NEW EBOOK VERSION NOW AVAILABLE-SUPPORT 'LIFE CYCLES' HIT THE COVER FOR THE LINK!! "There is simply no more revolutionary book written about life..." BRAND NEW INTERACTIVE WEBSITE BY PRESSING THE COVER ABOVE FOR DETAILS! My Reviewers say :- " This book is extraordinary. Reading it has the power to change someone's life completely." "A must read for anyone who wants to understand the meaning of life." "The book puts together enough evidence to make Killion's thesis a way that will keep readers hooked." Three professional reviewers said each of these statements. Go to THE LIFE CYCLES REVOLUTION/FACEBOOK to read the interviews in full. Become a Revolutionary!

Saturday, December 29, 2012

2012-The World Did Not End Or Shift-Wake Up!

There is a scene in the first James Bond movie -Dr.No- where a character called Professor R. J. Dent opens Bond's hotel door and pumps six bullets into what he believes is Bond's sleeping body. Little did he know that Bond is waiting behind the door and with a perfect turn of sardonic phrase he says:- "That's a Smith and Wesson and you've had your six!" Then the Professor is shot and killed. Well that's what I want to do in this post about the hoo-ha surrounding the Mayan Hoax and the New Age belief in a positive global shift instead. There was never any proof, or even one shred of credible evidence, in either of them. Yet I see that an estimated 1 in 10 Americans were worried or concerned about the coming 'end of the world' and a smaller number celebrating a coming "new era".

Let's give them their six ill-timed shots and then shoot them down one-by-one shall we? After all, 2012 was the year of the big hoax. Bullet No.1 :- Astrology. This ancient culprit, with plenty of adherents, has never passed any attempt to prove 'better than chance' outcomes with personal readings, and a litany of disasters, when it comes to predictions. Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourselves on Google. It's behind the Mayan calendar, Nostradamus, who had everyone scared in the 80's, and the so-called 'dawning of the Age of Aquarius', with even less backing than its other flimsy concepts. Every time you see this in the future just shoot it down.

Bullet No.2 :- Numerology. This similarly doesn't add up. Numbers aren't, in and of themselves, magical. Personal readings can be quite ego-enhancing, but they have no foundation of proof. But once again don't believe me, Just Google "numerology, sceptics view" or the Wiki article on it. It's behind all these Bible Codes, hundreds of years worth of 'we know the actual date the world ends' etc. I actually Googled the "World will end November, 2012" and saw an article by Harold Camping (radical preacher and prophet of doom merchant) saying that the world had already ended in October, 2012. Yeah right. I was told the world would end in Nov. because of some numerology-based idea, and then that it would end on Dec. 23rd (no, not the 21st, that was the Mayans). This one was based on the 'sacred nature of the number 19'. Give me a break! It's endless and it's insidious. Put a bullet in it. Shoot it down. Don't be scared of your own shadow.

Bullet No. 3 :- Astronomical calamities. Collision with comets/hidden planets/reversal of the polar axes/solar storms etc. etc. Yes 2012 seemed to have had it all. Now I grant you, there is always some remote chance of these occurring. No-one knows when. NASA will tell you if there's anything passing close to the earth and you should know, that although NASA considers polar reversals to be relatively commonplace over a 3 billion year period, that they happen currently about every 300,000 years and take hundreds and sometimes thousands of years to complete. So, was 2012 going to be to be the year of the big axis shift? I think not. There was also a recorded solar storm event in the 1850's, that caused interruption of worldwide telegraphy services, and 2012 was the end of an 11 year solar cycle, but the leading astrophysicist in this area, says such events are expected about every 500 years or so. So, no big solar storm in 2012 either. Are you getting the picture. Put a bullet in this one too.

Bullet No. 4 :- Alien Invasion. Now I grant you there have been many unexplained sightings, including one that I saw personally over 30 years ago, but so far we don't know if they're unmanned (if that's the right word for it) probes or what. Are aliens living with us? Do they want to invade and destroy us? Here's where it starts to get silly. I think a response given to a Chinese mass sighting in 2012 about sums it up :- "there's nothing to tell us that there isn't extraterrestrial life, but so far there's nothing to tell us there is." The aliens haven't made themselves known, despite apparently being sighted for thousands of years. Will they come and destroy us in 2012? No more so than they might have done in all of recorded history. No, fascinating as it is, give it a bullet.

Bullet No. 5 :- Natural disasters. Mega-tsunamis/massive volcanic eruptions/violent storms/earthquakes etc. Of course these can and will periodically happen. We can do little to stop them. But they will not follow a predictable timetable. I'm afraid I simply can't lose sleep over them. Yes, there may be a landslide in the Canary Islands, that sends a mega-tsunami to the entire East Coast USA, but there's way more chance that it might not happen in my lifetime. That's just how it is. If someone tries to tell you they know when, don't believe them. Put a bullet in their ideas as well.

Bullet No. 6 :- World will become a better place in 2012/new astrological age/cosmic shift/higher vibrations etc. etc. Look, admittedly this is designed to be a force for good, so it may seem a bit unfair to shoot it down. But honestly, do you think a relatively small group of people, dancing till dawn around the campfire at the Mayan temple, or anywhere else, is suddenly going to make everyone a better person and the world a better place? Will it solve our economic woes, our wars, our crimes, our poverty etc., overnight? It may make for an enjoyable night for the participants, but in the morning, we'll all have to get on with adapting to our current circumstances, as best we can. No, unfortunately put your final bullet in this one too. However, make it a round-edged dum-dum bullet.

