the Mueller report.

4) Barr already pulled a similar move 30 years ago, when he hid a legal opinion he wrote for George Bush Sr. from Congress’ attempts to see it. That was a kind of coverup. Barr’s written opinion was released 3 years later by Bill Clinton (more on this below).

5) Barr seems to have auditioned for the AG position by writing a very bizarrely Trump-friendly memo on the legal question of obstruction of justice (more on this below).

6) Barr didn’t recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller probe, despite his very explicit criticism of Mueller’s purported views on obstruction of justice in that memo, and despite calling Mueller’s views “asinine” in 2017.

7) Barr then cleared Trump of obstruction of justice based on the view he asserted in his memo. He also seemed to do so a bit too eagerly (it took him less than 48 hours to clear Trump on all counts, despite it taking 4 weeks to edit Mueller’s report).

8) Barr hasn’t asked the court to allow him to give Congress any grand jury information, even though it is customary and easy to do so. In fact, Barr refuses to do so.

9) Barr is bucking precedence by only offering Congress a redacted report. In similar cases, Congress received full, unredacted reports

10) Barr has been playing with words in his communications with Congress, and this suggests that he’s trying to obscure the truth. When Barr said that Mueller didn’t “establish” a case of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia, he used a word (“establish”) that would require the highest legal standard of proof to satisfy. That is, one could find tons of evidence of collusion, but still fail to “establish” collusion between the parties in question. Similarly, when Barr said that Trump wasn’t guilty of obstruction of justice, this didn’t imply that Trump had not significantly obstructed, or tried to obstruct, the justice process. Rather, it merely meant that Trump: a) hadn’t tried to destroy or compromise any specific piece of evidence, and b) Trump technically couldn’t be guilty of obstructing justice for firing James Comey and trying to fire Mueller anyway, because there’s no law against a president shutting down an investigation of himself, in Barr’s view (see next item). Barr’s word play merely obscures the truth; it doesn’t reveal the truth.  The only potential reason to obscure the truth about Mueller’s findings would be to protect Trump from those findings.

11) Bill Barr’s June 8th 2018 memorandum to Rod Rosenstein and the justice department, strikes me as a contrived facade of an argument defending: i) Trump’s firing of James Comey, and ii) Trump’s absolute right to terminate any FBI investigation he wants to terminate, regardless of motive. Barr ends up taking the position that, while it would be illegal for a president to destroy a tiny piece of evidence in an investigation, it would not be illegal for the president to destroy the entire investigation itself (by shutting it down). This should strike anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty as an absurd position to take. The only reason why the evidence of an investigation could be important to protect would be if investigations themselves are important to protect. In other words, it wouldn’t be important to protect an investigation’s evidence if it weren’t important to protect the investigation in the first place. Why would the preservation of the evidence be more important than the preservation of the investigation that the evidence serves?


Clearly, Barr just submitted his position to Trump’s justice department in order to be recognized by the president for the president-friendly position Barr propounded. Barr’s memo made it abundantly clear that he was already inclined to fight for Trump’s absolution from guilt on obstruction, and that’s precisely what he did in his 4-page letter to Congress from March 24.


Unfortunately, we don’t have Barr’s birth time, so we don’t know his ascendant. But, because Barr already pulled something similar in the Bush administration 30 years ago, I’m suspicious that Barr’s ascendant is late Sagittarius, like Mueller’s. Admittedly, the current Saturn-Ketu conjunction in late Sagittarius makes it tempting just to speculate that the bad actors on center-stage right now must be Sagittarius rising. But 30 years ago, when Barr defied Congress the last time, Saturn was in the 2nd half of Sagittarius too, just as it is now. This probably indicates that Barr’s ascendant is 17-24 degrees of Sag. If so, then with Ketu beside Saturn in Sagittarius now too, Barr is likely to repeat his previous stunt with even more deception than the first time.


The only redeeming factor weighing in Barr’s favor now, in my view, is that Rod Rosenstein has recently come to the defense of Barr’s integrity. Until now, I have trusted Rosenstein, so his defense of Barr is confusing.

One thing for sure is that we won’t see full exoneration of Trump in any legitimate rendering of the Mueller Report. Of course, that will lead to the question of how badly that lack of exoneration reflects on Trump, and that in turn will largely depend on how much damaging information is redacted by Barr. I expect that the efforts to hold back the tides of damning info on Trump will have failed by this June. June is also a time when the economy is likely to falter and affairs with Kim Jung-un are likely to escalate dramatically. I also think that Americans will be increasingly in conflict with each other at that time as well.


