Philosophy And Sacrifice - 'Life Cycles' And The Career Of Pope Saint John Paul II

There is no doubting the continued popularity of the former Pope Saint John Paul II, who died in 2005. Even at his funeral supporters were chanting for his sainthood and when the official Canonization ceremony happened on April 27th this year, there were over 1 million at St. Peter's Square to celebrate it. He is now also known as St. John Paul The Great. I have actually had a long interest in his life, having featured it in detail in my first book Life Cycles.

I am going to explore the 'Years of Revolution' at 24/36/48/60/72/84, to see how events in these periods, were both related to each other and shaped and defined his career and life. He was born Karol Józef Wojtyła on May 18th, 1920. He grew up in the midst of WW 2 and indeed his first adult, age 24 'Year of Revolution' (May 1944 to May 1945), featured a prominent episode from his young life. He was swept up in the chaos of the German Army quitting the city of Krakow. He helped a 14 year old Jewish refugee girl, Edith Zierer, who had collapsed from exhaustion on a train platform. No one else helped, but he gave her hot tea and food and accompanied her on the train. Zierer credits him with saving her life, although she would not hear of her benefactor again until she read he had been elected Pope.

He showed no hesitation in this ad hoc humanitarian act, both to this girl and to many other Jews, and the theme of personal sacrifices would return again in later 'Years of Revolution'. At his central, mid-life, age 36 'Year of Revolution' (May 1956 to May 1957), after two years of Communist Government interference, he finally obtained his second Doctorate on Christian Ethics from the Catholic University of Lublin, and also assumed the Chair of Ethics at this university. He studied personology, which in turn was derived from phenomenology, and which advocated an irreducible element in the human subject and its consciousness. There was a sanctity in man's inalienable rights. Later this was to be the basis of his pronouncements on social responsibility and the "world view" of his papal mission.

It underpinned his crusade against regimes that restrict personal freedom, particularly with Communism in his Polish homeland. It gave him a mission to have dialogue with all other major religions, as expressions of freedom of worship, and it also gave him a basis for his morally conservative views on contraception, abortion and other matters. He was, if you will, a philosopher within the Catholic Church, meaning his ministry extended his outreach beyond the usual Church borders. He was himself, of course, the subject of restriction of personal liberty by Communist Russia. This was his second and interwoven theme in all his 'Years of Revolution'. He suffered for what he believed in.

Let's trace this now to his age 48 'Year of Revolution' (May 1968 to May 1969). This is the time of the controversial encyclical Humanae Vitae (literally "Of Human Life"). This was at the height of the free love and contraceptive pill era and it was not well received by many. Pope Paul VI named Archbishop Karol Wojtyła to the commission. However, the Communist authorities in Poland would not permit him to travel to Rome to take part in person.

Wojtyła had earlier defended the church's position from a philosophical standpoint in his 1960 book Love and Responsibility. Wojtyła's position was strongly considered, and was reflected in the final draft of the encyclical, although much of his language and arguments were not incorporated. Weigel a prominent biographer, attributes much of the poor reception of the encyclical to the omission of many of Wojtyła's arguments. This is a good example of the philosopher 'bursting upon the scene' at 36 and then having the scene altered, with a new era at 48. Again he was sacrificed, through the curtailing of his movements by the Russians.

Do you notice how his formal appointments as Archbishop and then Pope do not align with these years? This is not unusual in 'Life Cycles' analysis. I would contend the true nature of Pope John Paul II was 'Philosophy and Sacrifice' in every 'Year of Revolution'. That is how he became "The Great". Don't believe me? Well keep reading.

His next 'Year of Revolution' at age 60 (May 1980 to May 1981) was dominated by his most serious assassination attempt when a Turkish gunman fired at him as he entered St. Peter's Square. Speculation on the reasons for this included the KGB, who would have resented his influence in Poland. It has been suggested that the gunman, who was an excellent marksmen could have killed the Pope, however his mission was only to scare him. This greatly altered his robust health and began an era of physical decline. Despite efforts to try two KGB agents beginning in 1982, they were acquitted. It is a stark example of sacrifice for his philosophy in this key 'Year of Revolution'.

What about in his age 72 'Year of Revolution' (May 1992 to May 1993). In this time his body suffered further. He had a tumour removed from his colon and the Vatican publicly acknowledged that he was suffering from Parkinson's disease. However, in spite of calls to retire, he went on touring the world and remained fully mentally alert. He visited a total of 129 countries and had meaningful dialogue with just about every other major religious faith; including even animism and particularly Islam, which caused quite a bit of controversy among Catholics. He truly had a "world-view".

