When Dick Became Tricky - The Life Cycles Of Richard Milhous Nixon - Part 1

How Nixon Earned His Nickname

This is a kind of warm-up linked post considering next year's election. It also happens to feature just about the most controversial President in US history. The only President to resign while in office. The man whose pursuit of power ultimately destroyed him. But we won't be going to Watergate just yet. You see there's a fair bit of his earlier story, which will help fill you in on this complex character. We'll just touch on some highlights and of course that's my cue to say we'll be having a look at his Life Cycles significant years (ie. 24/31/36/43 etc.). They'll tell you just about all you'll need to know, as they seem to do time after time after time. That's why I call what I do :- Psycho-Biography With a Twist

Richard Milhous Nixon was born 9th Jan. 1913 and despite coming from a poor family managed to succeed through hard work. He was noted as a strong debater even at school. We'll begin by going to his first adult age 24 Year of Revolution (Jan 1937-Jan 1938). In June he graduated with a Law degree from Duke University. He wanted to join the FBI, but received no response and so joined a law firm near his family home in Whttier, California. Years later he was told he had, in fact, been hired by the FBI, but the appointment was cancelled soon after due to budget cuts. So Nixon showed his determination to be successful and established his adult career identity as a lawyer. Something else happened to him in early Jan. 1938, that was to alter the course of his life. He met his future wife (and first lady) Pat at an amateur theatrical group and he described it as  :- "a case of love at first sight".

Let's now wind the clock forward for 7 years (as we always do with Life Cycles) and ask what events in the year Jan. 1945 to Jan. 1946 (ie. his age 31 Year of Broken Pathways according to Life Cycles theory) happened to alter his direction and present him with a new and challenging environment? It's the same question for everyone each time. How easy is that? No messing around with complex charts, or peering into a crystal ball or studying a detailed biography. That my system works at all is a complete mystery to me. OK, here we are and of course this time (somewhat conveniently) coincides with the end of WWII. Nixon had served in the Navy reaching the rank of Lieutenant Commander and received a commendation for duty (although he saw no actual combat). In Jan. 1945 he got transferred to the Bureau of Aeronautics Office in Philadelphia and helped negotiate termination of war contracts.

The 1946 Campaign Flyer For Nixon

However, at the same time, back in Whittier, Republicans from California's 12th congressional district were seeking a consensus candidate to run against Democratic Congressman Jerry Voorhis. After failure to attract a high-profile person, local Bank Manager Herman Perry suggested Nixon (a family friend). Can you see the element of fate/destiny at work here? When Nixon heard this news he accepted straight away and on Jan 1st. 1946, he began a year of intensive campaigning. Was this a challenge and uphill struggle? You betcha! So, what did young Richard Nixon do? He attacked his opponent. He contended Voorhis had been ineffective as a Congressman and (more importantly) that he had endorsed a group linked to Communists (which meant he must also have radical views). This was actually not correct, as Voorhis was a staunch anti-communist and once voted by the press corps as "the most honest congressman'- but the mud stuck. Nixon won the election and this set in train a legacy of 'winning at any cost'. Not yet labelled "Tricky", but well on his way.

Nixon's main collaborator was Senator Joseph McCarthy, as both men seized on anti-communist attacks and investigations, being both a national duty and a way to enhance their own political careers. Nixon became a prime mover in the well-known House Un-American Activities Committee, which was established in 1945. Let's now go to his central and often life and career-defining age 36 Year of Revolution (Jan.1949-Jan.1950). Did this universal formula work for him? This period saw the culmination of the anti-communist trial of Alger Hiss for the serious charge of espionage (reduced to perjury because the statute of limitations period had run out).

You've probably never heard of this guy, but he's the guy who most helped to make the names and careers of Nixon and McCarthy. Mind you he wasn't your typical shadowy spy. He was a well educated and highly connected government official from an old American family. He was a member of the US delegation at the historic Yalta Conference (where the US/UK/USSR discussed the division of Europe) and a personal friend of Secretary of State Dean Acheson. He denied the charges till his death many years later, in spite of being found guilty in Jan. 1950 and spending several years in prison. It was Nixon who led the investigation in 1948, even though the House Un-American Activities Committee was under fire from both Democrat President Harry Truman and the press for investigating so eminent a man. It was Nixon who eventually saw him face two trials for perjury in 1949 (the first had a hung jury). Please see the side column for fascinating details of this very high-profile case and yet more evidence of how it fits with Life Cycles Theory.

Nixon With The Hiss Headline

So here you have the central defining age 36 Year of Revolution for Nixon producing national publicity and providing him with the springboard to move to the Senate in 1950. This was seen as a major victory by the Republicans and very important in reviving their hopes of a comeback at the 1952 elections. It also helped to make Joseph McCarthy virtually untouchable. The story, however, does not end here. It really begins. It was stated that in 1949 (when he was 36) Nixon began to consider running for the Senate against Democrat Sheridan Downey and entered the race in Nov. 1949. His opponent, however, wasn't to be Downey, he was beaten in the primaries by Helen Gahagan Douglas in Mar.1950. As part of a no-holds-barred type campaign Nixon distributed a "Pink Sheet" suggesting she voted the same and therefore must hold the same views as a New York congressman -Vito Marcantonio - believed by many to be a communist. Nixon won by 20 percentage points, but during the campaign he began to be called "Tricky Dick" by his opponents. They'd woken up to him a little late you see.

Wasn't he doing more or less exactly what worked for him back when he entered political life at 31 with Voorhis? What had also worked for him spectacularly well with the Alger Hiss trial? Gain as much traction as you can with an anti-communist slur, regardless of whether it's true. It was a fearful time in world history and just perfect for those who could ruthlessly exploit it. And Richard Nixon was ruthless. Gahagan Douglas developed a life-long dislike (probably putting it mildly) for Nixon as a result of her ignominious defeat. She was born  25th Nov. 1900 so she was strongly (almost 11/12 months) Confluent with Nixon. This is a modern day re-run of the Hannibal Barca/Scipio Africanus saga. They were each others worst nightmares.

Douglas, a former actress turned politician, was warned not to contest Downey's seat and split the party vote. When Downey withdrew he endorsed Nixon, along with congressman John F. Kennedy (can you believe this!). Downey's preferred replacement, Manchester Boddy (owner of the Los Angeles Daily News), called her "the pink lady" and that she was "pink right down to her underwear". Nixon only had to latch onto this rhetoric. It was all handed to him on a plate wasn't it? At 36, he became a right-wing hero with the Hiss trial and then his path to the Senate and the Vice-Presidency two years later followed naturally. Like so many other cases I study his age 36 Year of Revolution was indeed "the ushering in of his Golden Age." Douglas left politics, but campaigned for Kennedy in the 1960 election and for McGovern in 1972 and spoke out during Watergate. She would, no doubt, have cheered when Nixon finally quit as President.

The Election Sticker For 1956

We're finally going to explore what happened next to 'Tricky' Dick after his journey of seven years of forward momentum on to his age 43 Year of Broken Pathways (Jan. 1956-Jan. 1957). Life Cycles theory is simply mathematical in nature and so simple a child could grasp it. Of course, much did happen to now Vice President Nixon in these busy years, and I am being deliberately selective, but the real question is and remains :- "Did the 'so-called' Year of Broken Pathways contain any measurable changes to Nixon's career?" In other words - what did happen? This period marks a pivotal time in Nixon's ultimate quest for the presidency - the question of President Dwight David 'Ike' Eisenhower's health, which would determine whether he ran for a second term at the 1956 elections. He had already suffered a massive heart attack in Sept. 1955 and not returned to office until Nov. There was much speculation at the time of who would get the Republican nomination and many names were put forward (including Eisenhower's brother Milton). Nixon, of course, was one, but he was seen as a polarising figure and disliked even by some sections of the GOP.