Finally, since Mueller issued his report on March 22nd, I should point out that Trump’s first “peak of accountability” for 2019 occurred right around March 9, about 2 weeks before Mueller finished his report. I interpret that to indicate that Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony (which he gave on February 26 & March 6) was actually part of Mueller’s big move (the big move I’d been predicting would occur by the first week of March). The media seems not to have made much news of the fact that Cohen testified on live TV that Roger Stone told Trump in advance about some Wikileaks dumps against Hillary Clinton—which is something that Trump is said (by Roger Stone himself, on Fox News) to have denied in his sworn written testimony to Mueller.


Thus, if Cohen was telling the truth, then Trump perjured himself to Mueller. My guess is that Mueller was left with just a “he-said/he-said” case for perjury, so he couldn’t make anything legally stick, but he still wanted Congress and the public to know about the issue, so he had Cohen testify accordingly. Either way, Cohen’s appearance in Mueller’s and Trump’s key astrological moment in early March means that Cohen will still play a big role in Trump’s two remaining peaks of accountability this year (June & Nov/Dec). June will be awful for Trump, and Mueller will be deeply in the fray at that point (if not even by late May). I’ll say more in my next full article about all that. I’ll also talk about truth and compassion in that post as well.


Try to stay detached from it all until then! More soon…


The Deep Dive (Reposted with Clarificatory Notes)

Some readers of the article I’m reposting below have misinterpreted my claim that around now “it will initially look like the winds are in Trump’s favor” to mean that Trump would have smooth sailing in March. So, I’m reposting this article (posted less than 24 hours ago) and including some quoted text from my January article for clarification (I’m also going to add notes about Pluto and about the week of April 22, which I omitted last night as well).

In my last post, I made it clear that Trump wouldn’t have smooth sailing in March. Rather, I said, “Trump will have so much more to respond to and answer for in February and March.” This was primarily due to Saturn’s first square to Trump’s Jupiter (his dasha lord), which peaks on  around March 9.

I then added all of the following:

“A Saturn aspect to anyone’s planetary period lord will bring that person down to earth and face-to-face with reality. But in the case of Trump, who is astrologically predisposed to operate with little regard for reality (as I described in the article, “Trump and the Astrology of Alternate Realities”), being brought ‘down to earth’ will feel like a crash landing and coming ‘face-to-face’ with reality will feel like getting hit in the face by reality.  This is especially true because Mars, by transit, will also increasingly be afflicting Trump in March (particularly in the second half of March, but see my note below about Trump’s protection from Jupiter this spring)…

“Trump does have an extended period of protection/grace from Jupiter’s aspects to his Sun and Moon, from February-May of this year, which I believe will enable him to evade the clutches of political destruction until about June (note the parallel to Mueller’s Ketu subperiod issues described below). But by then, I think that the accumulation of evidence against Trump–finally compounded by the snowballing negative effects of economic, social, and geopolitical challenges to the country that Trump clearly cannot manage–will trigger a wave of Republicans breaking ranks with Trump for the sake of the nation.

“Trump’s last moment of Jupiternian protection this year happens in late October and early November—just before his final Saturn square in late November and early December… So, I think that Jupiter transit is more likely to mirror Nixon’s Jupiternian protection of 1973, which protected Nixon from criminal prosecution but didn’t save him from having to leave office (for more detail, see my article, “Trump in Nixon’s Footsteps” from January 2018). Trump would only resign with a pardon from Pence in his pocket, so I expect that’s how his Jupiternian protection will play out.”


What I thought about saying in last night’s article, but omitted in my haste to publish before bedtime, was that the first instance of this same Jupiter transit over Trump’s Moon and opposite his Sun (happening this whole spring, but especially over the next month, starting right now), is likely to be when Trump will begin talks in earnest with Mike Pence about a pardon deal, in case future events necessitate Trump’s resignation. Here, the idea is that the foundation for the pardon is laid now, in the first instance of the Jupiter transit, and the pardon is then finalized and consecrated (not yet granted, though, until after Trump resigns) in October/November, during the second instance. This is another example of consecutive instances of the same astrology building upon each other (as with Robert Mueller’s three astrological peaks this year, mentioned below).

In last night’s article, I was trying to indicate that the other boosting and protective effects of Trump’s Jupiter transits the spring would be: 1) to provide Trump with an apparent outcome that he could tout from his current summit with Kim Jong-un, and 2) to provide Trump with a favorable wind that would temporarily shield him from the damaging substance of whatever move Robert Mueller was/is about to make. After watching some of Michael Cohen’s testimony today, it seemed to me that Mueller could actually take credit for some of the damning content of Cohen’s testimony, given that Mueller didn’t have to allow Michael Cohen to speak about the ongoing Roger Stone case. But, Mueller allowed Cohen to say that Roger Stone told Trump in advance about the WikiLeaks against Hillary Clinton—which is something that Trump is reported (including by Roger Stone himself on Fox News) to have denied in sworn written testimony to Mueller back in November (during that giant week of Mueller’s around Thanksgiving that I wrote about in my September and November articles).