His final age 84 'Year of Revolution' (May 2004 to May 2005), including his death in April 2005, again showed his determination to demonstrate his philosophy of the equality and religious freedom for mankind, by hosting a "Papal Concert of Reconciliation", which brought together leaders of the Jewish and Islamic religions. Of course, he attracted much criticism for his philosophical approach. Traditionalists within the church saw him as promoting modernism, as well as appointing like-minded Bishops; while his stance against contraception, female clergy and gay rights, saw him unpopular with the very people, who may have otherwise embraced his modernist views.

To the end he was a product of the two major themes that ran throughout his life. For him, each adult 'Year of Revolution' ushered in a similar story :- one of sacrifice and the practical use of his philosophy. Not for him the simple attainment of formal office, but what he could do with it to benefit mankind as a whole.

I hope you enjoyed this post. Certainly a different profile to most others I do, but as always, I am demonstrating the universality of the 'Life Cycles' principles. Please also see my SECOND BLOG for something completely different as I feature one of Australia's leading fashion designers. Till next month :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune."

Why Obama Is Obamacare - The Revolutions Of Barak Obama

Welcome to a new series of posts dedicated to careers and 'Life Cycles'. Why do I change my theme and even 'look' of the blog every 12 months? Haven't got a clue? Well I'm going to explain it to you in the SECOND BLOG. Remember nothing I do is down to chance. Yes, sometimes I'm moved to feature a current affairs story, but on many occasions, including this one, I have been researching for months. As always, judge for yourselves, but I think you'll end up agreeing this is pretty unusual stuff. Bit on the spooky side and I guarantee you, though the President's life has been minutely dissected, no-one has made this conclusion before.

Once again, for the benefit of anyone who reads this because they think it's going to be about Obamacare only, there will be an introduction to basic 'Life Cycles' theory and his career generally. 'Life Cycles' is the study of events in 12 year cycles, but particularly focused on new directions/achievements in the first year of the cycle, known as the 'Year of Revolution'. This is so named, because case history evidence strongly suggests it is like a revolution in your life. Thus, the ages of 12/24 (first adult 'Year of Revolution')/36 (important mid-life 'Year of Revolution')/48/60 etc. get studied to see what happens. Not just the whole year, but sometimes the month or even the week of the month, in that year.

We then look for similarity of the events happening 12 years apart. As unreasonable as it sounds, we look for the same themes getting repeated. Obviously not the exact same actions, but whatever might define a similarity of the actions. Maybe they symbolise the same broad type of thing. In rare instances there can even be a substantive similarity ie. it is plainly the same type of action. So, I hope you would agree then, if we can show plainly the same substantive actions happening in successive adult 'Years of Revolution' at almost the same time of the year, it is an extra-special fit. In Barak Obama's case we are going to explore his biographical details (ie. the actual facts) during his 24th/36th/48th years (4th. August to 4th. August each time).

Let's turn the clock back then to when he turned 24 (ie. 4th. August, 1985). He was a newly appointed organiser with Chicago's Developing Communities Project. This was a church-based initiative in Chicago's south-side Project area (ie. public housing mostly for a black population). In mid-March 1986, he saw an opportunity to get involved in a health-related issue of delays in asbestos removal from the Altgeld Garden's project. He sensed good political potential when one Sadie Evans drew his attention to it. I am now quoting the words of Avna Falk - The Riddle of Barak Obama: A Psychobiography :- "The toxic asbestos issue became a springboard to Barak's political career.....He felt.....it changed him dramatically". His own autobiography says the same :- "it gave me a sense of power that has not left me since".

Ultimately, despite initial successes, the initiative ran out of steam. After some pressuring, the Chicago Housing Authority asked Washington for the millions in Federal funding it would take to remove the asbestos and they didn't agree, saying such money would be better spent elsewhere. To this day some of those asbestos problems remain. So, that was 24, what about at 36?

Now we progress to the 12 months beginning 4th. August, 1997. This time it is the newly-elected Illinois Senator, who wanted to get involved in State-based issues. His first involvement, suggested to him, was in the area of Party ethics and he worked on helping pass a sweeping law, that banned most gifts from lobbyists and personal use of campaign funds by state legislators. This took most of his time until the new year.