On 8th Jan. 1956 (so when Nixon was 43) Eisenhower held a press conference and White House correspondents said by a 5-1 margin he would not run. However, after a positive medical test in Feb., he said in early Mar. that he would run. Then his health problems continued and in June he suffered from a blocked intestine and had to undergo major surgery. Once again, at least half a dozen replacements were nominated (including Nixon). Once again, he recovered and decided to run. This time, however, was different for 'Tricky' Dick. There was a serious move made against Nixon as a running mate, because it was felt he was too controversial, too divisive. Another candidate was put forward and they thought even Ike would support a dump-Nixon move, because he had suggested to Nixon, that he consider a cabinet position, as this would be a better launching pad for a 1960 presidential candidacy.

Ike and Nixon Re-Elected

Nixon was furious at this and would have none of it. He thought it would mean the end of his political career. He prevailed at the time and in the end even the replacement candidate, Christian Herter, ended up nominating Nixon for the vice presidency. This major hiccup caused Nixon to reflect and to alter his style to a smoother, more unctuous and careful approach. For instance, he stopped criticising foreign aid and became a card carrying member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. His inner ruthless ambition for power was undimmed, but he learned the hard way how to gather some popularity both within and outside of his own party. This was his own personal "Broken Pathway moment". He put 'Tricky' Dick in his back pocket and became 'Slick, almost Bland' Dick for the 1956 election. But we all know it wasn't destined to last..............

So now we are almost at the end of Part 1, let me summarise the evidence for Life Cycles theory applying to Richard Milhous Nixon. Note, we have covered a range of public record material on events when he was aged 24/31/36/43. What have we found?

1. At 24, Nixon tries to join the FBI, but becomes a lawyer instead. In early Jan., meets and falls in love with future wife Pat.
2. At 31, he enters politics in early Jan., because he is a surprise nomination in a California district. Beats incumbent Frank Voorhis through false allegations.
3. At 36, makes his name in right-wing politics, in mid-Jan., when he gets a conviction of top Government official Alger Hiss for  perjury. Leads on to winning Senate seat by another slur campaign and then the Vice Presidency.
4. At 43, almost dropped as running mate for President Eisenhower's second term. Learns to soften his image. 

Can you see the pattern here? These are all distinct direction-setting or altering years. Lawyer, politician, national profile over Hiss trial (then Senator) and finally a crisis over a second term as Vice President. Can you also see how his underlying character was unchanged throughout? His steely determination, his ruthless streak. Also, can you see how I have highlighted the fact (and underlined the text mentioning it) that the very end of three of these Life Cycles significant years contains an important event, just before his following birthday ie. in early (and middle for Hiss) Jan. This is a phenomenon I have observed before and one that I study. The same was true in the profile I did on President Obama. His critical dates all seemed to be at the one time of year as well. I have called this simply:- the alignment of the dates. Like every other new term I use, it is completely self-explanatory. It also adds an extra dimension to my research:-

"What if your life path was not only determined in particular by events in certain recurring cyclical years, but even down to the same time of year?" 

In my own life, I have observed this weird correlation right down to the same day! It's all in The Life Cycles Revolution. Check it out sometime. You'll never get any of this anywhere else!

                                                       END PART 1

Life Cycles And Hannibal Barca and Scipio Africanus - Part Two

We last left our two mortal enemies waging their own separate campaigns to adapt to the new status quo following on from the momentous Battle of Cannae. Hannibal was slowly becoming a diminished presence outside of Rome, as the Romans did not engage him in a full-scale war.  He wanted to make a statement, that he could still get the Roman army to meet him in battle and turn things around. Meanwhile Scipio was gaining kudos by becoming a Quaestor (junior Magistrate), but upsetting some Senators because of his young age. They were both headstrong and ambitious you see and neither had fulfilled his true potential. So, we have now journeyed to the time of their shared lives when they were both in, what I call, important adult Years of Revolution (according to Life Cycles theory the first year of every 12 year cycle can be marked by the beginning of a new age/direction set to last for many years). Scipio became 24 most probably in the latter part of 212 BC and included a large part of 211 BC, whilst Hannibal was in his very important age of 36 at the same time.

It is interesting that even though they didn't meet in battle (that would come much later), their lives were even more inextricably linked by separate events, which determined the shape of their whole futures. Firstly let's take Hannibal. He had been using the ancient (and second most important after Rome) city of Capua (16 miles north of modern day Naples) as his winter headquarters. It has been reported that his men had become used to a lifestyle of soft living there and weren't as tough as they used to be.  Whenever they were in the countryside for a period, Roman tactics were to march up to the vicinity of the city walls, wherein Hannibal was alerted and came straight back to defend home base. He decided that he needed a tactic that would copy this with Rome.  He would instead lay a siege causing the Roman army outside Capua to come back to defend it and so meet them in the open.  

These two scenarios played out in the exact period of study (212 BC-211 BC).  In 212 BC the recent attempt by the Roman forces to march on Capua resulted in the two groups meeting in the Battle of Herdonia. This resulted in the loss of 16,000 Roman soldiers, so it was back to the drawing boards for the Roman generals. In the summer of 211 BC Hannibal was busy in the south of Italia and so the Romans were ready to try again, banking on taking Capua before he could return. Hannibal feared that if he approached Capua the Romans would simply withdraw, as they had done numerous times, only to return and lay siege when he had left. He tried to break this pattern by marching on Rome itself, laying siege and hoping the Roman army would return so he could meet them in open battle and win. Once again, things were in the balance during this time - the very time that most probably correlates with his being in his age 36 Year of Revolution (late 212 BC-late 211 BC). 

Roman Forces At The Battle Of Capua 

So he camped outside the Roman city walls for the first and only time in his life. This, however, was not on his terms. Not a true siege, for he lacked effective weapons and supplies for a lengthy encounter and planned it only as a feint. Not nearly the same as it would have been after the devastating Battle of Cannae, with the Roman army decimated. In 216 BC, with or without siege weapons, he would have created wholesale panic and exerted much psychological pressure. Now some five years later it was reported that Roman Patricians, far from being frightened, were openly selling the land he occupied for real estate purposes. Can you imagine this? They were making a mockery of him. One thing the last five years had taught them and that was resolve and patience to wait this warrior out. Word of his ineffective siege got back to the besiegers of Capua and they simply continued. On hearing this Hannibal had to retreat back to the south and Capua fell to the Roman forces soon after (shown in the drawing above).

So, for Hannibal, his central and often life and career-defining age of 36, did not contain a magnificent victory, only a humiliating defeat and with it the loss of much prestige throughout the whole region. Cities that had defected to him after Cannae, were switching back their allegiance to Rome. He no longer had Capua as his home base and the Romans knew that from this point onwards, they had the upper hand. He would now be the one pursued, rather than the pursuer. This unfortunate turn of events was to set in train a pattern of repetition throughout the rest of his life. He would continue to be persecuted by Rome, in one form or another, till his death many years later.

Now let's switch to Scipio. His age 24 Year of Revolution contained a major setback, that preceded a bold endeavour, which defined the rest of his life. His was the veritable definition of Life Cycles Theory in action. Firstly tragedy struck his family in 211 BC when both his father Publius Scipio and his uncle Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus were killed in battle in Hispania (Spain) by Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal. At the election of a new Proconsul, for a new army to be sent to Spain, only one candidate put himself forward to the Senate for consideration - Scipio. The reason for this was because it was regarded as a virtual death sentence by others, but Scipio wanted to avenge his family's honour even more than the risks incurred. Again, in spite of his youth, his demeanour and enthusiastic language made so great an impression that he was elected unanimously. So, his crowning achievement was to become a General and a Proconsul and to go after Hannibal's family who were responsible for the death's of his father and uncle. This was to be stage one in his personal war with Hannibal. Not a showdown just yet, more a platform to begin his ultimate quest.