In my prior article, from January 19, I also said, “Mueller will face strong threats to stifle and conceal his work,” and “Mueller will surely face strong efforts to marginalize and sideline him until the Ketu subperiod finishes” (which I now believe happens sometime in April).

Hopefully, given all that I’ve said above, readers won’t feel inclined to misinterpret the phrase “it will initially look like the winds are in Trump’s favor” as they continue reading this article. All I meant to say is that, in the midst of his first of three “peaks of accountability” that I’ve mentioned several times in the last few months, Trump will seem to be evading the clutches of doom. But, this should actually make sense, given that there are three peaks of accountability, and not just one. If he didn’t seem to evade the clutches of doom in the first peak, Trump probably wouldn’t then face a second and third peak of accountability.


Here, now, is last night’s article (including my attempt to build-in a clarificatory note from this morning):


The Deep Dive

Unlike my most recent articles, this post will be pretty brief. In essence, I want to sketch a projected outline for the stock market dive that I think is imminent. For lack of time, I will just post a simple timeline, but that should be enough to convey the important points. I also want to cover Robert Mueller’s imminent big move and how it relates to the deep dive into the Trump case that Mueller will be making throughout this year.


Comment added Feb. 27:

For any who might wonder, in light of Michael Cohen’s testimony today, this article is meant to supplement my January article, not supersede it. That is, I published “The Deep Dive” just to contextualize Robert Mueller’s next move and to give ample warning about the stock market perils this spring. I’m just not sure if I’ll have any time in March to publish another piece, so I wanted to get one out last night while I had the chance. This new article is not meant to imply that I no longer think Trump will be facing heavy accountability this March, as I said he wouldin my last article. So, my reference to Trump having “the winds in his favor”  below doesn’t mean that he won’t be facing any headwinds at the same time; it just means that, on balance, he has sufficient protection from those headwinds for a couple months. 


In comparing the upcoming astrology to the astrology of the stock market plunges of 2008, 2000, and 1929, I developed the following projection:

Late March:
In late March, when Ketu joins Saturn in late Sagittarius, I think more and more people will start to sense foreboding environmental rumblings and a building emotional uneasiness in the air.

Mid/Late-April to Early-May:
By mid/late-April, or at least by early May, those foreshadowings will turn into a large-scale stock sell off. This is partly because Mercury and Venus will both be in Pisces starting mid-April. Pisces is the most fluid sign, and Venus is the planet of cash liquidity, while Mercury is the planet of quick financial transactions. Mercury is debilitated in Pisces, but Venus is exalted in Pisces. This creates a slightly destabilizing push-pull imbalance that I believe will be the critica nudge that activates the negative effects of the Saturn-Ketu conjunction on the markets (note: in some stock crashes, Mercury and Venus have been in Virgo, where Venus is debilitated and Mercury is exalted, creating a similarly destabilizing imbalance).

Saturn and Ketu are exactly conjunct on April 30, within 24 hours of when Saturn goes retrograde (April 29) and within 24 hours of when Mars exactly aspects that Saturn-Ketu conjunction from Taurus (May 1), so it looks like most of the damage to the market will be done by the beginning of May (probably the week of April 22 will be the worst, followed by more of the same as the subsequent week begins). The residual sell-off after that juncture will probably just be driven by desperate people who by then realize that the market won’t be rebounding anytime soon (in contrast to the way the market did rebound at end of last December, when interestingly, Pluto conjuncted the exact degree where Saturn and Ketu will be conjunct in late April of this year–which also happens to be exactly opposite the degree that Pluto occupied in Gemini during the 1929 stock market crash…and, yes, I’m taking that coincidence to be predictively meaningful).

As I have noted countless times since 2017, the Saturn-Ketu conjunction occurs in Sagittarius, which is America’s ascendant, so this conjunction represents a particularly strong challenge for America. Such conjunctions (even in other signs besides Sagittarius) have caused financial downturns and “panics” many times in world history since at least the year 1800, most likely because one of the biggest astrological effects of Saturn and Ketu is to promote fear—and fear causes people to liquidate things like stocks and speculative real estate. These conjunctions have also been correlated with military conflict and aggression (the most likely times for such aggression this year, even if it’s within a single country like the US, is around April 30/May 1 and mid-June, followed by July 4 and late-Sept/Oct).

As I’ve said a few times recently, this June is a terrible month for Trump. It is also just a rough month in general, astrologically speaking. This astrology won’t help the market recover from its April/May dive—and may even drive the market lower (in other words, it may not be the right timing to buy stocks in late May or June just because the stock market tanks in April and May—there still may be more tanking yet to come after May).