His next big involvement was the implementation of Illinois legislation for the national TANF program (Temporary Assistance For Needy Families). This included a healthcare component, and as a member of the Health and Human Services Senate Committee, he would have participated. In mid-March, I could only find reference to his nomination as Democrat candidate for a further 2 year term, so I can't pretend to be a 'fly on the wall' here. TANF was effective on 1st. July, 1998, so we can presume part of his activities were again Health Policy related. However, he went on to chair this Committee 6 years later in 2003, after 4 years as minority spokesman. He sponsored successful efforts to expand children's health care and create a plan to provide equal health care access for all Illinois residents.

Let's check another couple of similarities. Just as in Altgeld Gardens, he sensed a political opportunity in doing what he did and is on record as saying so HERE. Also, just as Altgeld Gardens still has an asbestos problem, so the modern-day South Side of Chicago is a hotbed of violence and crime, bred of poverty and unequal opportunity. It is known to locals and others as Chiraq and is also known for a lack of community services, particularly a trauma ward, which causes a lot of extra deaths from gunshot wounds, on the way to get treatment.

Finally let's visit Obama's last adult 'Year of Revolution' at the age of 48 (ie. beginning 4th. August, 2009). Now, as the recently installed US President, he had been at work from the earliest opportunity in Feb., to work with Congress to construct a plan for healthcare reform. It was indeed front and centre of his first term objectives. When was the historic legislation for the Affordable Care Act signed by Obama? That would be 23rd. March, 2010. Again, around exactly the same mid-March timetable, that is closely aligned with events at 24 and 36. Again there would be several years of effort to get meaningful change implemented, that takes us up to the present moment.

It would be safe to say, that what was, I'm sure, seen to be an outstanding potential political legacy, has encountered all sorts of difficulties and general unpopularity. The strength of this opposition will be tested in the forthcoming mid-term elections at the end of the year. What does the future hold for Obamacare, and to put an unintended pun in the mix, why does Obama care so much about Obamacare? I would say it's because health care reform is deeply rooted in his 'Life Cycles' DNA. I trust you can see how his three adult 'Years of Revolution' (24/36/48) are essentially the same. The same themes, the same timing and the same longer term difficulties. The similarities are substantive and not just symbolic. He essentially repeats the same actions every 12 years, just on a larger political stage each time :- ie. local, State and National. The essence of Obama is not just ambition for power, but the chance to facilitate meaningful reforms, that also help his career.

Now I'm not a fortune teller, so I make no predictions as to how this will play out. Perhaps it will be "third time a charm" for him. On the other hand, we have the spectre of the Altgeld Projects and Chiraq, to suggest that Obamacare may be more of an albatross, than a pinnacle. In case you think I'm somewhat biased in my analysis, I can direct you to an equally disspassionate profile I did of George W. Bush in my first book Life Cycles. Till next month :- "May the cycles always bring you good fortune.

Mary Queen Of Scots - The Darkest Revolution

This is the last post on the general theme of 'The Dark Side'. Maybe it's better not to dwell unnecessarily in this zone. Mankind is riddled with acts of infamy, heinous crimes and sometimes just plain idiocy gone wrong. However, if any one 'Year of Revolution' in any one life, encapsulates the 'fall from grace at our own hands' (ie. shoot ourselves in the foot), then this prize belongs to the generally unpopular Mary Queen Of Scots. She managed to alienate everyone and destroy herself in the process. All this at the ripe old age of 24. Indeed an article by BBC History says :- "The young Queen with the golden future was just 24, and her life was effectively over."

There is much to tell, but I'll just begin with her ill-fated choice of husband, when she was Queen of Scotland, with ambitions to succeed Elizabeth I and re-instate Catholic rule in England. The choice had been made to marry Henry, Lord Darnley. Like her, he was a great-grandchild of Henry VII with a Scottish father, the Earl of Lennox, and an English mother who was also a leading Catholic. By marrying Darnley, Mary hoped to strengthen the Catholic cause and enhance her claim to the English throne. The only fly in the ointment of this equation was Darnley himself. He spent little time with the Queen and even less on the affairs of state, preferring 'to hunt, hawk, drink and keep low company' (ie. drinking and whoring resulting in picking up syphilis). He also wanted to be recognised as having rights of succession. Over the course of less than a year the Queen fell out of love. But Darnley had done one thing right: Mary was pregnant.