Wait a minute I can hear some voices saying :- "Isn't your 'Life Cycles' theory part of all this? Isn't this just numerology, astrology, or some other pseudo-scientific New Age twaddle?" The answer is a resounding "NO!" I only study certain years in people's lives, to see if they correlate with important change and that's it. I only have the biographical facts to work with. I don't predict the future in ordinary terms. I don't know why this happens and I know it isn't exactly science, because "correlation does not equal causality" (although I don't deal in causality) and it contains some subjective elements. However it is startlingly better than mere chance occurrence. Billions of times actually, if you only look at my many case histories. It's also brand new. There is nothing new about the so-called New Age. It's as old as the hills. I'm the newest voice you'll ever hear and I intend to create a peaceful and modest revolution in how you think of your life. Is it important? Oh yes, it's important alright, but I accept that it'll take some time before people catch up to me. Till next month :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune".

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

The Post About Nothing- 'Confluence' and the Seinfeld Show

Now I've written about Jerry before in this blog and he will be featured in the upcoming book, so you could say I've made a real example out of him. I suppose it's no surprise that I've picked the Seinfeld Show to illustrate a good high-profile example of 'Confluence' in both friendship and career terms. In 2002, Time magazine nominated the Seinfeld Show as the greatest sit-com in the history of TV. Now that's debatable, but what's not debatable is that it was a world-wide phenomenon, that makes people of just about every country and culture laugh. I think there'll always be reruns on cable.

Jerry was born 29th April,1954. I have previously demonstrated the Seinfeld Show properly began during his age 36 'Year of Revolution', which is yet another valid well-known case. It also ended when he was in his age 43 'Year of Broken Pathways' so the whole unbroken path of seven years is on display. Today, however, we're going to be looking at other cast members to see what their 'Confluence' was like to Jerry and to each other. Firstly Jason Alexander (George Castanza) was born 23rd Sept.1959, which means that he is 'Confluent' with Jerry for seven months in every second 'significant year' (ie. 7/12, 19/24, 31/36 ). The last pairing of Jason at 31 and Jerry at 36 was right in the period when the Seinfeld Show was properly launched as a mid-season replacement in early 1991. So the Seinfeld Show was born in 'Confluence'. Jerry and George are shown as the two closest buddies in the show and is a good example of 'Confluence' in both work and friendship. Does anyone have any work buddies like this?

Now let's examine Julia Louis-Dreyfuss (Elaine Benes). She was born 13th Jan.1961. This means she shared 3 1/2 months of 'Confluence' with Jerry in every second 'significant year' (ie. 12/19, 24/31, 36/43 ). This last coupling of Julia, at her important age 36 'Year of Revolution' at the same time as Jerry was in his age 43 'Year of Broken Pathways', coincides exactly with the finish of the show. So Elaine and Jerry were also work mates and good buddies and the close of the show happened at a fateful time in both their lives. Have any momentous events happened to you and your good buddies at work in times like these?

Finally let's visit the most 'out-there' member of our famous quartet, actor and comedian Michael Richards, who was born 24th July, 1949. This makes him also 'Confluent' with Jerry for nine months of every second 'significant year' (ie. 12/7 24/19 36/31 48/43). This shows again that when the show closed it was in Richards' age 48 'Year of Revolution', as well as Jerry's age 43 'Year of Broken Pathways'. In addition Richards and Louis-Dreyfuss were 'Confluent' for every 'significant year' (ie. 19/7, 24/12, 31/19, 36/24, 43/31, 48/43 ). So they would have, according to the 'Confluence' concept, a natural empathy with both each other and with Jerry. This was unlike Jason who was only 'Confluent' with Jerry.

Is your head spinning with all this? I forgive you because I realise I'm getting very detailed. Look bottom line is :- they all shared 'Confluence', which must have made working together a dream. The Seinfeld Show was properly launched in 'Confluence' and it most certainly ended in 'Confluence' with three out of the four of them in 'significant years'. What did this mean for their careers and lives? Well you'll just have to find out in the book soon. Till next month:- "May the cycles always bring you good fortune."

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Knowing Me, Knowing You, A-Ha: 'Confuence' and Abba

Hands up if you're a big Abba fan. Mine is up and I'm guessing there's quite a few more. Though they hailed from Sweden, they really belonged to the world and were very popular in Australia in the 70's. Theirs is an intricate and towards the end, quite a bitter-sweet tale, of two married couples, who got divorced and then more or less, had to finish up one of the most successful pop bands in history.

But we're not going to talk their hit songs, rather we're going to analyse their relationships, from the perspective of the totally new concept of 'Confluence' taken from the totally new theory of life known as 'Life Cycles'. We are simply going to see if they share time in their 'significant years' (ie. 7/12/19/24/31 etc.). Now you may remember that 'Confluence' applies to romance, friendship and work, or adventure. Whatever brings people close together. So, with Abba you have a mix of romance, friendship and work, but then again this is not unusual in the music business. Anyway, down to business. Just who's 'Confluent' with whom? Well I must unfortunately tell you; Agnetha and Anni-Frid and Bjorn are all 'Confluent' with each other, but poor old Benny is the odd man out here. Now how does all this translate?

I'm just going to look at how they got together and how they split up. My next book may very well be about 'Confluence', so I may get around to greater detail then. OK, so Bjorn Ulvaeus was born 25th April, 1945 and Agnetha Faltskog was born 5th. April, 1950. That means they shared 'Confluence' almost the entire year for every second 'significant year'. The first adult example of this was in the period April, 1969 to April, 1970. What happened then? Well it was stated that in May, 1969 a 19 year-old Agnetha met a 24 year-old Bjorn during the filming of a Swedish TV Special. So they met in 'Confluence' as did Jackie and JFK. Anni-Frid Lyngstad was born 15th November, 1945, so she was also 'Confluent' with both Bjorn and Agnetha. She and Agnetha had a good chemistry at the personal level, that was part of the foundation of the group. This demonstrates the friendship side of 'Confluence'. Is this another excuse to get a good-looking photo in the story? Guilty as charged.

