Canada charts?the Professor is Right

April 5, 2005

Hi Chuck and thanks

There's no question that the NATION's chart is one chart and has primacy in relevant discussions of events broadly impacting the people of that nation. But THE NATION is THE STATE for analytical purposes, a nation's people in their "civic" capacity; THE NATION is not THE GOVERNMENT. The government is a set of monopolistic institutional arrangements driving rules enforcement, the terms of which are laid out by the State in the establishment of the State's constitution. In short, the government is the agency; the State is the principal; agent works for principal. In the case of Canada, the State was in existence from 1842....By 1867 it managed to finally constitutionally establish national governance for the provinces of Canada. A principal, the State, engaged its agent, the government.

But there are other institutional arrangments within a nation. The national government is a most important one of them within THE NATION, but not the only relevent one. For example,

if one were to study President Bush's war in Iraq, I'd recommend paying close attention to the Washington Inaugural chart for April 30, 1789 for New York City @ 1:15/1:30 pm (unrectified) in addition to the charts for the government, 1781, and, of course, THE NATION: JULY 2,1776 . The reasons for the appropriateness of a look at yet another chart, at this 1789 presidential chart should require little elaboration here, except to point out the legitamacy of treating this chart as that of the birth of the Presidency, and its relevance when assessing the actions of the U.S. Executive. For example, that the U.S. war Iraq is an imperialistic Presidential intervention outside the terms of the U.S. Constitution, with the connivance of the U.S. Congress and the judiciary. In the near term, the fate of the people of Iraq is in the hands of the fate of the U.S. presidency

Best wishes,

John

wakefieldvedic <radiopro55 wrote:

Dear John, Jorge and list. Thank you both for your prompt replies. You raise a very interesting point, as I have been following your discussion about the U.S rectified chart religiously. Jorge uses the date of Confederation, 1867, as one of the dates for rectification of the Canada Union chart, as if the birth of the government of Canada was an event echoed in the Canada Union chart. When Jorge first rectified the Canada Union chart, moderator Thor wrote that the 1867 chart had so often offered such luke-warm results as a chart for Canada the nation, and I agree with his assessment. The 1867 chart has been a kind of on-again, off-again frustration. I have never seen such fierce affliction correlating with such intense activity as now in the 1867 chart.I also share the Professor's contention that there can be only onde true

chart for the country, but your suggestion to descriminate between the goernment and the nation state certainly bears ongoing exploration. The events here in Canada shake the very foundations of government, but on a day to day level, the upheaval means very little to the people, other than there may be another election. I appreciate your perspective on this matter. ChuckSAMVA , JohnTWB <jtwbjakarta> wrote:> Hi Chuck> > By my reckoning you've just made a good case for why the chart for a given nation and the chart for that same given nation's government are two distinct mundane entites, and may show very different conditions with respect to the same major event..> > Canada 1867 is the prime candidate for the birth chart of Canada's national ""government"".> > The SAMVA rectified birth chart for the Canada Union 1842 is the chart of the

national ""state"", sometimes referred to as NATION STATE, sometimes but probably most often referred to as the birth chart of THE NATION.> > > > wakefieldvedic <radiopro55@h...> wrote:> > Dear Jorge and list. I draw your attention to how heavily afflicted by > transit the chart of Canada 1867 is versus the Canada Union chart. > Over the past week, a government Commission into The Adscam Scandal > has heard testimony so explosive and damaging that it could ruin the > reputations of the former Prime Minister and many of his former > Cabinet members as well as bring down the government and force an > election.There has never been anything so powerful in Canadian > politics before, if this testimony proves to be corroborated. Chuck> > > > > > >

April 5, 2005

Dear John. One small point of clarification here. In contrast to the

United States unilateral declarations, Canada's were not " managed "

internally. Rather the creation of both the NATION and the

GOVERNMENT were acts of the external British parliament. Thanks,

Chuck

SAMVA , JohnTWB <jtwbjakarta> wrote:

> Hi Chuck and thanks

>

> There's no question that the NATION's chart is one chart and has

primacy in relevant discussions of events broadly impacting the

people of that nation. But THE NATION is THE STATE for analytical

purposes, a nation's people in their " civic " capacity; THE NATION is

not THE GOVERNMENT. The government is a set of monopolistic

institutional arrangements driving rules enforcement, the terms of

which are laid out by the State in the establishment of the State's

constitution. In short, the government is the agency; the State is

the principal; agent works for principal. In the case of Canada,

the State was in existence from 1842....By 1867 it managed to

finally constitutionally establish national governance for the

provinces of Canada. A principal, the State, engaged its agent, the

government.

