RE: [AM] Re:Countries charts

[Guest guest]

Got this from a friend. Interesting discussion on "birth" or "natal" of business/country

from angelicusmerlin

 

Steven Birchfield <stebi wrote:

Hi John,Well, I’m here to play the ”Devils’ advocate’, <g>. You wrote:<<Yes, nations have birth charts and these are usually the chart for their declaration of independence or the formation of an independent government.>>I am intrigued, why is a declaration of intent a birth? I have several business clients and they consult with me on the affairs of their business.How does one cast a chart for a business? Is it when the owners first conceive the idea on paper and declare their intent? The answer is no! For businesses, the chart is cast for the moment they open their doors forbusiness. I think we can safely say that the astrological community, by large, has accepted the signing of the Declaration of Independence as the "birth of theUS". What is usually disputed is the time of its signing. However, there are several very important things that really "shook my tree" in my recenthistorical

readings and they are connected to some of the discussion on list about accurate birth times for nations.The first thing is that the majority of secular Political scientists do not consider a Declaration of Independence as the "birth" of any nation. TheDeclaration of Independence was in fact only the united intention of 13 independent entities, each which had their own constitution or charter. If by definition, the ascendant is the “body”, fully formed and functioningindependently, then why does the astrological community accept the date and time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence as the birth? Was anation born then?The ascendant of any nativity is that degree in which a native first enters the world and draws his first breath. It is the commencement. At that point,the native is fully formed and functional with a head and body, limbs and all the internal and external organs. In fact, one can say that from conception until the foetus is

born, it has at certain stages of foetal development, certain functions in order, so that while still in the womb it is semi-functional but it is the birth process, which activates the remaining functions like breathing. In the uterus, the foetus even has a heartbeat and circulation and brain functions and even internal organ functions that are complimented by the umbilical connection to the mother.In the foetal stages, we can say it is a living organism but it is not a truly independent organism until it takes that first breath on its own and the umbilical chord is cut and it either survives or dies under its own functions.It was to be a long process of development until the fully formed “body” of our nation was to emerge and take its first breath and ‘open’ its doors for business. In his autobiography, Jefferson writes of the period following their declaration;"Our first essay in America to establish a federative government had fallen, on trial, very short of

its object. During the war of Independence, whilethe pressure of an external enemy hooped us together, and their enterprises kept us necessarily on the alert, the spirit of the people, excited by danger, was a supplement to the Confederation, and urged them to zealous exertions, whether claimed by that instrument, or not. But when peace and safety were restored, and every man became engaged in useful and profitableoccupation, less attention was paid to the calls of Congress. The fundamental defect of the Confederation was that Congress was not authorized to act immediately on the people, & by it's own officers. Their power wasonly requisitory, and these requisitions were addressed to the several legislatures, to be by them carried into execution, without other coercion than the moral principle of duty. This allowed in fact a negative to every legislature, on every measure proposed by Congress; a negative so frequently exercised in practice as to benumb the action of

the federal government, andto render it inefficient in its general objects, & more especially in pecuniary and foreign concerns. The want too of a separation of the legislative, executive, & judiciary functions worked disadvantageously inpractice. Yet this state of things afforded a happy augury of the future march of our confederacy, when it was seen that the good sense and good dispositions of the people, as soon as they perceived the incompetence of their first compact, instead of leaving it's correction to insurrection and civil war, agreed with one voice to elect deputies to a general convention,who should peaceably meet and agree on such a constitution as ‘would ensure peace, justice, liberty, the common defence & general welfare."Notice his use of the term, 'confederation'! There is a big difference between the meanings of the words, confederation and united. Confederation means, a uniting or being united in a league or alliance, specifically

-independent nations or states joined in a league or confederacy whose central authority is usually confined to common defence and limited political cooperation such as the situation with the United States of America (1781-89) under the Articles of Confederation. United, means to be made one! Jefferson is writing specifically here of the time period around 1787 – 88! Eleven years after the signing of the Declaration of Independencethere still was no "united" but a "confederation" of 13 independent states each with their own constitution! There was as yet, no "United" States of America but a "Confederation" of the States of America. There was noconstitution! There was no head! It was at this time an incomplete body, incapabable of functioning on its own. As Jefferson writes, "The fundamental defect of the Confederation was that Congress was not authorized to act immediately on the people, & by its own officers. Their power was only requisitory, and these requisitions

were addressed to the several legislatures, to be by them carried into execution, without other coercionthan the moral principle of duty." How can it be a nation when it could not even govern immediately nor did it wield the authority to do so? Instead, decisions of a confederate congress had to first be voted upon in eachindependent state government. A nation has a central government functioning on behalf of the body!There is no ‘nation’ called the EU! There is only a confederation of fully independent nations, which is why it is called the European Union. There is no central government that makes economic decisions, they cannot treat with foreign nations on behalf of the body, they cannot decide a military question etc; there are hundreds of things they cannot do that a sovereignnation can do! It’s a myth to sit and cast charts for the EU as a 'nation'! It is not a nation! I would like to submit that this period is only the foetal period, the foetus in