The two couples went on holiday together to Cyprus in April 1970 and what began as singing on the beach, ended up as a live concert for UN soldiers stationed on the island. Anni-Frid and Bjorn were both 24 and Agnetha was 19, so Abba (called Festfolk in the early days) was born in 'Confluence'. My apologies to Benny, but I will catch him later. Huge world-wide success was to follow along with marriages between the two couples. However the marriage of Bjorn and Agnetha was effectively over, before Benny and Anni-Frid finally got married, and in December, 1978 they announced their divorce. They continued to record, but it was a strain. It could be posited that Agnetha did not effectively get over the break up; as many years of isolation and therapy and other shorter relationships followed, including going out with a stalker. She was the one against an Abba reunion and apparently still could not stand to be in the same room as Bjorn. This can be the negative aspect of 'Confluence' when a relationship sours. The former empathy and support makes adjustment to life without the other loved one doubly hard.

OK, we now turn the clock forward a full twelve years from singing on the beach together. It is 1981/2. What was the tipping point in Abba's decision to split? It was undoubtedly the divorce of Benny and Frida in February, 1981. He had been having an affair with TV presenter Mona Norklit, who gave birth to his son in Jan. 1982 and he already had two children by an earlier marriage. So his relationship with Frida was of a different quality to Bjorn and Agnetha.

Both parties got over the divorce quickly and moved on to successful marriages. The lack of 'Confluence' in their relationship made it easier you see. No angst and therapy here. Abba effectively ended in early 1982 when Bjorn and Frida were 36 and Agnetha was 31. So, they began and ended in 'Confluence'; in their combined Years of 'Revolution' and 'Broken Pathways'. I could do more analysis but I think that's enough to make the case.

Till next month:- "May the cycles always bring you good fortune."

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Camelot Was Built On Confluence

Now JFK and Jackie must be one of history's most famous couples. The era in which they were the President and First Lady was referred to as Camelot. The stuff of legend. When elected JFK dedicated himself to nobly fighting the common enemies of mankind:- tyranny, poverty, disease and war. But how did the Camelot tag come about? It was not till after his death that the association happened and the person who began it was his widow, Jacqueline Kennedy. By ironic co-incidence two days before the asassination, there was a ball at the White House and Camelot was played. She quoted the lines as favorites of the President and said- "There will be great Presidents again, but there will never be another Camelot".

Yes, but what has this to do with 'Confluence' I hear you ask? Well just about everything is my immodest reply! Let's do some basic checking shall we? John Fitzgerald Kennedy was born May 29, 1917 and Jacqueline Lee Bouvier was born July 28, 1929. Their birth years were twelve years apart, which you should know by now makes them 'Confluent' for 10 months out of a possible 12 in every 'Life Cycles' 'significant year' (ie. 19/24/31/36 and 43 in their case). That's the closest match I have presented to you so far. Now we all know they had relationship difficulties, due mostly to JFK's philandering and Jackie's overspending, so how exactly did their relationship work and why could it be considered so special?

In a forgotten corner of her correspondence Jackie wrote a note to a Newport friend, that in 1949 (as a College Junior) she had just met Jack Kennedy. This was in their combined 'Years of Broken Pathways' (at 19/31). So they met when 'Confluence' was present. Her description of him was:- "a charming, confident,and handsome but insistent flirt, to whom she responded with indifferent amusement, yet absolute attraction." As a blueprint for their marriage it was very close. Even though they went on separate journeys for a while, it was again in their combined 'Years of Revolution' at 24 and 36 that they married in Sept. 1953, in the society wedding of the year. So here was 'Confluence' again when they marked the transition to marriage.

Jack was quoted as saying:- "I'd known a lot of attractive women in my lifetime....but of them all there was only one I could have married...and I married her." They also had to immediately face Jack's severe back pain, caused through a war injury, that was to result in two potentially life-threatening operations not long after. 'Confluence' can sometimes mean facing mutual dramas, be they physical danger or emotional hurt. Even though they shared a close and supportive family life, his affairs took their toll. There is no more poignant quote about their relationship than this one:- "Jackie was a woman full of love and full of hurt. They were two private people, two cocoons married to each other, trying to reach into each other. I think that she felt that he, being so much older than her, that it was up to him to reach more. But he couldn't."

However things took another and more positive turn in their next period of 'Confluence'. When was this? I'd like you to actually tell me. OK, how's it done I hear some ask? Just add seven years to the last period of 'Confluence' (in 1953/4), because the 'Year of Broken Pathways', at either 31 or 43, is seven years later than their last combined 'Year of Revolution'. So that makes it August, 1960 to end May, 1961. No prizes for guessing what their combined challenge was at this point. Jackie, even though pregnant, had helped in the campaign and her knowledge of languages was beneficial. It was a narrow victory and she was one of the youngest First Ladies.

It has been written of this time that "they fell in love all over again" as they had to face both the campaign and gaining respect in the top job. It was said after a year in the White House:-"the dynamic of their relationship was changing and there was a more consistent pattern of expression of mutual love and devotion." There was also no doubt that Jack needed her comfort and advice especially after the Bay of Pigs.

I'm going to let Jackie have the last word, because nothing sums up the power of 'Confluence' like this does. Everything about their relationship was the veritable definition of what I mean by the term 'Confluence'. If your relationship has it, as well as mutual respect and admiration and the capacity to forgive, then you are truly blessed.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 Jackie said :- "If anything happens, we're all going to stay right here with you," she remembers telling her husband. "Even if there's not room in the bomb shelter in the White House. ... I just want to be with you, and I want to die with you, and the children do, too – than live without you." May the cycles always bring you good fortune.

Saturday, September 1, 2012

One Small Step-Confluence and the Moon Mission and Neil Armstrong

These titles are getting longer, but that's the way it is when you have a couple of different points to make. Neil Armstrong's recent death brought the world's focus back to the first steps taken by one man, and by logical extension all of mankind, outside of our planet on July 20th, 1969. This is forever enshrined in our history. Now what does it possibly have to do with the theme of this Lesson of posts, known as 'Confluence'? Well this serves as an ideal opportunity for me to look at the next aspect of 'Confluence' and that is having shared time with others in projects, adventures and the like. However long their duration, you are closely relating to usually a small group, for sometimes a very important purpose. There is no doubt that the Moon Mission qualifies as 'a very important purpose'. Once again, as with romance, it's not essential, in and of itself, that you be 'Confluent'; rather it is a desirable extra, that can lead to greater empathy and bonding in times of challenge or crisis.