Scipio Was Elected Proconsul and General of the Roman Army in Hispania

Can you see for yourselves how Scipio and Hannibal were so similar they were almost the same? Hannibal's father died in battle at Rome's hands, giving him a lifelong mission to avenge this and now Scipio's father had died in battle at Carthage's hands, giving him his lifelong quest. Now to another well recorded moment early in his campaign in Hispania. Because of arguments between the commanders of the three Carthage armies in the region, Scipio was able to make a surprise landing near Carthago Nova (New Carthage), the Carthaginian headquarters, and take it by surprise (still within 211 BC). So already, just at the beginning of his campaign, the tide was turning in his favour. Because of his humanitarian acts towards his prisoners, it caused the locals to perceive Romans as their liberators not their oppressors.

This is exemplified by his release of a beautiful woman who was betrothed to a Celtiberian Chieftain named Allucius. She was returned to him along with the money that had been offered by her parents to ransom her. Allucius soon married her and, in turn, brought his tribe over to support the Roman armies. This event was the subject of a famous painting by Nicholas Poussin called The Continence Of Scipio. It is shown to you below. 

The Continence Of Scipio

Let's summarise now and show the pivotal, but quite opposite, nature of events in each man's shared Year of Revolution. 

At 36 Hannibal suffered a humiliating defeat and loss of prestige within enemy territory (ie. Italia). This led on to other losses and banishments.

At 24 Scipio lost his father in battle, but got himself promoted to Proconsul in Spain and had a surprise victory. This was to lead on to a final victory and further promotion and fame. The victory resulted in gaining much prestige in enemy territory by his humanitarian acts. 

The essence of this is that for a second time each man had his fate sealed decisively in their shared Year of Revolution. I would still contend that though they did not meet in battle, each man was sealing the mutual fate of the other in separate arenas. Hannibal's loss of Capua meant the tables were turned and he was now a hunted man in Italia. There must have been a sense of unease, that one day in the not too distant future, he would have to decide whether to return to Carthage. Meanwhile Scipio's surprise capture of Carthaginian headquarters in Spain, meant that he was now on his way to drive them back to Africa and then go after his real target - Hannibal.

I'm done now and I won't use this main blog for any further parts of this fascinating story, but if you leave me a positive comment I will do a final post on this. I can almost hear some readers saying :- "...but you can't leave it at this! I want to know how it ended!" Of course you do and it involved a history-making meeting between these two great warriors. What did they have to say to each other? How did the final battle proceed? Yes, it's all a wonderful true story, so stay tuned.

Next month I am going to do a unique analysis of one of the most controversial world leaders of the 20th. Century. I am going to use Life Cycles Theory to delve into some unusual aspects of this very well known event and include a Life Cycles Families element, as well as another 'sworn enemies' encounter. I know you will enjoy it. Till then :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune".

Life Cycles and Hannibal Barca and Scipio Africanus - Part One

PART ONE - HANNIBAL AND SCIPIO AFRICANUS 

This is a 2-part post featuring one of the most famous duos in all of military and ancient history:- Hannibal Barca and his nemesis Scipio Africanus. It will be told in terms of two of the most celebrated father-son pairings as well:- Hannibal and his father Hamilcar along with Scipio Africanus and his father Pubilius Cornelius Scipio. As always, there is an added twist, because I will be using the unique Life Cycles method of analysis to focus on events in just some of their adult significant years (ie.19/24/31/36). Is this a theoretical challenge? Yes, it is by far the most complex set of interrelationships I have attempted. Why did I decide to try to link these two mortal enemies? The answer as always with me is Life Cycles. That's why I call what I do:- 'psycho-biography with a twist'.

So without further ado I'll explain how this link came about. I have previously featured the life of Hannibal Barca in both Books ONE and TWO, such is my fascination. I planned to just feature him and his illustrious father Hamilcar (you must admit they are very impressive-sounding names). Then I accidentally noticed a coincidence, that both Hannibal and Scipio Africanus are said to have died in the same year (bit like I did with Omar Sharif and Faten Hamama). I also remembered a key fact from a BBC documentary on Hannibal (I have watched several and read extensively). When Hannibal laid siege to Rome in his only failed attempt, Scipio was said to have been 24 and my best approximation is that this took place in Hannibal's 36th year. Then it hit me! These two warriors were Confluent and that means their mutual fates were sealed together.

HANNIBAL'S OATH WITH HIS FATHER

Now let's wind back the clock to when a young Hannibal begged his father to let him accompany him on his campaign in modern-day Spain. His father is reported to have held him close to a burning fire and make him swear to:- "never be a friend of Rome". Hamilcar had experienced the bitterness of defeat by Rome in the First Punic War and set about raising an army to strike back, which he did successfully. However, most probably in 228 BC, he died in battle. When surrounded by enemy troops he was said to have thrown himself into the Jucar River in Spain. His unyielding hatred of Rome, however, was already deep in Hannibal's veins. This traumatic moment is very likely to have occurred within young Hannibal's age 19 Year of Broken Pathways.

Let's now move forward to the first year of shared destiny for Hannibal and Scipio :- the year 216 BC, which was when Hannibal was in his age 31 Year of Broken Pathways and a 12 years-younger Scipio was only in his age 19 Year of Broken Pathways. This was the year of the momentous Battle of Cannae - Rome's most catastrophic defeat and one of the bloodiest battles in all of human history. Much had happened to Hannibal by this time. He had become, like his father, a military commander and when the leader of the Carthaginian army, his brother-in-law Hasdrubal the Fair, was assassinated in 221 BC, Hannibal took over. I'll mention a quote by the Roman historian Livy, regarding his appointment at the time :-

"No sooner had he arrived...the old soldiers fancied they saw Hamilcar in his youth given back to them; the same bright look; the same fire in his eye, the same trick of countenance and features. Never was one and the same spirit more skillful to meet opposition, to obey, or to command..."

So Hannibal was his father incarnate. He was going to be the one who finished his father's business by attacking and destroying Rome itself, in what is known as the Second Punic War. Let's switch now to the upbringing of young Scipio. He was born into one of Rome's most distinguished families, with a record of service in the highest offices stretching back to the early Roman Republic. His father was a noted military commander and Scipio joined him in the army at a young age, before the start of the Second Punic War. Unbelievably he was said to have made a similar vow to his father:- "that he would continue the struggle against Carthage all his life."

A YOUNG SCIPIO WHO SAVED HIS FATHER'S LIFE

In short he was Patrician (ie. a member of Rome's ruling class) to his bootstraps and was also the son of a famed military father, who had vowed lifelong vengeance on his sworn enemy. I mean, never a greater similarity of two monumental rivals. Let's now pick up the threads of when Hannibal crossed the alps and arrived in what is modern northern Italy. Scipio's father led the force sent to intercept him. He was surprised to even be fighting Hannibal in this region, because he expected to face the Carthage army in Iberia (Spain). During what would become the start of the Second Punic War, at the Battle of Trebia in 218 BC, a young Scipio saved his father's life when he was wounded. He bravely rode back into the field of battle to rescue him, even though he was surrounded by enemy horsemen. So there is another shared pivotal moment  between father and son a young age for both men, which was a paramount feature of their lives, as well as their daring and bravery in battle. The overall Battle of Trebia, however, was decisively won by the Carthage army, echoing Hamilcar being surrounded by enemy troops, resulting in his death at his own hand.