development. I would like to propose, that our nation was in fact born when the first "head" made his debut into the light of the world and the now united body took its first breath. The inauguration of George Washington! That was in fact, the final act of the now functioning body whose members had all ratified and accepted the new Constitution. Noteveryone was for a United States! In many of the states, the affirmative ratification of the proposed constitution was by very narrow margins! New York, for example, was 30 for and 27 against! Only three of the independent colonies were unanimous! They had all already agreed that for there to be a united consensus and acceptance, then 9 colony 'states' had to ratify theconstitution in their governments. The ninth state was New York which signed and ratified the constitution on July 26, 1788! North Carolina did not enter the Union until after the new government was well on its way. The first convention (July, 1788) refused, by a

vote of 184 to 84, to ratify the Constitution because of the lack of a Bill of Rights and in the fear that the strong National government would in time overbear State authority. Rhode Island, which did not send delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and which long refused to ratify, knocked at the door for admission after thenew government began to deal with it as a foreign country and subjected it to taxes on its exports (in May 1790!).The "birth" of anything carries the implication that it functions on its own as an entity. These early forefathers, like Jefferson, did not perceive thenation to be a nation until it was functioning as a nation. Just as a business is not a business until it opens its doors for business! Only after the ascension of Washington as president was it a complete and whole form, an infant granted, but a whole and complete form. And it is this form that is recognised by the world, not that foetal form which was post-Declaration of

Independence. That was only the conception. On July 2, 1788, Congress received word that the ninth State had ratified the proposed constitution.In September, it fixed the first Wednesday in January, 1789, for the choice of electors, the first Wednesday in February for balloting for a President and a Vice President, and the first Wednesday in March for the commencement of the new government (and that date, March 4, 1789 remained until 1933).That was THEIR perspective, so how can people come along NOW and say otherwise <gAstrologers are supposed to see history objectively. It is a purely subjective choice to take the Declaration of Independence! It wasn’t the founders’ choice since they saw the government as commencing as a functioning entity March 4, 1789! That is because Washington was supposed to be inaugurated March 3, but he was broke and had to borrow the money (100$)from a friend so he could go, LOL! He was almost a month late! <g>.

Instead,Washington was inaugurated April 30th 1789! Their opinion was that the government was a functioning government AFTER Washington should have beeninaugurated. So when did the US government commence (that means begin)? When did this confederation of states become one nation? Jefferson is clear inhis opinion! Nonetheless, we blithely go along believing what we will. As I said in my previous post, it is the astrologers’ duty to see things through the perspective of those who were there, an objective perspective. It is our forefathers “recollections” that matter, not our subjective opinion of them!So sorry, I can't accept popular opinion that the Declaration of Independence is the birth of America. It was only its conception in idea. To accept that proposition is like me saying the birth of my children was a fact when my wife and I decided to have sex to have them. My wife had two miscarriages and though we conceived the idea of having those two

children,they were NEVER born. A child isn’t born, until he is born – not before!Just because the Declaration of Independence is a popular opinion does not make it correct, it certainly is not supported by the facts! When the forefathers of America said that it would be "open for business" AFTER the inauguration of Washington, I have no problem accepting that! Wishful thinking does not make a thing so!You also wrote:<<In previous times the chart of the ruler or the ruling city or ruling family was used, the ruler was the state. The foundation of states was usually lost in antiquity, so the rulers chart and the signature sign of theplace was used.>>Sorry, but I also have to disagree with this statement! The ruler was not the state! Rulers and Dynasties were products of "the religion". The difference today is that the world is full of secular religion but religionnonetheless! Egypt, for example, was always Egypt regardless of the

Pharaoh because it was "the religion" that said Pharaoh was the physical manifestation of God. It was religion that perpetuated the Dynasties notPharaoh. In Abu Ma'shar's day, "the religion" happened to be Islam. In Medieval Europe, "the religion" was Catholicism and kings were kings because God /and the church) 'anointed' them so. Since the 18th century until today, "the religion" (in the west) is often political ideology like democracy, socialism, or communism; all secular religions! The Arabs and their religionwere given Venus and the sign Scorpio because in the shift of the triplicity of the Great Conjunctions for 571 AD indicating "the religion", the ascendant was Libra (Venus ruling) and Scorpio was the sign the Conjunction occurred in! Of course, they made charts when a king or ruler acceded to power. But it is clear from Abu Ma'shar's book that these were not used todetermine the outcome of the nation. That does not mean that what happened to the king was