So, this being the case let's do a little analysis of the Moon Mission team, shall we? Neil Armstrong was born August 5th, 1930 and Buzz Aldrin was born January 20th, 1930 and Michael Collins was born October 31st, 1930. What does this tell you? Yes, they were all 'Confluent' with each other for every 'significant year' in their combined lives. This would make an ideal combination for a small 'hand-picked' team. You all know how much drama they had to face, when during the landing Neil Armstrong had to take over manual control of the Lunar Module, to find a suitable place to land and they almost ran out of fuel. What you probably don't know, is that when they climbed back into the Module for their lift off, they accidentally broke the ignition switch for the ascent engine with their bulky spacesuits, and had to use part of a pen to activate the launch sequence.

Now let's go a bit further shall we? Let's set up a hypothesis for testing. You see this Moon landing did not happen when all three astronauts were in their central, mid-life, age 36 'Year of Revolution'. So what did happen, that could be considered a reasonable turning point in their careers? Well on January 27th, 1967 Apollo 1, designed to be the first lunar spaceship, caught fire on the launch pad, killing astronauts Grissom, White and Chaffee. After the inquest on April 5th, a group of 17, including obviously Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, were told:- "The guys who are going to fly the first lunar missions are the guys in this room." This was to be the new age/directions for the eventual team. However, it is arguably a little outside Aldrin's 36th year (which ended on Jan. 20th, 1967), but in terms of other aspects of 'Life Cycles' theory, it's a complete match.

However, I'm an obsessive researcher. I'm not going to just sit back and let matters be with Buzz Aldrin. The record shows that Aldrin was confirmed as a pilot on the Gemini 12 Mission (11th to 15th November, 1966). This was the last Gemini mission and his last chance to prove himself. He set a record, showing how astronauts could work outside spacecraft. The story gets more valid, because Gemini 9A (3rd to 6th June, 1966) saw Aldrin improvise an effective docking technique, when the rendezvous with the target vehicle failed. He only got this chance because, once again in a disaster: the original pilots of Gemini 9 this time, were killed when their plane crashed into the McDonnell building in St. Louis, Missouri on Feb. 28th, 1966. This was Aldrin's story and all within his age 36 'Year of Revolution'. This is now a 100%. match with the theory.

Finally let's reflect on Neil Armstrong's earlier life. At his age 24 'Year of Revolution' (Aug. 5th, 1954 to Aug. 5th, 1955), he had just graduated from Purdue University with a Bachelor of Aeronautical Engineering and decided he wanted to become an experimental research test pilot. He applied to Edwards Air Force base, but they had no open positions, so he went to Lewis Field. However, in July, Edwards made him an offer and his new career and thus his new age/direction was commenced. Finally let's try Neil's age 31, 'Year of Broken Pathways' (Aug. 5th, 1961 to Aug. 5th, 1962). Were there any obvious challenges and direction changes? On 15th March, 1962 he was named as one of six pilot-engineers, who would fly the Boeing X-20 space plane, when it got off the design board. In the months that followed he then became more and more excited about joining the NASA Apollo program. He applied in June and although a week late, his friend from Edwards slipped it into the pile without anyone noticing. He was eventually selected and thus his challenge and direction-change was begun in earnest.

Check any biographic sources you wish, but these were undoubtedly Armstrong's highlight years for change. Oh, and please tell me if you think all my carefully complied evidence is just pure luck. Because, so far, no one has and in all probability, it will remain this way. Why? Because I deal in facts and thus it has the ring of truth about it, that's why! Till next month:- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune".

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Hollywood's Golden Couples Part 3-Taylor and Burton and Confluence

I'm going to take you further on your journey into 'Confluence'. You've already learned that it is not essential for a successful relationship, but rather a desirable extra that can add another layer of empathy, during your sometimes drama-filled 'Years of Revolution' (24,36,48 etc.) or 'Years of Broken Pathway' (19.31.43 etc.). We've also learned that 'Confluence' can be applied to close friendships as well, and may help you to understand why you have a natural bond with some people and not others. I am 'Confluent' with my two closest male friends, for example. I know I've touched upon this briefly before, but today I also want to point out that 'Confluence' can mean "too much of a good thing" and that it can increase the degree of antipathy, if the relationship gets rocky. In the hands of two volatile people, it can make for fireworks and can mean "a short ride and a merry one".

Liz Taylor is the star of this show and I'm sure she'd approve me giving her top billing. Let's take a look at some of her marriages. Now, leading the pack and her greatest relationship,was Richard Burton. Liz was born on Feb. 27th, 1932 and Richard was born Richard Walter Jenkins on Nov. 10th, 1925. This means they shared 'Confluence' between Nov. 10th and Feb. 27th (3.5 mths) for every second 'significant year'. So when Richard was aged 19/31/43, Liz was aged 12/24/36. I quote from an excellent article on the Burton/Taylor relationship in the Daily Mail :- "Into this cauldron of powerful emotions stepped Burton, then aged 36 ('Year of Revolution'), when they were both cast in the epic film Cleopatra". He was the great seducer and she enjoyed getting a rise out of all her partners and getting them to show they were real men. They shared an animal magnetism, yet had tempestuous fights and are still referred to in marriage guidance books, as an example of how a marriage can go wrong, no matter how much two people love each other.

This, of course, is what an intense version of 'Confluence' can create. Not only the positively shared empathy of others, but with their shared alcohol addiction and volatile natures, it became out of control and led to frequent temper tantrums. By the time Burton was in his 48th 'Year of Revolution' in 1974, they divorced for the first time and their second marriage was brief. So no happy ever afters here. I'm now going to surprise you by telling you that Liz was, in fact, also 'Confluent' with other of her husbands, but also without success.