More successful battles followed for Hannibal until the 'big kahuna' in the spring of 216 BC, when he seized the main supply depot for Rome at Cannae. The Romans dispatched a huge force in response, but by using brilliant tactics, he managed to totally defeat the much larger Roman army, resulting in estimates of 50-70,000 Romans killed or taken prisoner. It was Rome's most humiliating defeat and it took place in one day. This also affected young Scipio directly, as his future father-in-law died in the battle. Somehow though, Scipio survived this total bloodbath, as well as all the prior battles and of course this only intensified his desire to prevail over the Carthage army.

One of the most often debated topics between both academics and history buffs in general is whether Hannibal should have taken advantage of Rome's weakened state and immediately laid siege to the city. The consensus seems to be that he wouldn't have been successful (he lacked effective siege weapons, his soldiers were exhausted and not ready to attack and he was expecting a Roman surrender anyway), but there are always those (like myself), who think it possible even without directly launching an attack ie. just by massing an impressive army outside the walls to instill fear and panic. If successful this would have forever changed European history. Hannibal decided to go against the advice of his head of cavalry (which was to attack Rome) and took the second city of Capua (modern day Naples, who along with some other regional areas had defected to him) as a base instead. He then continued to ravage the countryside relatively unchecked for the next several years, as the Roman tactics were not to face him in a major battle. Instead they used guerrilla tactics of skirmishes and pursuing a 'scorched earth' policy (ie. burning farms and any sources of food), resulting in a strategic stalemate.

THE MONUMENTAL BATTLE OF CANNAE GAVE HANNIBAL A BRILLIANT TACTICAL VICTORY 

If you are well versed in Roman history you may know some or all of this. However here's what you probably don't know!

" According to legend, after the disastrous Battle of Cannae, and on hearing that Lucius Caecilius Metellus and other politicians were at the point of surrendering Rome to Hannibal and the Carthaginians, Scipio and his supporters stormed into the meeting, and at sword-point he forced all present to swear that they would continue in faithful service to Rome. Fortunately, the Roman Senate was of like mind and refused to entertain thoughts of peace, despite the great losses Rome had taken in the war: approximately one-fifth of the men of military age had died within a few years of Hannibal's invasion."

So it may have boiled down to a simple matter of a battle of wills in the end. If this was true (and I suspect it might be), then Hannibal never even knew what an opportunity he missed. His bitter rival however, 19 year-old Scipio (think about his nerve for his age), knew exactly what Hannibal could potentially do and sealed his fate with his daring actions. Never a better illustration of Confluence between close rivals, in this case resulting in their mutual fates being settled in their combined Years of Broken Pathway.

Curiously I am reminded of this very phenomenon, when I did an extensive analysis on the similarities between bitter rivals Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington (born in the same year), as well as political rivals Abraham Lincoln and General John J Hardin (born in the same year. See my post http://lifecycles-by-neil-killion.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/abraham-lincoln-confluence-and-age-36.html ). But this is by the way.

Hannibal and Scipio, both had their challenges made manifest in their combined Year of Broken Pathways, so let's conclude Part One by asking what did the ensuing years of their uphill journeys have to hold? The theory says that your path gets altered and it usually involves some type of personal challenge that requires effort on your part to come to terms with. These challenges can be both positive and negative, depending on how things went beforehand. The lives of Scipio and Hannibal perfectly illustrate this point, which is just so textbook Life Cycles, I'll now spell it out.

1. Firstly for Hannibal it involved several years of frustration, following his momentous victory at Cannae. He never faced the Roman military in a major battle again and he was stymied by their failure to surrender and their brush warfare tactics. It caused one commentator to say :- "Hannibal you know how to gain a victory, but you do not know how to use one." His army were progressively weakened by all this and he pursued relatively small campaigns.

2. Secondly for young Scipio it meant several years of struggle to obtain the post of quaestor (the most junior magistrate role, but there was an age requirement of being 25 years). It was regarded as the first step in the so-called "cursus honorum" (path of honour). In 213 BC, in spite of opposition by the tribunes he was elected unopposed, because of his record of bravery and patriotism.

Now this builds up to their next combined significant year when Scipio would be at his age 24 Year of Revolution at the same time as Hannibal was at his important and often career-defining age 36 Year of Revolution. What is going to happen to them both that will markedly affect their futures? That will, in a sense again mutually "seal their fates"? Can you see the wonderful intricacy of Life Cycles, as it builds all this from only three basic theoretical concepts? Strange but true, I am the first and only person in all of history to make these observations and you, dear reader, are among the first to see them unveiled.

But enough of this self-congratulatory rhetoric. You really want to know what happens next don't you? Well I promise to deliver you a great story, but you'll have to read it in Part Two, because I'm done now........


                                                           END PART ONE




NB. My birth data is based on a consensus of historians, who place Hannibal's year of birth as either 248 or 247 BC. They also place Scipio's year of birth as 236 or 235 BC. There was almost certainly a degree of overlap between the periods covering their first 12 months of life, which provides the basis of Confluence. Judging by the incredible series of coincidences between their lives, I suspect this period of overlap to have be a good proportion of a total possible period of 12 months (ie. if they were born on the same day).

Omar Sharif and Faten Hamama and Life Cycles

Omar and Faten - They Had It All And Lost It Within 7 Years

Recently the much-loved famous Hollywood actor and world-class bridge player, Omar Sharif, died at the age of 83 from Alzheimer's Disease. This is something I only became aware of through a Facebook comment, because I was travelling and not keeping up with the news. So this whole tribute article is an excellent example of a blind analysis. I didn't select the subject and I had no prior knowledge of his life - save the usual Lawrence of Arabia and Dr. Zhivago movies and the fact he was a very good bridge player. I might add that neither movie lines up exactly with a Life Cycles significant year, so I have to really examine what did happen in some of his main adult significant years (like 24/31/36 etc.) to see what I get.

One of the chief pieces of information came to me quite late and that is the death of his one and only wife Faten Hamama, at the same age, earlier this year. He has described her as :- "his one true love". Although they officially divorced in 1974, they had been living apart for around a decade beforehand. Omar was not just separated from his 'one true love' by his own actions either, he was also separated from his beloved country of birth, Egypt, for most of his life (although he did spend some of his time there when his son settled in 2003). He largely lived out of hotels in wherever his latest movie was being shot. He was an international upmarket nomad if you will and has expressed his loneliness at this existence many times. Others have also commented that his roles often portray him as a "stranger in a strange land", so art imitates life again.

Let's examine both Omar (or Michel Chalhoub, which was his birth name) and Faten together, because their lives were inextricably linked, whether they spent most of it apart or not. Michel Chalhoub was born 10th April, 1932 in Alexandria, to a Melkite Greek Catholic family of Lebanese descent (so he was a mixture of influences even at birth). Faten Hamama was born 27th May, 1931 to a lower-class Muslim family in Mansoura, Egypt, though she claimed to have been born in better circumstances in Cairo. She was determined to become an actress when just a child and indeed appeared in her first movie role at the age of 8, becoming known as "Egypt's Shirley Temple". In Life Cycles terms they were Confluent for around 6 weeks (not really a large time, but then again it applied in every significant year).

They met in 1954 when Michel was selected for a part in the movie that would launch his career - Struggle In The Valley. By then Faten was a big star in Egypt and though she was married at the time, she agreed to share an on-screen kiss with Michel, who became known as Omar Sharif. This spilled over into real life and they fell in love and she managed to initiate an amicable divorce from her older husband. She was a very strong, independent woman, who later championed the rights of Muslim women to do this. Omar, in turn, agreed to convert to Islam. This was in 1955, so within Faten's age 24 Year of Revolution (May 1955 to May 1956). This was a moment of personal triumph for her, one of defying conventions. At this time she would have "had it all".