The remaining Protestant lords saw Darnley as the weak link. They told him that Mary's Italian secretary, a former musician named David Rizzio, had too much influence at court. And why? Because he was Mary's lover. The reality was that Rizzio was a small, gay man of unprepossessing looks, definitely not Mary's type. Even more sinister is the fact that Darnley was bi-sexual (he had a 'lady face' as the phrase was used) and had forced himself on Rizzio. None-the-less, the jealous and gullible Darnley believed them, and agreed to take part in Rizzio's murder. Rizzio was stabbed 56 times in front of Mary, who could never forgive her husband this treachery. However, soon after, Darnley switched sides back to his wife, leading Mary to exile the Protestant Lords involved.

We will also look at the second protagonist in her life :- her close confidant and supporter the Earl of Bothwell. He was a tough, handsome border lord, who was five years her senior and a nominal Protestant, because you had to be to get on. However, he had been loyal to the Catholic dowager Queen Mary (widow of James V). They actually first met in the French Court, when Mary was still Queen Consort of France (till she was widowed just before turning 18). Now back to the main story. On 19 June 1566 (when she was aged 23), Mary gave birth to Prince James (later King James VI of Scotland, and I of England). Darnley was now expendable and everyone wanted to see the back of him: Mary hated him, the Protestant lords had been betrayed by him and Bothwell wanted to replace him as king. To further his ends, Bothwell persuaded Mary to bring back Moray and the exiled Protestants.

In November 1566, Bothwell met with nobles from all factions at Craigmillar Castle to discuss the Darnley problem. They came up with two options: divorce or assassination. But when Mary was consulted she ruled out divorce, because it would make her son illegitimate. As for 'other means', she said that she wanted 'nothing against her honour'. The nobles saw this as carte blanche and, having left Mary's room, signed a bond to murder Darnley. I hope you've got all this, it's like summarising slabs of history.

Now we begin the melting pot that is her age 24 'Year of Revolution' (8 Dec. 1566 to 8 Dec. 1567). They planned to kill Darnley by blowing up the house he was staying in. It is highly likely that Mary (who was in close contact with Bothwell) knew the details. On 1 February 1567, she brought Darnley from the safety of Glasgow to the dangers of Edinburgh. He was taken to Kirk o'Field, a house near the city wall, because he was sick (with syphilis) and, Mary said, needed somewhere quiet to convalesce. Mary promised to stay and look after him however on the night of the murder, 9 February, she was at Holyrood attending the wedding masque of a loyal servant. He survived the explosion, but was strangled and stabbed outside and hastily buried in an unmarked grave.

Virtually everyone was involved in the plot to murder Darnley, but only Bothwell and Mary got the blame. Within days, scurrilous placards appeared in Edinburgh, depicting Mary as a whore and accusing her and Bothwell of the crime. They had been set up by Moray and the Protestant lords. She did not help by showing no grief whatsoever and it was said she played a game of golf the next day (she was credited as the first recognised female golfer).

What happens next is almost surreal. In desperation, Bothwell abducts Mary and takes her captive to Dunbar Castle where, apparently, he raped her before forcing her to agree to marry him. But could she have been complicit in the whole thing? Possibly. Even her defenders find it hard to believe she knew nothing of the plan to abduct her. It was said she suffered a nervous collapse and became suicidal. To make matters worse, she is again pregnant, this time with Bothwell's twins. Bothwell, it should be noted, was already married for just a year at this time. His wife divorced him on 7 May 1567, citing adultery with her servant. Does this begin to play the same tune as the scandalous Burton/Taylor relationship?

On 15 May 1567, Mary and Bothwell were married at Holyrood according to the Protestant rites. Mary was either so desperate - or so madly in love with Bothwell - that she now appeared to give up even her Catholicism for him. This marriage was very unpopular and divided the country. Exactly a month later, the final showdown between Mary and the Protestant lords took place at Carberry Hill near Edinburgh. But no actual fighting took place because Mary's outnumbered troops gradually melted away.

Mary agreed to give herself up on condition that Bothwell was given safe passage into exile. In a final act of defiance they kissed in full view of both sides. Then Bothwell galloped off and spent the next month trying, in vain, to raise more troops but it was to no avail. He was to die in captivity in Denmark and she was never to see him again, just as she was never to see her infant son James again. Two days after Carberry, Mary was imprisoned on the isle of Lochleven, where in the next month she miscarried Bothwell's twins. Her life was indeed now effectively over and she spent, between this time and her execution at 44, in various places of captivity in England, whilst trying to instigate an unsuccessful Catholic uprising.