>

> But there are other institutional arrangments within a nation. The

national government is a most important one of them within THE

NATION, but not the only relevent one. For example,

> if one were to study President Bush's war in Iraq, I'd recommend

paying close attention to the Washington Inaugural chart for April

30, 1789 for New York City @ 1:15/1:30 pm (unrectified) in addition

to the charts for the government, 1781, and, of course, THE NATION:

JULY 2,1776 . The reasons for the appropriateness of a look at yet

another chart, at this 1789 presidential chart should require little

elaboration here, except to point out the legitamacy of treating

this chart as that of the birth of the Presidency, and its relevance

when assessing the actions of the U.S. Executive. For example, that

the U.S. war Iraq is an imperialistic Presidential intervention

outside the terms of the U.S. Constitution, with the connivance of

the U.S. Congress and the judiciary. In the near term, the fate of

the people of Iraq is in the hands of the fate of the U.S.

presidency

>

> Best wishes,

>

> John

>

> wakefieldvedic <radiopro55@h...> wrote:

>

> Dear John, Jorge and list. Thank you both for your prompt replies.

> You raise a very interesting point, as I have been following your

> discussion about the U.S rectified chart religiously. Jorge uses

the

> date of Confederation, 1867, as one of the dates for rectification

> of the Canada Union chart, as if the birth of the government of

> Canada was an event echoed in the Canada Union chart. When Jorge

> first rectified the Canada Union chart, moderator Thor wrote that

> the 1867 chart had so often offered such luke-warm results as a

> chart for Canada the nation, and I agree with his assessment. The

> 1867 chart has been a kind of on-again, off-again frustration. I

> have never seen such fierce affliction correlating with such

intense

> activity as now in the 1867 chart.

> I also share the Professor's contention that there can be only

onde

> true chart for the country, but your suggestion to descriminate

> between the goernment and the nation state certainly bears ongoing

> exploration. The events here in Canada shake the very foundations

of

> government, but on a day to day level, the upheaval means very

> little to the people, other than there may be another election. I

> appreciate your perspective on this matter. Chuck

> SAMVA , JohnTWB <jtwbjakarta> wrote:

> > Hi Chuck

> >

> > By my reckoning you've just made a good case for why the chart

for

> a given nation and the chart for that same given nation's

government

> are two distinct mundane entites, and may show very different

> conditions with respect to the same major event..

> >

> > Canada 1867 is the prime candidate for the birth chart of

Canada's

> national " " government " " .

> >

> > The SAMVA rectified birth chart for the Canada Union 1842 is the

> chart of the national " " state " " , sometimes referred to as NATION

> STATE, sometimes but probably most often referred to as the birth

> chart of THE NATION.

> >

> > wakefieldvedic <radiopro55@h...> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Jorge and list. I draw your attention to how heavily

> afflicted by

> > transit the chart of Canada 1867 is versus the Canada Union

chart.

> > Over the past week, a government Commission into The Adscam

> Scandal

> > has heard testimony so explosive and damaging that it could ruin

> the

> > reputations of the former Prime Minister and many of his former

> > Cabinet members as well as bring down the government and force

an

> > election.There has never been anything so powerful in Canadian

> > politics before, if this testimony proves to be corroborated.

Chuck

> >

April 5, 2005

Hi Chuck

You are right to point it out the clarification. Canada is a very sticky historical reality in this regard.

Consider this:

In the context of "jus gentium", the classical law of nations, the United States achieved its sovereignty on September 3, 1783 by the Treaties of Paris (in the morning) and Versailles (in the afternoon). This event came more than 7 years after the July 2nd "declaration of independency" (not be be in any respect confused with the July 4th "Declaration of Independence").

Canada developed in a similar manner, however much longer it took. Canada's jus-gentoium sovereignty came in two steps: one LARGE: in 1931; one SMALL: 1992.

The Lesson: It's what I will neologize in calling "internal sovereignty" as distinguished from the "external sovereignty" observed in the jus-gentium. By which I mean to describe: when the local actors are behaving as if their actions are nationally sovereign because they believe it to be so, eg July 2, 1776, then they are sovereign, the jus-gentium to the contrary notwithstanding..