Then in Omar's age 24 Year of Revolution (April 1956 to April 1957) Faten became pregnant and their only child Tarek was born in March, 1957. Thus Omar is also Confluent with his only son for around the same amount of time as he is with his wife. At this time he would have "had it all" :- he had married Egypt's biggest star and they were called the Arab film industry's equivalent of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. They co-starred in movies and in this year they made a thriller Dark Waters (poster is shown above), which has been rated in one poll as the best Egyptian movie ever made. He now had a son and a very bright future. We all know, that with the benefit of hindsight, he was to become an even bigger star in Hollywood, but that was almost by default and it was 7 years away. Once again the unbroken journey of forward momentum for 7 years is displayed.

Now we move on to Faten's age 31 Year of Broken Pathways (May 1962 to May 1963). Just before this time she had starred in The River of Love (1961), her last movie with Sharif and the end of their on-screen partnership. Times were also changing for the worse in Egypt from Faten's point of view. There was a new initiative by President Nasser in 1962, to introduce Soviet-style socialism and this would come to include travel restrictions outside of Egypt. It would impact on her freedom to attend international film festivals and also meant a repression of Muslim women to initiate divorce. However these were insignificant issues compared to Omar's sudden and unexpected offer of a leading role in the movie Lawrence of Arabia. Director David Lean ostensibly picked out his photo, because his liquid brown eyes would contrast well against Peter O'Toole's very blue eyes. Already a major star in the Middle East he was cast as Lawrence's guide, but after many other stars pulled out or were unsuitable, he was offered the starring role as Sherif Ali. Lawrence was shot during 1962 and released at the end of Dec.

Omar's age 31 Year of Broken Pathways (April 1963 to April 1964) really coincided with the enormous critical and box office success of Lawrence. He was to go on to receive an Academy Award nomination and two Golden Globe Awards. He became, in this year, literally the toast of Hollywood as a new actor and offers began to roll in, along with a hoard of female admirers of this fascinating Arabian Sheik-style leading man. He was also affected by the Government-imposed travel restrictions and to a much larger extent than Faten was. He couldn't really work in Hollywood and visit Egypt in between and Faten wanted to continue her career in the Egyptian film industry, so they basically came adrift at this point.

I'm going to interject here and ask the obvious :- "Could things have turned out differently or was this separation inevitable?" Omar is on the record as saying :- " Maybe if I hadn't made Lawrence I would have gone on living in Cairo and had five children and lots of grandchildren" Well yes, maybe this is so. Also, maybe if Faten was not quite so independent-minded she could have followed him to Hollywood and worked at carving out her own international career. Also Omar was by his own admission drawn to the girls like a bee to honey and now there were ample leading ladies only too willing to share an on-screen (and off-screen as well) kiss with him, starting in 1964 with Ingrid Bergman in the movie The Yellow Rolls Royce. He soon admitted as much to an enquiring Faten saying that he :- "meets all these beautiful girls, actresses and other women.....and that he might fall in love with one of them at any moment". Well you've got to give him points for honesty I guess, but the marriage survived in name only until a divorce in 1974.

Once again we're left with the residual friendship side on Confluence and a life-long bond through their son (who had a small part in Zhivago). Now on to their own defining age 36 Years of Revolution, that had a similar theme - to live life by your own standards regardless of what government policy or religious convention might have to say. Firstly to Faten (May 1967 to May 1968). In the national setback following the Six Day War with Israel in June, 1967, Faten was asked to co-operate with Egyptian Intelligence Services and she refused resulting in her maintaining a self-imposed exile from her country. Despite President Nasser trying to get her to return and calling her a "national treasure"; she stayed away till the year following his death in 1971. She divided her time between London and Beirut. Isn't this ironic?! I mean if it would have happened a couple of years earlier then maybe Omar would have seen sense and returned to her.

She also championed the rights of Muslim women to initiate divorce and other related human rights causes, resulting some 7 years later in her breakthrough movie - I Need A Solution. From his side however, Omar's age 36 Year of Revolution (April 1968 to April 1969), was all about defying religious convention and causing a storm of criticism in the Arab world. It should be noted that he always felt deeply about religious and racial equality and harmony, not unnaturally since he was an ethnic Lebanese Christian, who had become a Muslim and in turn held no enmity towards Jewish people.

In 1968 the movie Funny Girl was released. He co-starred with Barbara Streisand and it attracted much negative publicity as she was Jewish and he kissed her on-screen (and fell in love with her off-screen as shown above). The Egyptian Government immediately condemned the film and it was banned in many Arab countries. Omar himself was unrepentant saying that he saw nothing wrong with any of it. He was as much a rebel against orthodoxy as Faten was, albeit in a different way. However, this placed a wedge firmly between him and his homeland. His own form of patriotic redemption was shown through his other great love - the game of bridge. He was a world class player and in 1968, even though he was living in France, he wanted to take part in the Bridge Olympiad as Captain of the Egyptian team. The Government refused to sponsor the team in France, so Sharif put up his own money to pay for their accommodation and living expenses. It was his personal contribution to his country, as well as a high point in his bridge career.

Omar has often echoed sentiments that argue for an inclusive view of religious differences and this was in turn imparted to his son Tarek, who in 1983, whilst doing a Uni course in Toronto, had a relationship with a Jewish fellow student, as a result of which Omar's grandson - Omar Sharif Jr.- was born. Omar Jr. was not only named after his famous grandfather, but he has become an actor and has recently admitted publicly that he is gay as well as half-Jewish (although this is just a label as you can't really be half of a religion).

Can you see how Omar and Faten were very similar in their attitudes and outlook? Had Omar not 'fallen for the lure of a Hollywood career' they could well have had five children and many grandchildren and fought their progressive causes together. Had Omar not lived a lonely life abroad (even though outwardly glamorous), they could have remained close friends in Egypt, no matter if they divorced or not. Omar did not find another satisfying long term relationship and Faten remained his 'one true love'. I hope you enjoyed this tribute article, which became by accident another case of the influence of Confluence in Families. Till next month :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune."

The GOOGLE Story - Life Cycles and the Wojcicki Family

THE GOOGLE BUNCH

(sung to the tune of “The Brady Bunch”)


"This is a story, about a man called Larry,

Good buddy Sergey and a little com-pan-y,

Known as Google, which began in a garage,

Owned by Susan of the Wo-jit-ski{sic} fam-il-y,

Then others, flocked to join them,

And you knew it would be much more than a hunch,

That one day they’d become successful,

And that’s how they all became the Google Bunch"

This is the most ambitious series of linked posts I have yet attempted. I will link all 3 blogs to tell The GOOGLE Story, from a Life Cycles - Families perspective. This main blog will tell the story of Susan Wojcicki (pronounced Wo-jit-ski) and the massive contribution she made to the fledgling Google company. My SECOND BLOG will then tell the story of her sister Anne and her marriage to Sergey Brin and her own interesting career. Thus the theme of these two posts will be that they were sisters, within the high-achieving Wojcicki family.

Then my THIRD BLOG will feature a Life Cycles Confluence analysis of founders Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Susan and Anne. Does this sound ambitious? It sure does to me. (N.B. If the three terms used in core Life Cycles theory - Year of Revolution/Year of Broken Pathways and Confluence sound like a foreign language to you please read THIS.)

THE SUSAN WOJCICKI STORY

Did you know that Google actually began life in a garage in Menlo Park in September 1998. This was thanks to a very fortuitous set of circumstances for the house owner - one Susan Wojcicki and her husband Dennis Troper. She was born 5th July, 1968 into a family of academics from the Silicon Valley area and she planned on joining them as she graduated with honours in History and Literature from Harvard in 1990.