Just what was Mary's character? Was she the unwitting and tragic figure, who was a pawn in the game of the Scottish Protestant Lords? Was she indeed "raped" and held prisoner by Bothwell? Or was she a complicit figure in her own demise? Was she an outstanding example of "The Darkest Revolution"? Was she in this "up to her elbows"? You know how history gets written don't you? You need to go digging for the truth. Come and join me on this dig.

There is a fascinating report from Times online, about research by a team of gynecologists. They assert :- "Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, was an “adulteress and liar”, who plotted to kill her husband in order to marry her lover. Intriguing new medical analysis claims that Mary, the cousin of Elizabeth I, concocted a story of kidnap and alleged rape to justify her marriage to her third husband – potentially shedding light on a 400-year-old royal murder mystery.

Far from being the saintly and wronged Roman Catholic monarch portrayed in portraits and films, Mary was actually a “moral loose cannon”, whose striking beauty (she was a 6 foot tall, highly-sexed redhead, who was said to be a 'fool for men'), gave Elizabeth other reasons to imprison and execute her, the researchers suggest. Lesley Smith, a medical historian, claims that it would also have been an “astonishing coincidence” if conception occurred at the time of the “rape”, and even then the twins would have been just 12 weeks old and hard to identify upon miscarriage.

Instead, it is more likely that “the widowed Mary had an affair with Bothwell, became pregnant and had used the abduction story as a cover for her condition and justification for marriage,” Ms Smith says. Mary later claimed that her pregnancy began after her marriage but experts now say this is impossible :-
"In a study published today in the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Healthcare, Lesley Smith, a medical historian, claims that it would have required modern microscopes and knowledge about foetal development to identify that the miscarriage was of twins after the seven weeks of pregnancy that Mary claimed."

So, Mary made a series of disastrous choices beginning in her fateful, age 24, 'Year of Revolution'. She failed to see the plotting by both the Protestant Lords (who wanted her gone) and her beloved Bothwell (who wanted the crown at all costs). She most probably willingly conspired in this whole ugly mess. Have a good look at the Mary you see in the book cover above. This is not the high starched collar, severe-looking Queen Mary, we are used to. This is the 'real Mary'; wanton, passionate, and underneath it all, quite evil. I think she's a fitting climax for the 'Dark Side' Lesson and series of posts. Remember the upheavals in your life, good and bad, that I have correlated with 'Years of Revolution' have to be dealt with in a dedicated and respectful way. It's your life, try not to stuff it up. Get ready for your next lesson soon, it will be bigger and bolder than any before it. Some very big names will get analysed by the one and only 'Life Cycles'. Till next month :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune."

Mein Kampf, Mein Umdrehung - Adolph Hitler and 'Life Cycles'

This unusual post title happened because I decided to see what the word 'revolution' looked like in German. Not very poetic, is it? Not 'rivoluzione' (Italian), or 'giro' (Spanish), or even 'revolutie' (Dutch); but in guttaral Germanic it's 'umdrehung'. Why place revolution together with "Mein Kampf", being Hitler's best-selling book, which encapsulates the founding principals of Nazi Germany? The answer is obvious to me :- because Hitler's central, mid-life, age 36 'Year of Revolution' was defined by it.

Adolph Hitler (born April 20th. 1889), became arguably, the most synonymous name with 'The Dark Side' in history. A demagogue, with the power to sway the emotions of ordinary citizens, whilst all the time using this evil influence for his own diabolical ends. He also arose in a time in Germany's post WW1 woes, when he espoused sentiments shared to some degree by a lot of disgruntled people. However, before he was ever the country's Fuhrer and ever a political force, he had to come back from the wilderness of a failed insurrection and a gaol sentence.

Practically no-one had heard of "Mein Kampf" then, even though he had just dictated it in prison and released it as a book. He was banned from speaking in public, he lived a rather idyllic existence in a small village called Berchtesgaden in the German state of Bavaria; he didn't even run the day-to-day activities of the Nazi Party. He, in fact, may have lost control of his party's direction. He was 36. Need I say more? Welcome to the one day in Hitler's life when it was 'all on the line'.