In her second marriage to Michael Wilding (born Jul. 23rd, 1912), she shared 'Confluence' between Feb. 27th and July 23rd for every second 'significant year' (5 months). She in fact married Michael when she was in her age 19 'Year of Broken Pathways' and they went on to have two sons and by all accounts led a comfortable, if somewhat too quiet, an existence for Liz's liking. If his career in the US had taken off things might have gone differently, but as her career soared his waned and he wanted to go back to England. In her age 24 'Year of Revolution' and when Wilding was in his age 43 'Year of Broken Pathways' she was swept off her feet by the very macho Mike Todd (with whom she was not 'Confluent'). She actually remianed good friends with Wilding after the divorce and he even worked for her and Richard Burton in the 60's. This is a good demonstration of the friendship side of 'Confluence'. Oh, and for the record Liz's age 12 'Year of Revolution' coincided with 'National Velvet', which made her a star; and at age 24 she starred in the epic film 'Giant' and began a four year year run of nominations for Best Actress Oscar; and finally at 36 it was a movie called 'Secret Ceremony' and was referred to as 'her best acting role ever'. That year also coincided with the famous Burton/Taylor diamond, but that is another story and I'll leave it to another time.

So 'Confluence' is easy to measure and can apply to both primary relationships and friendship. With two strong-willed, volatile people like Burton and Taylor it can also burn itself out in a "short ride (or shorter ride) and a merry one". With their extravagant lifestyle it is estimated Liz and Dick went through around $350 million. The lower-profile Wilding, however, shared a comfortable marriage two sons and a lifetime friendship with Liz. Have I got any of you starting to look at your own lives and the lives of others differently? Keep reading because you will soon enough. Till next month :- "May the cycles always bring you good fortune".

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Confluence in Romance and Friendship-Hollywood's Golden Couples Part 2/Tracy and Hepburn and Bogie and Bacall

What a mouthful that title is! However in this post I want to show you that the brand new concept from 'Life Cycles' known as 'Confluence' is designed to be applied to relationships generally and this can include both romance and friendship. In fact once you get the hang of it, you can start to apply it in all areas of your life. The essence is that if you share time with others in your respective 'significant years' (i.e. 7/12/19/24/31/36 etc.) then you are going through your mutual dramas together. This can produce heightened empathy, or even in some cases magnify the degree of dislike, but in most cases it is a bonding experience. Let's go back to Hollywood's golden couples and see how it worked for another very famous duo :- Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn.

Spencer Tracy was born 5th. April, 1900 and was one of the major stars of Hollywood's Golden Age. Oh yes, I couldn't help myself and when I checked out his most important, mid-life, age 36 'Year of Revolution', I once again noted :- that it corresponded with the making of the movie 'Fury', which was his first major success. It was written that :- "audiences, who just a year ago had no clear handle on him, were suddenly turning out to see him. It was a transition that was nothing short of miraculous...". Of course I would say, that 'Life Cycles' evidence is nothing short of miraculous (I often study just this one year in a person's whole life) and that one day people will turn out in droves to discover it for themselves. In terms of his personal life however, his marriage to actress Louise Treadwell was troubled, including separations and affairs with leading ladies. This all changed when he met Katherine Hepburn and they began a relationship that lasted till his death 26 years later. Katherine was born 12th May, 1907, so this means that she and Tracy were 'Confluent' for every one of his 'Years of Broken Pathways' and her 'Years of Revolution' (i.e.when he was aged 7/19/31/43/55/death at 67; she was aged birth/12/24/36/48/60). Almost all of the year included the joint period of 12th, May (her birthday) to 5th, April (his birthday) in the next year. This saw him facing a challenge and direction change, while she faced an upheaval and new direction. No more poignant illustration of this, is that in the final short period of 'Confluence' at 60/67, she did not attend his funeral out of respect for his family, as he had never divorced and tried to keep their relationship secret. She drove behind his hearse however, but once it reached it's destination, she pulled away.

Much more could be said about their relationship and I will say it in a future book devoted just to 'Confluence', but now I want to turn to the second aspect of the term. You see it applies equally to relationships in general. So you can go and check out if your best friend's 'Confluent' with you (or write to me if you can't work it out). Well let me provide the 'seamless link' to last month's post and talk about Spencer Tracy and Humphrey Bogart. Bogart was born 25th. December, 1899, so that means that he and Spencer were 'Confluent' for every combined 'significant year' from 5th, April to 25th, December. They were thrown together in the earliest stages of their Hollywood careers with the making of the movie 'Up The River' in 1930. Bogart liked and admired Tracy and they became good friends and drinking buddies. It was Tracy who gave him the nickname of 'Bogie'. It was in their combined age 36 'Years of Revolution' that they first made their names in the 'big league'. In fact, if they were alive today, it would have been called a 'bromance'. Now let's not stop there for all four of the two couples were 'Confluent' i.e. Bogie and Bacall and Tracy and Hepburn. Did they 'hit it off'? The answer is 'definitely yes'. Bogie and Hepburn made the movie 'The African Queen' together in 1951 and the two couples were also great friends and shared a similarity in their clandestine relationships (at least in the early days of Bogart and Bacall).

I'll leave you to contemplate all this at your leisure as you've never read anything like this before. I hope you are enjoying 'a walk down memory lane' as I am too and we'll tackle another one of the most famous Hollywood couples in the next post. Till then :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune".

Saturday, June 9, 2012

Hollywood's Golden Copules-Part One/Bogie and Bacall and Confluence

If you had to compile a list of Hollywood's greatest couples then surely Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall would be at the top or very close to it. They embody the glamour and the romance of the era, as well as being a very successful partnership. I'm going to explore this highly public union in terms of my newly introduced concept of 'Confluence'. If you remember from last month it is, on the surface, a simple notion of sharing time in people's respective 'significant years' (ie. 19/24/31/36 etc. ) together. It is said to have the possibllity of creating greater empathy, because both partners are going through their mutual dramas together. This is most easily evidenced by people born within 12 months of each other, or some multiple of 12 years. In the case of Bogart and Bacall it was within 24 years of each other. Bogie was born Dec. 25th, 1899 and Lauren was born Betty Joan Perske on Sept. 16th, 1924. This means the period of Sept.16th to Dec.25th (around 3.5 months) of every 'significant year' they were both alive for, was shared as 'Confluence'.