When she was in her age 24 Year of Revolution (Jul.1992-Jul.1993) she completed a Masters in Science and Economics and has reflected that the newly discovered breakthrough called the World Wide Web (see my post on Tim Berners-Lee for evidence of the time period match) opened her eyes to a whole new range of possibilities :- "No one in my family had ever worked in business beforehand.....I realized, oh, I can make things, I can sell things, I can have influence. And then when the Internet came out, you could reach people all over the world. I mean, that was just amazing." This was also around the period when she worked for a time at Educational software firm MagicQuest, which resulted in her getting bitten by the tech bug.

She went on to complete an MBA in 1998 and had also worked for top consulting firm Bain & Co. and at this time for Intel in a junior role. She and Dennis had just purchased a new home in Menlo Park (which she describes as humble) and were expecting their first child when they rented their garage to two Stanford students for $1,700 a month to help with the mortgage.

She tells of a parade of venture capitalists and journalists, who made their way to the fledgling company through Susan's living room and eating late night pizzas and M&M's with Sergey and Larry, where they talked of how their technology will change the world. Within a year (in other words at or very close to her age 31 Year of Broken Pathways (Jul.1999-Jul.2000)) she joined them to become the company's first marketing manager and Google employee No.16.

Talk about a veritable year of challenge (which is the definition of a Broken Pathways Year). She began with an office, but no staff and no budget :- "We had no marketing budget, but I was supposed to market the company -- by myself," she recalled. "It was a little overwhelming." However Susan was not to go on to be called 'The Most Important Person in Advertising' for nothing. Let's add another verse to 'the Brady Bunch' theme music..........

"Then Susan said to Larry and Sergey,

You’ve created all this wonderful geeky stuff,

But if I can, make us a decent profit,

Then we can go public and make a bundle soon enough….."

Her first task was finding office space for Google after moving out of the garage. Her early duties included refining the original Google logo designed by Brin and the overall spare look of the Google home page. She came up with the first of Google's "doodles." In addition she also contributed to the development of 'Google Images' and 'Google Books'. However her next big idea really hit pay dirt. In 2003, she came up with her multimillion-dollar brainstorm: AdSense.

AdSense is an extension of a program Google had successfully launched in 2002, called AdWords. AdWords offers advertisers sponsored search ads, those little text ads that appear near search results. Advertisers have to pay only if the ads get clicked. Wojcicki's suggestion:-"Why not offer these same ads all over the Web, on blogs and websites? Entice Web 'publishers' to participate by giving them a portion of the ad revenue. In other words, every time someone clicks on an ad on your site, you get a check."

Both these initiatives were a runaway smash from the first and it has been estimated that in the early days they produced nearly all (as much as 98%) of Google's income. Was it a mere co-incidence that later in 2003 Sergey and Larry didn't proceed with an offer to merge with Microsoft, but that in August, 2004 they went public with around 20 million shares at $85.00 each giving a market capitalisation of $23 billion?

Even today Adwords/Adsense is the second leading profit generator for the company. Do you wonder why she is called 'The Most Important Person at Google You've Never Heard Of.' But insiders know her worth without question. She has well and truly earned her title as 'The Most Important Person In Advertising'. All this coming from a surprisingly low key and pleasant person, who has been raising four children throughout this whole era, and places motherhood on an equal footing with her career.

But what was next for Susan? You see in Life Cycles terms she would soon be at her all important and often career-defining age 36 Year of Revolution (Jul.2005-Jul.2006). You know (or at least you do now) that this is still the most important concept in Life Cycles Theory. What began it all. So, yet again I put myself to the test. Now I am a 'bush poet' by nature, so I'm going to add another verse to my 'Brady Bunch' song

"Then Larry and Sergey said to Susan,

Use your magic on this video thing we have,

But when she said, no buy You Tube for a bundle,

Others thought the deal could go completely bad…."

In early 2005 Google launched a new product known as Google Videos with modest goals of letting users watch material from a library of archived TV content. This was managed by John Piscitello. However, recognising that this new approach was languishing, Larry and Sergey decided towards the end of the year (in other words right smack in the middle of Susan's 36th year) to bring in their chief revenue producer to see what she could do with this new initiative. Almost from the start Susan says she was easily outgunned by a rival start-up company known as You Tube :- "I saw some of their numbers and I just realized how much bigger they were than we were and even if it doesn't look good for you at that moment, you have to make the decision that it's not really about you but what's the right long-term thing for the company."

So she decided to champion the acquisition of her main rival in what was to prove to be Google's most expensive foray at the time. The founders wanted $1.65 billion as well as continued involvement and reasonable autonomy. The deal was negotiated in Sept. 2006, so just outside her age 36 year by 2 months, but it would be safe to say that nearly all of the spadework had been completed within her 36th year. You know, Life Cycles is not science, but on this occasion it's awfully close. Has this breakthrough acquisition gone on to define much of Susan's career? Well I'm told, when I read bio-summary articles, that she is known for Google and You Tube. However since 2006 You Tube has become her personal baby, and she has gone on to become senior Vice President and now Head of You Tube in 2014. I think there's little room for debate about her age 36 Year of Revolution coming to define her career and life.

Another element that I study in Life Cycles is what I call a 'period of controversy' that tends to happen before the breakthrough moment. Did controversy play a part in this acquisition? Well many considered this a risky move by Google. Though Susan presented the financial model justifying this huge acquisition; You Tube was not making money at the time and was initially a huge money loser. There were also legal concerns, regarding piracy issues over some of the content, and it landed Google in a brutal legal fight with Viacom (who were also rivals over the purchase).

They charged that Google had knowingly benefited from pirated content. But slowly with a $3.1 billion purchase of DoubleClick in 2007 and other acquisitions, such as the AdMob mobile ad network, it has has begun to pay dividends. In 2013 analysts estimated You Tube's revenue at $5.6 billion. Typical of Susan though she currently feels that You Tube, her baby, can do even better. This is demonstrated by a comment from the CEO of Maker Studios (who work with You Tube to create improved content and revenue) :- "I don't think anything was broken, but I assume even Google and YouTube believe it can monetize better. This is something Susan is very focused on."

I can relate to this almost ceaseless quest for improvement. This constant analysis of how well we're doing. With my Life Cycles Research I am constantly trying to challenge myself with more complex and inter-related case examples and The GOOGLE Story is currently cutting-edge for me. I hope you enjoyed this whether you're into IT or not. Of course if you are, then it should hold extra interest. For some odd reason, I find myself drawn to the present and future orientation of the IT world. I have now analysed people such as Alan Turing, Bill Gates, Tim Berners-Lee, Steve Jobs and now the Google pioneers. Of course I regard myself as belonging to the future more than the present and I suppose this accounts for it. Till next month :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune."

On The Money - Life Cycles and Floyd Mayweather Jn. and Sen.

Welcome to the second post in the Life Cycles and Families series. This time it's a father and son, who are not just part of one of the greatest boxing dynasties ever, but they are also a household name in the community generally. I think it'd be safe to say if you haven't heard the name Floyd 'Money' Mayweather then you've 'been living under a rock'! His most recent fight with Manny Pacquiao was watched by an estimated 300 million world-wide and had sports journalists asking :- "With his unbeaten record, does this make Mayweather the 'Greatest Boxer of All Time'?"

No question the Mayweather family generally is 'on the money' in terms of success. But in common terms I'd say they're a 'bunch of tearaways', with criminal convictions and family feuds, that have involved Floyd Sen., his brother Roger and of course, Floyd Jr., who is as big a tearaway as the rest of them. They're the original 'black sheep', who have used their boxing talent to drag themselves upwards and eventually reach great heights. We're here to examine some key events in their combined careers from a Life Cycles perspective.