Let's backtrack a little here. Hitler was released from prison Dec. 20, 1924 and agreed to only seek power through democratic means. In March, 1925 he was banned from speaking in public and appointed Gregor Strasser to grow the NSDAP (Nazi Party) in northern Germany. He turned 36 on April 20, 1925 and entered the often, most important 'Year of Revolution', in 'Life Cycles' terms. It was to be not only the year of "Mein Kampf", but also 'Mein Umdrehung'. On July 18, 1925 the first volume of "Mein Kampf" was released and it was, according to a Discovery Channel documentary, :- "a failure selling only 20,000 copies." He then spends his time in the quiet Bavarian village writing the second volume of "Mein Kampf", which deals mainly with the extension of 'lebensraum' (living space) for Germans. This eventually became the philosophical driver for decisions to invade other European countries and directly precipitate WW2.

Meanwhile Gregor Strasser proved to be an energetic and very effective party organiser in northern Germany, acquiring big numbers of new members. He took the word 'Socialist' in the Party's name more seriously and maintained certain ideals, that lent more towards Communist Russia, as the communists had many followers in the north. This he espoused in November, 1925, with a draft program that advocated expropriating princely estates without compensation. He also advocated a party Community, rather than absolute authority coming from the Fuhrer and Munich, which of course, struck directly at Hitler's authority. At a meeting of dissidents at Hanover in Jan. 1926, Gottfried Feder, representing Hitler, strenuously opposed these policies, but the other conferees all voted with Strasser. Not only this, but he talked of setting up a new party newspaper to compete with the one from Bavaria. Feder left fuming and reported back to Hitler.

Now we are poised for the response. Did Hitler want to fracture the Party by renouncing Strasser? If he did, how would Northern delegates react? He didn't have to risk a 'show down'. More prudent advice was to get his way by strategy. After all, calling a large general meeting was a big risk. But Hitler was a great gambler. Just as Julius Caesar was a great gambler and Napoleon was a great gambler. I've written on their gambles elsewhere. It was all to be decided in a meeting in one day :- Sunday, Feb.14th, 1926 at Bamburg.

Why Bamburg? Well it was close to the Northern districts, while still being in Bavaria, and a Sunday was picked, because it would be easier for Northerners to travel. He wanted a full house. Local Nazis turned out to demonstrate in favour of Hitler, which would have impressed the northern visitors. There was no debate. He harangued the crowd on suggested links with the Communists ("it would be the 'bolshevization of Germany' and 'national suicide'"). Germany's salvation would come with 'lebensraum' to be achieved, as it was in the middle ages, ie. by the sword. He stated without equivocation that the uncompensated expropriation of the princes was contrary to the party's aims.

But his main thrust was simple, the Party should be run not on a program, but on the principle of the leader. The party leadership therefore had a sraightforward choice: either accept or reject him as the unquestioned leader. Toland astutely places Hitler's ultimatum in Messianic terms: "National Socialism was a religion and Hitler was its Christ. Crucified at the Feldherrnhalle (ie. the so-called 'Beer Hall Putsch' attempted coup) and risen after Landsberg (the prison where he spent nine months), he had returned to lead the movement and the nation to salvation."

The dissent evaporated after this. Strasser made a short statement in which he accepted the Führer's leadership and Hitler put his arm around Strasser in a show of comradeship. Hitler became the leader on an unquestioned basis on that day. It would later be enshrined in the Party's manifesto, but it all happened squarely on Feb. 14th, 1926 at Bamburg and right in the middle of Hitler's career-defining, age 36 'Year of Revolution'. At 36, Mein Kampf was launched on the world and Hitler became, in his mind and that of the Nazi Party, his country's absolute saviour.

'Life Cycles' in a different way entirely, is becoming more and more difficult to simply dismiss, as a curiosity or a quaint occurrence. I still stand here waiting for contradiction of my evidence, or blanket dismissal of the whole notion. If there is any aspect of any post that is incorrect, (particularly this one), please let me know. Now, this is not religion and I'm not a saviour, but just because I'm not mainstream, doesn't mean I'm wrong. I do have an overall message by the way, but I'm revealing it slowly, so keep reading. Till next month :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune".