Bogart began his career on the stage in Broadway. His personal life included three early and unhappy marriages and many brief affairs, mostly with actresses. One biography claimed he slept with around 1,000 women including Bette Davis, Jean Harlow, Marlene Deitrich and Ingrid Bergman. This was until he met the love of his life:- the 19 year old inexperienced actress, Lauren Bacall, whom he met when she was auditioning for a part in the movie 'To Have and To Have Not'. They would have first met also when Bogart was 43, so both were experiencing the direction-altering events that typically come along during a 'Year of Broken Pathways':- only this time it was magnified, because they were undergoing them together.

Let's take the then, Betty Bacall, first. When she was 19, the wife of independent film director Howard Hawks (whose nickname was 'Slim':- the name of Bacall's character in the movie) noticed her on the cover of Harper's Bazaar. She showed the photo to her husband, who soon signed her for the role. He changed her name to Lauren Bacall and changed her style and voice:- adopting a lower, sexier tone, that made it one of the most distinctive voices in Hollywood. During screen tests to minimise her nervousness, she pressed her chin against her chest and tilted her eyes upward. This created "The Look", which became Bacall's trademark. On it's own this is highly relevant evidence for fateful direction-change in her 'Year of Broken Pathways' (no different to the making of Edith Piaf, or the making of Lady Gaga at exactly the same age).

However Humphrey Bogart had his own dramas during his 'Year of Broken Pathways' at 43. His third marriage to Mayo Methot had been a disaster, while their alcoholism and fighting, including gunplay, were legendary. They were known as the "battling Bogarts", she was called "Sluggy" and their home (the scene of much of their fighting, including stabbing Bogart in the shoulder) was known as "Sluggy Hollow". He was ready for a change and wanted peace, not war. This was fertile ground to be introduced to a nice Jewish girl, 24 years his junior, and not a big drinker. It was said that Bogart fell in love with the role of "Slim" played by Bacall and that he wanted her to always play this role for him. But whatever the ideosyncracies were, their relationship worked until his death in 1957.

Oh yes, and just by the way, at 36, when Bogart was in his most important mid-life 'Year of Revolution' he had his acknowledged major film breakthrough role in 'The Petrified Forest' with his acting being called "brilliant", "compelling" and "superb". Just another 'Life Cycles' recitation of:- 'The Truth and The Evidence'. Remember you don't have to believe in it, you just have to read it. The facts are the facts. Till next month, when I go further into Hollywood in Part 2 :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune".

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Introducing Confluence-Let's Start With Brad and Angie

We're going to introduce the new cycle of twelve posts with a brand new term:-'Confluence'. Now this is not a brand new word and it usually refers to when two bodies of water (often rivers) join together to form one larger and stronger body of water. The new current will increase as the water volume increases. In the same way when 'Confluence' is used in 'Life Cycles' terms it refers to two or more people whose lives are conjoined and who are sharing time in their 'significant years' together. This is most easily displayed in primary relationships. So, if you and your partner were born within twelve months of each other or a multiple of twelve or seven then you share some 'Confluence'. For example if you were born twelve years apart then part of every 'significant year' (ie. 12/19/24/31/36 etc.) would see you sharing dramas and challenges. If I was born in say Jan.1980 and you were born in Jan.1987, then in every second 'significant year' we would be 'Confluent'. Don't worry I'll explain more of this later. It can potentially mean greater empathy and understanding of what each other is experiencing.

Let's start with one of the world's most high-profile couples:- Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Brad was born 18th.Dec.1963 and is 48 (in a 'Year of Revolution') right now. Angie was born 4th.Jun.1975 and is 36 and in her important mid-life 'Year of Revolution' as we speak. What is unfolding? Firstly Angie has had a big year already with her directorial debut with 'In The Land of Blood and Honey', along with being named a Special Envoy for the UN on refugees. She has just been made an Honorary citizen of Sarajevo. But together they have the biggest announcement of all:- they are engaged to be married. This was in spite of Brad's support of Gay marriage rights before his own wedding. It has also been noted that because of Angie he has gotten a lot more involved with hunanitarian work.

It should also be noted that Brad was 'Confluent' with Jennifer Aniston but only for every second 'significant year'. The whole 'Mr.& Mrs. Smith' break up happened when Jen was 36 and now that she is 43 and in her next 'significant year' there has been an announcement of a marriage to be held in Greece. So it seems more 'Confluence' is better in this case, although I should point out that you do not need it for a successful relationship, but it does add an extra element.

I will be exploring more of the world's greatest couples and this unique phenomenon, so keep tuned. Until then:- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune".