Furthermore, just cast a chart for Versailles, France @ 3:00 pm on September 3, 1783......Astrologically it fails the mundane tests. July 2nd 1776 passes.

So too for Canada by anaolgy

Best wishes, John

wakefieldvedic <radiopro55 wrote:

Dear John. One small point of clarification here. In contrast to the United States unilateral declarations, Canada's were not "managed" internally. Rather the creation of both the NATION and the GOVERNMENT were acts of the external British parliament. Thanks, ChuckSAMVA , JohnTWB <jtwbjakarta> wrote:> Hi Chuck and thanks> > There's no question that the NATION's chart is one chart and has primacy in relevant discussions of events broadly impacting the people of that nation. But THE NATION is THE STATE for analytical purposes, a nation's people in their "civic" capacity; THE NATION is not THE GOVERNMENT. The government is a set of monopolistic institutional arrangements driving rules enforcement, the terms of which are laid out by the State in the establishment of the State's

constitution. In short, the government is the agency; the State is the principal; agent works for principal. In the case of Canada, the State was in existence from 1842....By 1867 it managed to finally constitutionally establish national governance for the provinces of Canada. A principal, the State, engaged its agent, the government.> > But there are other institutional arrangments within a nation. The national government is a most important one of them within THE NATION, but not the only relevent one. For example,> if one were to study President Bush's war in Iraq, I'd recommend paying close attention to the Washington Inaugural chart for April 30, 1789 for New York City @ 1:15/1:30 pm (unrectified) in addition to the charts for the government, 1781, and, of course, THE NATION: JULY 2,1776 . The reasons for the appropriateness of a look at yet another chart, at this 1789 presidential chart should

require little elaboration here, except to point out the legitamacy of treating this chart as that of the birth of the Presidency, and its relevance when assessing the actions of the U.S. Executive. For example, that the U.S. war Iraq is an imperialistic Presidential intervention outside the terms of the U.S. Constitution, with the connivance of the U.S. Congress and the judiciary. In the near term, the fate of the people of Iraq is in the hands of the fate of the U.S. presidency > > Best wishes,> > John> > > wakefieldvedic <radiopro55@h...> wrote:> > Dear John, Jorge and list. Thank you both for your prompt replies. > You raise a very interesting point, as I have been following your > discussion about the U.S rectified chart religiously. Jorge uses the > date of Confederation, 1867, as one of the dates for rectification > of the

Canada Union chart, as if the birth of the government of > Canada was an event echoed in the Canada Union chart. When Jorge > first rectified the Canada Union chart, moderator Thor wrote that > the 1867 chart had so often offered such luke-warm results as a > chart for Canada the nation, and I agree with his assessment. The > 1867 chart has been a kind of on-again, off-again frustration. I > have never seen such fierce affliction correlating with such intense > activity as now in the 1867 chart.> I also share the Professor's contention that there can be only onde > true chart for the country, but your suggestion to descriminate > between the goernment and the nation state certainly bears ongoing > exploration. The events here in Canada shake the very foundations of > government, but on a day to day level, the upheaval means very > little to the people, other than there may be

another election. I > appreciate your perspective on this matter. Chuck> SAMVA , JohnTWB <jtwbjakarta> wrote:> > Hi Chuck> > > > By my reckoning you've just made a good case for why the chart for > a given nation and the chart for that same given nation's government > are two distinct mundane entites, and may show very different > conditions with respect to the same major event..> > > > Canada 1867 is the prime candidate for the birth chart of Canada's > national ""government"".> > > > The SAMVA rectified birth chart for the Canada Union 1842 is the > chart of the national ""state"", sometimes referred to as NATION > STATE, sometimes but probably most often referred to as the birth > chart of THE NATION.> > > > > > > > wakefieldvedic

<radiopro55@h...> wrote:> > > > Dear Jorge and list. I draw your attention to how heavily > afflicted by > > transit the chart of Canada 1867 is versus the Canada Union chart. > > Over the past week, a government Commission into The Adscam > Scandal > > has heard testimony so explosive and damaging that it could ruin > the > > reputations of the former Prime Minister and many of his former > > Cabinet members as well as bring down the government and force an > > election.There has never been anything so powerful in Canadian > > politics before, if this testimony proves to be corroborated. Chuck> > > > > > > > > > > > > >