inconsequential to the state. But it was "the religion" and subsequent "laws" that sustained states and nations, not the kings who came and went! The rise and fall of dynasties was not seen in the charts of kings! But in changes occurring to the "religion" sustaining them! As onesocio-political scholar puts it,"What this study is concerned with is a state of mind, a way of feeling, a disposition, a pattern of mental, emotional and behaviouristic elements, best compared to the set of attitudes engendered by a religion. Whatever may be said about the significance of the economic or other factors in the shaping of beliefs, it can hardly be denied that the all-embracing attitudes of this kind, once crystallized, are the real substance of history. The concrete elements of history; the acts of politicians, the aspirations of people, the ideas, values, preferences and prejudices of an age, are theoutward manifestations of its religion in the widest sense.The problem

under discussion could not be dealt with on the plane of systematic, discursive reasoning alone. For as in religion, although the partial theological framework may be a marvel of logic, with syllogismfollowing syllogism, the first premises, the axioms or the postulates must remain a matter of faith. They can be neither proved nor disproved. And it is they that really matter. They determine the ideas and acts, and resolve contradictions into some higher identity or harmony. The postulate of some ultimate, logical, exclusively valid social order is a matter of faith, andit is not much use trying to defeat it by argument. But its significance to the believer, and the power it has to move men and mountains, can hardly be exaggerated."These words echo with clarity, the reasoning and understanding of the ancient mundane astrologers teachings! In its greatest sense, and to understand political, economic or social events, we have to identify the source of motivation towards

these events, and it is always religious, whether secular or non-secular! From a traditional perspective, I am bewildered by statements like <<Note that the recent earthquakes happened in Scorpio places with Mars opposed andSaturn square their mundane sign. In the particular area of the quakes, it is reasonable to assume that Saturn was on the IC either at the time or at the previous eclipse or at the ingress.>> I'm sorry, what is this based on?According to your words, it is based on assumptions. What is reasonable about assuming anything? Who gave Scorpio to Pakistan, India and Afghanistan? Why are their mundane 'signatures' (whatever that is) Scorpio.These particular lands and peoples have had signs attributed to them for millennia, and it’s not Scorpio! All three of these countries were affected.Are you telling me they all have the same sign given them? The epicentre for the earthquake was right on the border, in the disputed

Kashmir zone! It’san area that both India and Pakistan lay claim to! According to the US Geographical survey, the epicentre of the event was 73°e 37' 44" & 33°n 29' 35". The time of the event was 8:50:40 AM local time (-5hrs) (October 8).Running a chart of the event does not put Saturn on the IC. Aquarius is on the IC but Saturn in Leo does not even closely aspect the cusp. It does put Scorpio on the Ascendant! Running a Libra Ingress for both Islamabad and New Delhi, (the Aries Ingress has mutable signs on the angles so a Libra Ingress is necessary), that same event ascendant, Scorpio is the cusp of the fourthin both charts with Mars (sudden violence) opposed the 4th (foundations, lands, and buildings etc.) That opposition is much closer the 4th cusp in the Pakistan chart, only minutes away from partile, and it was Pakistan who suffered much greater than India. To be even more precise, the event Mars had returned (Rx) to be partile opposition with Pakistan’s Ingress

4th! Thechart of the previous eclipse, from the 3rd of October, has Saturn in the 6th! I’m not deliberately trying to be offensive and I certainly do not want to quench your fire, but I have become very sceptical to so-called modern predictive techniques because I have yet to see them predict anything. It seems to me they are not much more than exercises in hindsight, assumptions and speculation! I do not doubt the use of eclipses in mundane work. In fact Robert Zollers' prediction of the events of September 2001, were made in August 2000 and based on the July eclipse of 1999 and the Great Conjunctionin 2000! Now I’ve never had it explained in full what he based his predictions on, but he did assure me while in his course that he does not use a chart of the Declaration of Independence. If he uses a chart of the US 'beginning', it is more likely the Ingress chart for 1789. Perhaps David or Anya knows which charts he used since they attended his mundane

seminar.I remember after 9/11, sites like AstroDienst put the event chart up and asked, where do we see this event in the chart? There were hundreds responding. But in reading them I had to ask myself, if this was so clear in hindsight (everybody saw it so plainly) why wasn’t it equally clear in foresight? If I drove my car on the principle of hindsight, I would be dead by now <g>. You can’t drive with your eyes glued to the rear view mirror. You have been bold enough to make predictions, and God bless for that, don’t let me discourage that. I believe strongly in prediction although sometimes I think our expectations may be somewhat misplaced. I mainly concentrate my work to here in Scandinavia and northern Europe. David is working in the Caribbean. You and Dorothy are in the US. Anton is in Russia. What would bean interesting proposition would to be to have one place on the net where traditional astrologers could place their predictions for their areas. It

certainly would place them more accessible to follow up and perhaps helpcontribute to a greater dialogue in finding what works and what doesn’t. Just some thoughts,Best regards,Steven

 

The New Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database.