Monday, April 2, 2012

The After Party-The Third Lesson

If we reviewed the year you'd see we have a very wide range of people. What happens if I get some of my guests back for a bit of a party. They're all quite different, so who can tell?
'The Donald' Trump (DT):- Well Neil what have you cooked up here? I don't just show up without a few VIP's around. Hey isn't that Freddie Laker over there? Long time, no see Freddie.
Laker (FL) Yes Donald, my old son, last time was at a party at my place, I even flew you over. Say what's that young guy doing in his tennis gear?
Novak Djokovic (ND)Did anyone here see my Wimbledon win? Does anyone here play tennis?
Sachin Tendulkar (ST) No, I don't play tennis much, cricket's more my game, but I am a fan and I loved that Wimbledon win of yours Novak. Hello, is there a person of Asiatic appearance in the corner by himself.
Mr. Arafinto (Mr.A) Oh. I hoped no-one would notice me. I am so ashamed of what I did in Parliament, I have to atone.
Rebekah Brooks (RB) I'm not into atoning myself, but I do feel down in the dumps when they arrested me again.
Steve Jobs (SJ) Hey you people need to see beyond your troubles and develop a proper vision for the future. Isn't that right Cadel?
Cadel Evans (CE) Yes Steve, when I lost that Tour De France as favourite, I just had to pick myself up and train even harder.
Prince William (PW) to Catherine (C) Say who is that woman in the fancy headdress in the corner with the two slaves fanning her?
(C) It's not Cleopatra dear, is it?
Queen Cleopatra (QC) Why are not these other guests greeting me and bowing down after all I am the new Isis.
(DT)Oh, cut the crap! You looked better when Liz Taylor played you. Say I could use you on Celebrity Apprentice. Maybe we should talk.
(FL) You're all invited on the maiden flight of my new airline. Free booze all the way.
(RB) I'm not sure who to schmooze up to the most, but Freddie is the most fun
(QC) Niloth, what are talking about when they say 'a flight'. This is only for birds is it not?
Etc. etc...............

This could go on all night and probably will. The other big question. however is "What is the Third Lesson"? What I spent the last twelve posts on? Still not sure? Well it's called the Life Chart. This is where I gather all the evidence I reasonably have on the person's significant years. What are these? They are the 'Years of Revolution' (12/24/36/48 etc) and the 'Years of Broken Pathway' (7/19/31/43 etc.) and get them to tell a story of the linked themes that run throughout people's lives. Life Cycles is based totally on real events and has an uncanny knack of picking out all the right turning points. We're soon to be off on another adventure, but until then :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune".

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The 'Little Master' Unveiled-The Life Chart of Sachin Tendulkar

Hello India! I want to present this Life Chart to all my fellow Indian bloggers,with whom I've had such good correspondence. I also know that in India cricket is a religion and with a current population of 1.22 billion, it means that in the sub-continent cricket is huge. Australian batting legend (and current Test player) Mike Hussey said a couple of years ago :- "God. I've met him. He bats number four for India". This could only mean one player- the greatest run-scorer in the history of the game- Sachin Tendulkar.

Now I imagine many of my readers will never have heard of a Life Chart before, so to put it simply:- I examine a very small number of years in anyone's life to look for significant events. These are called 'Years of Revolution' (ie. ages 12,24 and 36) where upheavals and new eras commence and 'Years of Broken Pathways' (ie. ages 7,19 and 31) where challenges and new directions happen. I subscribe to the idea that we live our lives in 12 year cycles, that are of a similar broad nature. This is a totally new concept, but I imagine it may have some synchronicity to Eastern spiritualism, even though it is not a religion and is based solely on biographical evidence.

With regard to Sachin's illustrious career I am first going to visit the age of 19 . This is his first adult 'Life Cycles' significant year. Does it represent a challenge and a direction change? He already had begun his Test career at 16, so what does 19 hold? Any summary of his most important innings will include the magnificent counter-attacking 114 at the fast-paced WACA in the Fifth Test versus Australia (I apologise to non-cricket fans must sound like a foreign language). India had lost the series and were well behind, when Tendulkar first made a big impression on the Aussies and announced his arrival on the international stage, with this fighting innings. We knew who he was after this. Fast bowler Merv Hughes quipped to Captain Allan Border :- "This little prick's going to make more runs than you AB" (which he did). He now had a reputation to defend and build on. This was his Broken Pathway.

Next we'll travel to his age 24 'Year of Revolution' (23rd April, 1997 to 23rd. April, 1998). Was he now at the height of his sporting powers, as so many other elite athletes are? Was he like Novak Djokovic, Tiger Woods or David Beckham? His biography clearly says that it was the beginning of a period at the top of the batting world, culminating in the Australian tour of India in early 1998. He not only scored three consecutive centuries but terrorised our spin bowlers (including Shane Warne) by charging down the pitch. He also took a five wicket haul in an ODI (One Day International) to steal victory. He also won the Rajiv Ghandi Khel Ratna (India's highest honour in Sports and literally 'Sport's Gem'). Is this enough for you?

Actually there is more that happened in this important year. We look for fateful moments in a person's life that shape the future. Sachin had taken over the captaincy in 1996 with great expectations that his own game would be imbued in other players. However results were disappointing and the prior captain, Azharuddin, took back the role in Sachin's 'Year of Revolution' saying he did not think:- "it was in the small man's destiny." This ultimately proved to be prophetic, as Sachin's second term as captain didn't work out well either and he resigned, with Ganguly taking over in 2000. He also refused an offer in 2007 after Dravid resigned.

Let's now travel to his age 31 'Year of Broken Pathways' (April, 2004 to April, 2005). Was there again a challenge and direction-altering moment? Was it again related to his reputation? I have set up the hypothesis just as any academic researcher would. I only have a window of 12 months to operate in. This is how a 'Life Chart' works. Now who knows their cricket? What am I going to discuss next? Of course it is his tennis elbow injury, which sidelined him for most of this fateful year. I read an article that said he pleaded with God every single day to be able to keep on batting. It could have ended his career and of course reshaped his reputation. He tried everything in the second half of 2004, including delicate surgery and shock treatment. His prayers (along with good doctors and physios), however were answered at the end of the year, when he returned with a double ton against Bangladesh.

It is also true of the challenge set up by the 'Year of Broken Pathway', that it takes several years to resolve. Was this so with Sachin? Yes, he had a poor 2007 World Cup in the West Indies and it was not till he was aged 34, that he fully recovered with Man of The Series Awards and leading run scorer against South Africa, England and Australia. So now this leads me to his last significant year; his age 36 'Year of Revolution' (April, 2009 to April, 2010). How was his new era ushered in? Would it feature retirement and new directions, or would he further consolidate his career as the best batsman ever after Don Bradman (Australian batsman with an average around twice everyone else's). In 2009 he had a string of injuries and mishaps and rested himself from some matches. Although towards the end he amassed 17,000 ODI runs, with a memorable 175 off just 141 against Australia, it was still not enough to win the match. His follow-up form against Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in the Tests was solid, but his defining moment was still to come. It was a statement making innings that says:- "I'm here as good as ever".