The photo above is tagged as 'Big' Floyd and 'Little' Floyd, so let's begin with 'Big' Floyd. Mayweather Sen. was born 19 Oct. 1952. His boxing record was 28–6–1 (18 KOs), and he won the U.S. Championship Tournament in March, 1977 against Miguel Barreto and then lost to the legendary Sugar Ray Leonard in Sept. 1978 on a points decision. He was a flamboyant dresser, who recited poetry about and directly to his opponents. In 1978 his brother-in-law shot him in the leg during an argument (see full story at the side column). Like I said the Mayweathers are a wild bunch. After he gave away boxing he became even more famous as a trainer.

Let's get down to Life Cycles analysis. A lot of big events happened during his age 24 Year of Revolution (Oct. 1976 to Oct. 1977) like his career high point of the U.S. Belt. But this was one day to be eclipsed by the birth of his son 'Little' Floyd Mayweather on 24th Feb. 1977. This is auspicious in Life Cycles terms because it gives the bond of Confluence, being the shared period of 8 mths. between Feb. and Oct in their birthday to birthday years. It usually means a 'fated relationship'. This will also give us our mathematical equation for each 12 year period. There is a wonderful anecdote that says when 'Little' Floyd was just 7-8 months old he would mimic his father's hands in a boxing-like gesture. This caused 'Big' Floyd to say :- "I knew then that he'd be a boxer!"

When 'Little' Floyd was in his age 12 Year of Revolution (most of 1989) and 'Big' Floyd was in his age 36 Year of Revolution a significant thing happened. It is well recorded that in 1989, 'Little' Floyd changed his surname from his mother's family name of Sinclair to Mayweather, to proudly reflect his links to his father. In spite of (or maybe as a result of) his father's many beatings, 'Little' Floyd trained relentlessly in the gym and even though he said he "basically raised himself", he now wanted to become a Mayweather in name and blood. It was a telling decision - an attempt to bond with his father (notwithstanding that he made his money by selling drugs), and an excellent example of Confluence in action. At this time 'Big' Floyd was just about finished with his career as a boxer (he had only one more shambolic fight in 1990, which he lost), but his career as trainer for 'Little' Floyd was cranking up, as he would soon go on to have a successful amateur career.

Now we'll now progress to 'Big' Floyd's next age 48 Year of Revolution (Oct. 2000 to Oct. 2001). Remember that 'Little' Floyd's age 24 Year of Revolution (Feb. 2001 to Feb. 2002) included much of this period. By now Floyd Sen's training career was give or take in full swing. Of course he had taught his son how to box and use his famous defensive stance to advantage in the early days, but this was interrupted in 1993, when he was sent to prison for drug trafficking. His younger brother Roger (who won two World Titles) took over his position. In 1998 he returned as trainer and manager for his son's 14th pro fight, a second-round knockout of Sam Girard in February. The photo above was taken during this time in 1998.

Unfortunately in 2000 things turned really pear-shaped. In March (right before our Critical Period of Confluence), Floyd Jr. had a falling out with his father and fired him as trainer. He also evicted his father from a home that he owned and repossessed a car he was driving. They reportedly didn’t have a cordial conversation for nearly seven years. I've discussed before the downside of when those who share close Confluence have a falling-out. So when 'Big' Floyd was 48 he had to watch as brother Roger returned as his trainer and 'Little' Floyd's career went from strength to strength. He then assumed his age 48 new career direction by training one of 'Little' Floyd's greatest opponents - Oscar De La Hoya. This is the second key stage in the father-son relationship that correlates almost exactly with Life Cycles theory.

Finally we'll look in on the only other such period of time in their combined lives ie. when 'Big' Floyd was on his age 60 Year of Revolution (Oct. 2012 to Oct. 2013) and when 'Little Floyd' was in his age 36 Year of Revolution (Feb. 2013 to Feb. 2014). Again it is a matter of public record that in May 2013 (in the exact Period of Confluence) 'Big' Floyd again took over as the principal trainer of 'Little' Floyd. This was after a break of just over 12 years, during which he had been under the steady hand of Uncle Roger. This was not an easy decision to make and you can see for yourselves at the side column how this created angst for Roger in particular. However, it is an excellent first-hand account of the bond of Confluence in action. It didn't come out of thin air either. 'Big' Floyd got back on speaking terms with 'Little' Floyd when he didn't train De La Hoya in his 2007 fight with his son. Gradually things began to thaw, but there were two other factors in recent times. One was that Roger was suffering from diabetes and it affected his levels of energy and more telling was because 'Little' Floyd felt he got hit with too many shots against Miguel Cotto in his May 2012 fight and wanted his father’s help in slipping punches. Given that fights at the top level are usually spaced out, the decision rolled out 12 months later.

In summary this is how the father-son/'Big' Floyd-'Little' Floyd story played out in Life Cycles Families terms.

1. Floyd Mayweather Jr. was born as Floyd Sinclair when his fahter Floyd Mayweather Sen. was in his Age 24 Year of Revolution
2. When Floyd Jr. was 12 he legally changed his name to Mayweather, whilst Floyd Sen. who was in his age 36 Year of Revolution had all-but finished his boxing career and became the full-time trainer of Floyd Jr.
3. When Floyd Jr. was in his age 24 Year of Revolution he had just fired Floyd Sen. (who was in his age 48 Year of Revolution) and then switched to his uncle Roger , who had previously trained him when Floyd Sen. was in prison. Father and son had a major falling out and didn't speak for 7 years.
4. When Floyd Jr. was in his age 36 Year of Revolution he announced that his father (who was in his age 60 Year of Revolution) would resume as his trainer.

This is an almost copybook case study of how those who share the bond of Confluence and are closely related can have a fated relationship. I did this analysis not because I knew any of it, but because someone mentioned the fact that Floyd Jn. had been in jail and then resumed his career. That's all I had. It only came out when I started to write. Hope you enjoyed this slightly different post. Life Cycles Families will return next month with just about the biggest story in the world of IT - The Story Of Google-. Till then :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune".

The Wright Brothers - Flyers Not Liars

This is the beginning of a new cycle of 12 posts (at the rate of one a month). It follows the same structure that this blog has had since its inception in April, 2009. Each twelve months there is a different theme, which is intended as a different lesson in Life Cycles theory. I explain all this in greater detail in my SECOND BLOG. The lesson for this cycle of posts is Life Cycles and Families. We are going to see a variety of usually well-known people, who share some form of family relationship. Our first case is the world famous Wright Brothers (Wilbur and Orville). But before we begin I'll show you the accidental way this piece of research happened.

Do you remember my last post on Washington DC? There aren't any prizes for this, by the way, as it's directly underneath. It mentions my trip to the capital and shows a picture of the famous National Mall, where all the museums are. Well it was recommended not to miss the Aeronautical and Space Museum, so that was my first visit. Whilst waiting to get admitted I overheard someone being told that they should try and see the historical exhibit first, because it was closing in 10-15 mins. I thought, OK, that sounds like a good idea. I'm glad I did, because as I walked by the Wright Brothers' exhibit, I read a bit of their story and began to wonder if this could be another discovery, similar to the Walter Burley Griffin story in the second blog. Here's what I found.....

In one flash I saw that Wilbur, the elder of the two brothers was born in 1867 and that the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight happened on December 17, 1903. Try adding 36 to 1867 and what do you get? Yes it's 1903 and that's the year in question again isn't it? Bingo, I'd hit pay dirt. Same as last time. No pouring over copious biographies for hours on end. As I've indicated before I'd never have got started if the going had been too tough. I also noticed that his younger brother Orville would have been aged 31 for part of this year. What does this tell you? Probably nothing for most of you, but if you really understood my posts, you would know it means they were also Confluent during this time ie. they shared time together in the Life Cycles significant years (ie. 19/24/31/36 etc). A photo of the famous 1903 flight is shown below.