It’s even likely that the markets will struggle all the way into this coming fall. Saturn and Ketu will be conjunct for the final time in late September (they’re also conjunct on July 4th), and they will still remain problematically close to each other through October. Mars squares both Saturn and Ketu in the second half of October, so the markets could well be depressed by this year’s negative astrology until about Halloween (October 31). Elsewhere I’ve said that I think Trump will be leaving office between Thanksgiving and Christmas, so it is possible that the brewing Trump ordeal itself will adversely affect the markets this fall. But, it’s also possible that the negative astrology will manifest in a way that doesn’t involve the market at that point. But at the very least, the negative astrology this fall won’t be helping the market recover from the plunge that I think is coming this spring, even if this fall’s astrology isn’t driving the markets further down then.

One way for investors to handle the above predictions is obviously just to sell stocks now and wait until November or so before buying any stocks again. The other way, if one wishes to play the risk game a little more, would be to divide one’s stock portfolio into thirds, investing 1/3 in mid to late May, another third in mid-July, and the last third around Thanksgiving. This way, one would have a chance of catching the absolute bottom of the market with at least one third of their stock portfolio. The risk, however, is that one could invest up to two-thirds of their portfolio prematurely, before stocks have reached their absolute lowest point. In any case, being out of the market this April and May is likely to save one from major losses. I’m not a financial advisor, so I’m just pointing out some possible approaches here, and I’ll leave the actual financial planning advice to the experts.

If you want to play it safe, then just avoid stocks until at least December this year.

As I posted recently on Facebook and in my last article, Robert Mueller has three big astrological peaks left this year. The first one happens in the next week or two, but the other two peaks happen in late-June/early-July and October/November. So whatever Robert Mueller does in the next two weeks is not the end of his work, even though it will be big. In fact, I think it may turn out to be some kind of a beginning, since Mueller’s three astrological peaks are represented by a single kind of astrology (Saturn over the ascendant), which suggests that these three peaks are building upon each other.

I said in my last article that I wouldn’t be surprised if Mueller gave “some kind of a final report” soon, but I also said that any such report wouldn’t reach its “finality” until late this fall, during Mueller’s thirdastrological window. So, if Mueller does make a report that looks like his finished work within the next couple weeks, he will nevertheless be dragged back into the ensuing process of unraveling that report over the rest of the year, and particularly in June/July and October/November.

Obviously, the other possibility is that his big move over the next couple weeks is not his final move, and that he still has much work to finish on his probe by this fall. Either way, Mueller will still be busy with the Trump case until nearly the end of 2019.

I think that we are likely to see some kind of combination of the above two scenarios. It may look something like this:

Over the next two weeks, Mueller makes a very big move that is meant to appear conclusive. Then, Mueller is subjected in March to a major campaign to discredit, invalidate and marginalize that move by Trump supporters (Mueller has an intense few days around March 9, which is either hard work to make his next big move then, or some heavy backlash from that big move dropping just before March 9). Because of Trump’s boosting and protective Jupiter-Moon conjunction right now, it will initially look like the winds are in Trump’s favor. Thus, his summit this week with Kim Jung-un will likely be touted widely as a success (Trump is likely to be deceptive and deluded about the results of his summit with Kim, and we won’t really be able to determine its success or failure until at least mid-May). More to the present point, AG Bill Barr is less likely to divulge all the dirt on Trump this spring, if Barr were to receive the Mueller report in the next week or two. Regardless, Trump has the astrology of major grandstanding, lying and fighting/aggression for virtually all of March.

But June will be a different story.

I’m convinced now that Mueller finishes his Ketu subperiod this spring. Since Mueller hasn’t made his big move yet, this indicates that his ascendant degree is more like 24 degrees of Sagittarius, which means that his stifling Ketu subperiod probably ends by May, and maybe even as soon as early-April (we’ve been watching for Mueller’s next big move, the timing of which will enable us to deduce his ascendant degree, which we already knew must fall within the range of 20-24 degrees of Sagittarius). So, Mueller will regain his power just as Trump’s tough June astrology begins to drag Trump down, and Mueller will be potently involved this summer in ways that are very dangerous for Trump (regardless of whether Mueller is still conducting his investigation then or has issued his final report already). Jupiter won’t be protecting or promoting Trump so much then.

It’s also worth noting here that if the economy crashes this spring, then Trump will face opposition on a whole other front as well by then (of course, many people will say that the investigation of Trump was to blame for the economic hardships).
Whatever Mueller is working on in late June and early July, it will essentially amount to collecting steam for his final push on the Trump case this fall. That final push, and not whatever Mueller is about to do now, is what I think will eventually force Trump out of the presidency by Christmas (although Mueller’s move in the next week or two will definitely send damaging shock waves in Trump’s direction, regardless, which will move Trump towards his eventual exit).

That’s all I have time to write for now, but please review my last two articles for supplemental details.

I don’t know when my next full article will be finished, but I’m committed to covering the more uplifting topic of compassion in that post. It will be nice to look into such a beautiful aspect of life at that time.


May you rise high above the illusory ego-drama until we reconnect…!