If Only.... James Holmes and 'The Dark Side'

Mental illness and high-powered weapons (or weapons generally) are a lethal combination. Because in the US there is a wide availability of such weapons, it has resulted in a steady stream of horrific mass killings, particularly over the last couple of years. If you search "recent mass killings/mental illness" you will see a study finding 79% of recent mass shootings (2011-2013) are attributable to a history of mental illness. I'm not about to enter the debate concerning better screening procedures for those who buy weapons, or the advisability of being able to so easily obtain these weapons. I've written on this subject elsewhere and talked of the stats from my country, Australia, after the banning of high-performance weapons, following our worst-ever mass shooting back in 1996. Since that time there have been NO other mass shootings recorded.

No, I'm going to focus on the perpetrator of one high-profile case; the appalling mass shooting in the Aurora Movie Complex in 2012 by James Holmes. The Holmes' case is particularly controversial, because of his recent contact with at least three mental health professionals from the student mental health service, just prior to the commission of the crime. I also believe, that any other behavioral or personal issues put forward as part of his defence of insanity; should not mitigate the full force of the law being applied. Twelve innocent lives were lost and 58 others were injured, in what was (until Lanza's shooting), the worst-ever such case. In addition I need to make it clear, that a 'Life Cycles' forensic examination of Holmes is not to suggest that other perpetrators can be easily compared, or that they committed their crimes in their 'Life Cycles' 'significant years'. No, it's the transition from the outwardly-seeming, successful PhD neuroscience student, to the 'The Joker' look-alike, diabolical mastermind of this horrific crime, in the first six months of Holmes' age 24 "Year Of Revolution", that I'll be looking at.

James Egan Homles was born Dec. 13th, 1987 and so turned 24 in Dec. 2011. Richie Duong, who had known Holmes for over a decade, told the Los Angeles Times, that they had shared a dinner and a movie together in Dec. 2011 and that "everything seemed fine." So, Holmes looked like the left-side photo. From this, you could never have said he was a potential mass murderer, whether or not everything was fine on the inside with him. However, that can be the way it is with mental illness, before the onset of symptoms. Makes the task of trying to keep mentally deranged people away from weapons that much harder.

Let's skip now till June, 2012 and by this time he had just failed a key oral exam and dropped out of his course. He was starting to appear like the right-side photo. Such a dramatic change even had some conspiracy theorists believing they are two different people. (It should be noted, that though I have read widely on the conspiracy literature of this case, regarding an accomplice/s, it currently remains as supposition.) Holmes had previously referred himself to the student mental health service a while back and was currently seeing Dr. Lynne Fenton, who headed up the unit. His medical records show his name was brought to the attention of the university's Behavior Evaluation and Threat Assessment team, or BETA for short. University of Colorado campus police were contacted for a background check, but what happened next is not clear.

Dr. Richard Martinez, a director of forensic psychiatry with Denver Health Medical Center, said:- "At the moment you determine that there is a credible threat here, a credible possibility, the duty to warn is triggered if you will." What was going on behind the closed door of Holmes' off-campus apartment also did not become clear until it was too late. His cache of weaponry and booby-trapping of the whole place. Dr. Lynne Fenton is subpoenaed to appear in court and at issue is a package mailed by Holmes to her and recovered in the campus mail room three days after the shootings. It depicts stick-figure drawings of a shooting. We are left with the inescapable feeling in this whole sorry mess of :- "If only...."

Now there is no question, that Holmes became mentally deranged during the very period, that 'Life Cycles' would say is a life-changing year in so many of the cases studied. Of course, the evidence is that things are usually overwhelmingly positive and that any setbacks and controversies are short-lived. With appropriate action this may have become a case of a threat averted and a very dark-side example of a bizarre, but otherwise limited, controversy, ie. if police were properly informed of the imminent danger he posed. In this case the legal "duty of care" will be a telling and intricate matter at all levels. Right from the psychiatrist's actions, to the mental health service (who dropped Holmes as a patient because he was no longer a student), to the Campus Police, and thence to the University itself and ultimately to the management of the Aurora Cinema complex, for not ensuring patrons' safety. No, this is an almighty mess, that is bound to tie up the courts for years to come.

Also, it should be noted that the legal definition of insanity is different from the medical definition and relies on independent expert reports and testimony of Holmes' mental state, immediately before and during the commission of the crime. It has been reported, for instance, that he had scoped out the theatre in a calculated and cold-blooded way, just days beforehand. But, leaving this aside, nothing will ameliorate the loss suffered by the families and friends of the victims. My sympathies in this case are wholeheartedly with them and I hope they get to see justice done. Till next month :- "may the cycles always bring you good fortune."