In the next 2 Test series against South Africa he made hundreds in both, but then in the subsequent ODI's he became the first batsman to score a double century with a very memorable 200 not out. This stands as one of his greatest innings. There is no doubt he was still at the top of his game, just as he was in his last age 24 'Year of Revolution'. He, of course, did not stop and followed this up in the next year by being part of the 2011 World Cup winning team.

This is the essence of 'The Little Master'. He combines the themes of sporting greatness along with the capacity to rise to the challenge of establishing and defending his fighting reputation. This is derived from analysing what happened in his adult 'Years of Revolution' (ie. a peak of greatness at 24 and 36) and 'Years of Broken Pathway' (ie. rising to the challenge at 19 and 31). They are linked themes that run through his life. What's more with 'Life Cycles' you don't have to believe in fate or destiny, you just have to study the biographical facts.

However, if you are inclined towards destiny, then you should know that there is a timetable I have uncovered. Please read all my other copious evidence if you want more proof. Until next month:- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune".

Saturday, January 14, 2012

What's Wrong With The Self Development Industry?

We're not going to feature any one single life in this post, rather we'll look at what's good and bad about the Self Development industry and how it compares to 'Life Cycles'. I read estimates of the annual value of this industry as being around $10 billion, so there is no doubt it is big business. There are undoubtedly many sincere and professionally trained practitioners, who are providing a service to those who feel the need for extra motivation. But there are two major criticisms about the books written and products offered.

The first major area of concern is the attempt to link their findings to science and thus the badge of 'unquestioned reputation'. Be wary of any use of the term 'quantum'. I was drawn to this, because at the side of one of my ezine articles on 'Will the World End in Dec. 2012?' was an advert for the latest product called 'Quantum Jumping'. They have taken a pretended association with the great scientific minds of our time and suggested that you can have anything your heart desires by simply 'jumping into a new you in a parallel universe'. This is just an extension of the attempt by 'The Law of Attraction' brigade to suggest there is 'proof' of their notion of thoughts creating outcomes, by attempting to link it to quantum mechanics.

People often simply don't want to hear the unvarnished truth. Life is difficult. Growth takes time, sacrifice, courage and maturity. All of us can expect both breakthroughs and setbacks and sometimes long periods inbetween. We are not all blessed with outstanding natural abilities, that mean we are destined to be discovered and lauded. However every life has meaning and every path will lead to outcomes. I recently saw an interview, where it showed the same people who bought these books/courses etc., were buying more of them at 12 to 18 month intervals. That is because they create a 'feel good' atmosphere, but do not substantially change behaviour. This leads me to my second criticism of the Self Development industry. They have no professional standards.

Anyone can write a book in this genre with a degree of application. You simply read ten books and then combine what you consider are the best sections or ideas. Most of the ideas however, feature some form of instant gratification. Riches and fame and romantic success will all be yours in a very short time, provided you follow/purchase the system. It's not vastly different from the snake-oil salesmen of the old west. Even people within the industry are critical of it's lack of standards. It relies on a natural preference for taking the 'easy path' rather than working hard to reach your goals.

Why do I do this rant? I may even cause some offence by it, although others have said exactly the same thing. Aren't I just some funny extension of this industry myself? I do it for the simple reason of comparison. 'Life Cycles' is based on reasoned analysis of what actually happened in people's lives. It is not science, because there can always be some subjectivity in the interpretation and I do selectively look at certain years, however it offers the kind of proof none of these other systems can. It is 1. New Knowledge and 2. Self Knowledge, but I make no attempt to suggest you can get rich quick or acquire skills overnight.

Let's look together at the evidence presented to you in both blogs in the year 2011. Rosa Parks/James Blake (ages 31/43 almost identical turning points). Napoleon at 43 (in 1812). George VI at 31/43. Donald Trump at 36/43. Prince William and Catherine at 19/24. Mr. Arafinto at 43/48/55. Novak Djokovic at 7/12/19/24 and Cleopatra at 19/24/31/36. Steve Jobs at 19/24/31/36, Rebekah Brooks at 31/43, Cadel Evans at 7/12/19/24/31 and Freddie Laker at 24/31/36/43/48/55/60. Miranda Kerr/Megan Gale/Heidi Klum at 24. Kristian Anderson at 36. Carl Williams/Matthew Johnson at 36. Todd Carney/Anthony Watts/Greg Bird/Katie Milligan/Brett Stewart at 24. Carl Stefanovic/Asher Keddie at 36. Clyde/Kerry and Jamie Packer at 36. Sarah Mamalai/Sharon Cohrs at 36. Judith Lucy at 36/43. Jodie Gordon at 24. Liz Hurley at 36. Demi Moore at 48. John Farnham/John Williamson at 36. David Beckham/Tiger Woods at 24 and during 36.

That's 70 detailed case history examples taken from real life and sometimes quite spontaneously, because they were in the spotlight (like Djokovic, Jobs, Arafinto, Prince William and Catherine and others). I try to be as objective as possible in charting the important turning points in these years, but let's say you are a hard marker and only let me have half these examples. What's the odds of randomly picking 35 consecutive major turning points in this way? If I take the crude measure of a 1 out of 6 chance each time (because I say we have two significant years in every twelve), then it's 1,719,070,800,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. That's 1,719 trillion, trillion to 1.

If you're not familiar with my blogs and my posts I invite you to read all my work and judge for yourself. Yet I come to you in 'brown paper wrapping', I don't make false promises and there is nothing else out there like this. The revolution starts this year and as I have been quoted as saying:- "You can't be a quiet revolutionary". Till we meet again next month; may the cycles always bring you good fortune.