I'm not going to reprise all of their fascinating story, but instead I will concentrate on just two periods :- 1903 and the second half of 1907/first half, or so, of 1908. Why would I do this? Well the answer is :- 1903 is the major beakthrough year when Wilbur was 36 and during 1907/8 Orville was 36. See, my method is just maths and stats, maths and stats. Wilbur Wright was born April 16, 1867 and Orville Wright was born August 19, 1871. Their period of Confluence when they were aged 36/31 was therefore April-August, 1903.

In summary, during 1903 the brothers built the powered Wright Flyer I, using their preferred material for construction, spruce, a strong and lightweight wood. They also designed and carved their own wooden propellers, and had a purpose-built gasoline engine fabricated in their bicycle shop. I will now create a timeline for these events. On Feb. 12-13th they tested an unsuccessful engine, whose body and frame cracked during testing. Then Wilbur made a March 1903 entry in his notebook indicating the prototype propeller was 66% efficient. So just prior to our period of Confluence (April-August) things were not complete. We all know a powered airplane needs a workable engine and though they almost had their design done, it wouldn't succeed without it.

The Wrights next wrote to several engine manufacturers, but none met their need for a sufficiently lightweight powerplant (this is like the period of temporary frustration I mention during a Year of Revolution). They then turned to their shop mechanic, Charlie Taylor, who built an engine in just six weeks in close consultation with the brothers. To keep the weight low enough, the engine block was cast from aluminum, a rare practice for the time. The Wright-Taylor engine had no fuel pump, carburetor, or spark plugs. Nor did it have a throttle. Yet this simple motor produced 12 horsepower, an acceptable margin above the Wrights’ minimum requirement of 8 horsepower. It was patented on May 22nd, 1903. So now preparations were properly underway. Below is a photo of a later model Wright engine circa 1910.

Those preparations were largely completed by August, because in Sept. they arrived in Kill Devil Hills and in Oct. they commenced assembling it. It should be noted that their airplane -The Flyer - cost less than a thousand dollars, in contrast to more than $50,000 in government funds that was given to their great rival Samuel Langley for his man-carrying Great Aerodrome project. He was trying to beat them to the punch at precisely the same time. You know what? Langley gave up the project after two crashes at take-off on October 7 and December 8, 1903. There's destiny if ever there was. If I'd been around then I'd have said:- "put your money on the 36 year-old Wilbur Wright, not the 69 year-old Samuel Langley. He's not in any sort of significant year." This also says something about the sheer tenacity and eventual superiority of the solo underfunded pioneers.

So here is your evidence writ large:-

1. THE WRIGHT BROTHERS RECORD BREAKING FIRST FLIGHT IN 1903 HAPPENED WHEN WILBUR (THE ELDER BROTHER) WAS IN HIS AGE 36 'YEAR OF REVOLUTION'.

2. DURING THE EXACT PERIOD OF 'CONFLUENCE' BETWEEN WILBUR AND HIS YOUNGER BROTHER ORVILLE (ie. APRIL-AUGUST 1903) THE ALL-IMPORTANT ENGINE WAS DESIGNED AND THE PLANE WAS BUILT.

Following their initial success the Wright Brothers deliberately kept a low profile so that they could concentrate on creating and marketing a practical airplane. This was a financially risky venture for them, as they wound down their successful bicycle business at the same time. Flights taken during the years 1904-1905 were unspectacular and reporters went away without a clear impression of their claims. There was reasonable speculation that this was done on purpose by the Wrights, to get reporters off their backs. In fact the Paris edition of the Herald Tribune headlined a 1906 article on the Wrights titled :- "Flyers Or Liars?" Even the publisher of their hometown newspaper The Dayton Daily News stated :- "Frankly, none of us believed it." The photo below shows the newspaper reporting an unspectacular flight in Oct. 1905, on page 9, in the agricultural and general news section.

We are now perched at the precipice of our second period of study ie. when Orville was in his age 36 Year of Revolution (Aug. 1907-Aug.1908). What happened next to get them true recognition, that had so far proven elusive? In 1907 they decided it was France, rather than the US (who had shown indifference to their work), that they would journey to get some backing. Whilst there they had face-to-face talks with government officials and businessmen. They also met with aviation representatives in Germany and Britain. Before traveling, Orville shipped a newly built Model A Flyer to France in anticipation of demonstration flights. The European end of things became more his baby, because whilst in France (ironically enough) Wilbur met Frank P. Lahm, a lieutenant in the U.S. Army Aeronautical Division, who allowed him to give an in-person presentation to the U.S. Board of Ordnance and Fortification in Washington, D.C. when he returned to the U.S.

This time, the Board was favorably impressed, in contrast to its previous indifference. With further input from the Wrights, the U.S. Army Signal Corps issued Specification #486 in December 1907 (so here is direct evidence of a breakthrough in the exact period of study). Bids were invited for construction of a flying machine under military contract. The Wrights submitted their bid in January, 1908. In early 1908 the brothers also agreed to a contract with a French company. This was Orville's direct breakthrough moment, not that either brother hadn't been across things, but you can't be in two places at once. In May, 1908 they went back to Kitty Hawk with their Flyer to practice in private for their all-important public demonstration flights, as required by the contracts.

What else could have taken place of real importance between June and August 19th? (ie. Orville's remaining age 36 Year of Revolution). Well everything culminated in one day - August 8th, 1908 (I often write about this one day phenomenon in Years of Revolution). I'll let the narrative take over here, it's just such a great story :-

Facing much skepticism in the French aeronautical community and outright scorn by some newspapers that called him a "bluffeur", Wilbur began official public demonstrations on August 8, 1908 at the Hunaudières horse racing track near the town of Le Mans, France. His first flight lasted only one minute 45 seconds, but his ability to effortlessly make banking turns and fly a circle amazed and stunned onlookers, including several pioneer French aviators, among them Louis Bleriot. In the following days, Wilbur made a series of technically challenging flights, including figure-eights, demonstrating his skills as a pilot and the capability of his flying machine, which far surpassed those of all other pioneering aircraft and pilots of the day.

The French public was thrilled by Wilbur's feats and flocked to the field by the thousands, and the Wright brothers instantly became world-famous. Former doubters issued apologies and effusive praise. L'Aérophile editor Georges Besançon wrote that the flights "have completely dissipated all doubts. Not one of the former detractors of the Wrights dare question, today, the previous experiments of the men who were truly the first to fly....". Leading French aviation promoter Ernest Archdeacon wrote, "For a long time, the Wright brothers have been accused in Europe of bluff... They are today hallowed in France, and I feel an intense pleasure...to make amends."

Below is a photo taken of this famous flight at the Le Mans racecourse, France, on August 8th, 1908 - showing inset, a section of the large crowd.

So there it is. I don't think I need to spell it out any more than this. In Orville's age 36 Year of Revolution the Wrights finally gained the recognition and kudos they so rightfully deserved. Orville's French connection had paid off big time. You can actually see how this was a more central event for his whole life because Wilbur was to die tragically in 1912 from typhoid fever, leaving Orville to carry on their future struggles with Patents and running The Wright Company.

I think I'm done. It strikes me that all true pioneers have to fight long and hard for recognition and in that regard I believe my pioneering of a new theory of life is just another variant of this. Except I don't have a brother to share it with. However, all of you who read and enjoy my work are my brothers and sisters-in-arms. Next month Life Cycles Families will return with a totally different and maybe even slightly shocking change of pace. Till then :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune".