Guest guest Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 Dear friends,Sometimes, it is helpful to go a little bit outside the box in ones thinking, in an effort to better understand the dynamics of countries and what they are essentially about.One salient issue in the international context is the concept of empire. Certainly, this issue is of relevance to mundane astrologers. At its core, the concept of Empire is that some country or civilization becomes pre-eminent in the geo-political domain while other countries live in the shadow of the empire. Even then, there are always other countries that for some reason act as potentential rivals to the country holding the mantle of empire, either because of their inherent strength or by being further away from the center of the empire. Many consider the USA to be an empire - either in the process of becoming one or being at risk of having expanded too far. Certainly, since its inception in 1781, the federal powers have grown in strength and it has exercised a growing presence in the world. Great Britain was an empire where the Sun never set. It is no longer an empire - only a shadow of its former glory. The European Union contains almost 30 well developed countries with a land mass and population to rival the USA. However, its constitutional structure is so weak that it has no federal powers and the power resides firmly with the member states, making it a weak actor on the global stage. Hence, the EU is not an empire. China is by some considered having the potential to become an empire again due to its land mass and staggering population. India is another potential candidate for the same reasons. However, many think that the lack of dynamism in these countries, due to their internal structures, or central operating principles, makes them too weak, and will deny them such powers on the world stage. In fact, such problems may be making their sheer size an obstacle to such development.The ideas of popular writers are all over the place in this respect. The central idea of Niall Fergusson's 2004 book "Colossus - The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" is contained in the title. He thinks the Bush Administration is operating on the principle that the USA is an empire and has to recognize this role, while liberals are in "denial" about this fact. Ferguson, however, echoes the sentiments of Paul Kennedy's 1987 book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers - Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000" which warned the US of going into "military overstretch". Earlier, Ravi Batra in his 1978 book "The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism - A New Study of History" warned that the present Age of Acquisitors (Capitalism) would be supplanted by an Age of Commanders leading to the true birth of an American Empire. All these writers look to the transformation of the Roman Republic into Roman Empire over 2000 years ago as a textbook case of empire, its prospects, influence and limits. Samuel Huntington in his 1996 book "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order" argued for a civilizational thrust, rather than by country, with the clash involving e.g. Christian nations and the Muslim ones. This idea has been more or less rejected. Francis Fukyama argued in his 1992 book "The End of History and the Last Man" that the social model of liberal markets was the future and that no other social organisation made sense. This order would preclude empire. Rather, the protection of markets became the priority of influential countries beholden to this vision. Perhaps this book comes closest to reflecting the uneasy alliance of US military power and market reach. That said, this seems to be a nexus that has made the USA into what it is - a vibrant commercial culture that are protected by a strong state and military that exerts its power to expand the reach of laws and regulations supporting commerce and protecting the investments across the globe through international bodies.For mundane astrologers, it should be interesting to see what it is that promises such preeminence among countries - to have an undisputed place as the strongest country in the world. The SAMVA USA chart is consistent with such a presence, and Fergusson actually cites the debate about the Articles of Confederation as a signal to the future emphasis."That the United States would expand was decided almost from its very inception. When, in the draft Articles of Confederation of July 1776, John Dickinson proposed setting western boundaries of the states, the idea was thrown out at the committee stage. To George Washington the United States was a "nascent empire," later an "infant empire." Thomas Jefferson told James Madison he was "persuaded no constitution was before as well calculated as ours for extending extensive empire and self-government." The initial "confederacy" of thirteen would be "the nest from which all of America, North and South [would] be peopled." Indeed, Jefferson observed in a letter of 1801 that the short history of the United States had already furnished "a new proof for the falsehood of Montesquie's doctrine, that a republic can be preserved only in a small territory." Madison agreed; in the tenth of the Federalist Papers, he forcefully argued for "extend[ing] the sphere" to create a larger republic. Alexander Hamilton too referred to the United States in the opening paragraph of the first of the Federalist Papers - as "in many respects the most interesting...empire...in the world." He looked forward eagerly to the emergence of a "great American system, superior to the control of all trans-Atlantic force of influence, and able to dictate the terms of connection between the Old and the New World." p. 34.In short, the ambition is expressed at the very founding of the country for such a destiny. The evident success of this vision in ensuing centuries suggests strongly that the authentic mundane chart for the USA should possess strong military characteristics and status in the foreign sphere. The Cancer rising SAMVA USA chart, being based on the moment when the 13th state formally but belatedly (only after the claims of a number of other states to the western territories were rescinded) decided to enter the union, offers these elements in a stunning way. The major astrological factors are the- opposition of L1 Moon in H11 with L10 Mars and L6 Jupiter in H5 - the strength of L2 Sun in H7, albeit with an affliction from L8 Saturn in H5By comparison, the Virgo rising chart for the EEC's (later EU´s) Treaty of Rome is quite weak in this comparison, although the L1 Mercury, L2 Venus and L12 Sun are placed in H7, with L12 Sun closely afflicting H7 and H1. Moroever, L8 Mars (MMP) is afflicting closely H9, H12, H3 and H4. This is not an auspicious chart for military success or status as empire - although it denotes clearly many challenges in this regard.India's independence chart shows Taurus rising with L12 Mars afflicting H2, H5, H8 and H9, while Ketu afflicts H7, H11, H1 and H3 and L3 Moon. This is not a chart that indicates success akin to an empire.It will be interesting to explore charts for China, which is is a country that is by some viewed with potential awe and worry, given the "militaristic" nature of the leadership, rapid economic growth and large population.Best wishes,Thor Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Small Business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 Hello dear Mr. Thor, Your points are always thought provoking with quite reasonable astrological factors. Best wishes. - Cosmologer samva Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:17 PM The major powers: a question of empire Dear friends,Sometimes, it is helpful to go a little bit outside the box in ones thinking, in an effort to better understand the dynamics of countries and what they are essentially about.One salient issue in the international context is the concept of empire. Certainly, this issue is of relevance to mundane astrologers. At its core, the concept of Empire is that some country or civilization becomes pre-eminent in the geo-political domain while other countries live in the shadow of the empire. Even then, there are always other countries that for some reason act as potentential rivals to the country holding the mantle of empire, either because of their inherent strength or by being further away from the center of the empire. Many consider the USA to be an empire - either in the process of becoming one or being at risk of having expanded too far. Certainly, since its inception in 1781, the federal powers have grown in strength and it has exercised a growing presence in the world. Great Britain was an empire where the Sun never set. It is no longer an empire - only a shadow of its former glory. The European Union contains almost 30 well developed countries with a land mass and population to rival the USA. However, its constitutional structure is so weak that it has no federal powers and the power resides firmly with the member states, making it a weak actor on the global stage. Hence, the EU is not an empire. China is by some considered having the potential to become an empire again due to its land mass and staggering population. India is another potential candidate for the same reasons. However, many think that the lack of dynamism in these countries, due to their internal structures, or central operating principles, makes them too weak, and will deny them such powers on the world stage. In fact, such problems may be making their sheer size an obstacle to such development.The ideas of popular writers are all over the place in this respect. The central idea of Niall Fergusson's 2004 book "Colossus - The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" is contained in the title. He thinks the Bush Administration is operating on the principle that the USA is an empire and has to recognize this role, while liberals are in "denial" about this fact. Ferguson, however, echoes the sentiments of Paul Kennedy's 1987 book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers - Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000" which warned the US of going into "military overstretch". Earlier, Ravi Batra in his 1978 book "The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism - A New Study of History" warned that the present Age of Acquisitors (Capitalism) would be supplanted by an Age of Commanders leading to the true birth of an American Empire. All these writers look to the transformation of the Roman Republic into Roman Empire over 2000 years ago as a textbook case of empire, its prospects, influence and limits. Samuel Huntington in his 1996 book "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order" argued for a civilizational thrust, rather than by country, with the clash involving e.g. Christian nations and the Muslim ones. This idea has been more or less rejected. Francis Fukyama argued in his 1992 book "The End of History and the Last Man" that the social model of liberal markets was the future and that no other social organisation made sense. This order would preclude empire. Rather, the protection of markets became the priority of influential countries beholden to this vision. Perhaps this book comes closest to reflecting the uneasy alliance of US military power and market reach. That said, this seems to be a nexus that has made the USA into what it is - a vibrant commercial culture that are protected by a strong state and military that exerts its power to expand the reach of laws and regulations supporting commerce and protecting the investments across the globe through international bodies.For mundane astrologers, it should be interesting to see what it is that promises such preeminence among countries - to have an undisputed place as the strongest country in the world. The SAMVA USA chart is consistent with such a presence, and Fergusson actually cites the debate about the Articles of Confederation as a signal to the future emphasis."That the United States would expand was decided almost from its very inception. When, in the draft Articles of Confederation of July 1776, John Dickinson proposed setting western boundaries of the states, the idea was thrown out at the committee stage. To George Washington the United States was a "nascent empire," later an "infant empire." Thomas Jefferson told James Madison he was "persuaded no constitution was before as well calculated as ours for extending extensive empire and self-government." The initial "confederacy" of thirteen would be "the nest from which all of America, North and South [would] be peopled." Indeed, Jefferson observed in a letter of 1801 that the short history of the United States had already furnished "a new proof for the falsehood of Montesquie's doctrine, that a republic can be preserved only in a small territory." Madison agreed; in the tenth of the Federalist Papers, he forcefully argued for "extend[ing] the sphere" to create a larger republic. Alexander Hamilton too referred to the United States in the opening paragraph of the first of the Federalist Papers - as "in many respects the most interesting...empire...in the world." He looked forward eagerly to the emergence of a "great American system, superior to the control of all trans-Atlantic force of influence, and able to dictate the terms of connection between the Old and the New World." p. 34.In short, the ambition is expressed at the very founding of the country for such a destiny. The evident success of this vision in ensuing centuries suggests strongly that the authentic mundane chart for the USA should possess strong military characteristics and status in the foreign sphere. The Cancer rising SAMVA USA chart, being based on the moment when the 13th state formally but belatedly (only after the claims of a number of other states to the western territories were rescinded) decided to enter the union, offers these elements in a stunning way. The major astrological factors are the- opposition of L1 Moon in H11 with L10 Mars and L6 Jupiter in H5 - the strength of L2 Sun in H7, albeit with an affliction from L8 Saturn in H5By comparison, the Virgo rising chart for the EEC's (later EU´s) Treaty of Rome is quite weak in this comparison, although the L1 Mercury, L2 Venus and L12 Sun are placed in H7, with L12 Sun closely afflicting H7 and H1. Moroever, L8 Mars (MMP) is afflicting closely H9, H12, H3 and H4. This is not an auspicious chart for military success or status as empire - although it denotes clearly many challenges in this regard.India's independence chart shows Taurus rising with L12 Mars afflicting H2, H5, H8 and H9, while Ketu afflicts H7, H11, H1 and H3 and L3 Moon. This is not a chart that indicates success akin to an empire.It will be interesting to explore charts for China, which is is a country that is by some viewed with potential awe and worry, given the "militaristic" nature of the leadership, rapid economic growth and large population.Best wishes,Thor Get your own web address.Have a HUGE year through Small Business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 Dear , Thank you for the kind words. Best wishes, Thor SAMVA , <siha wrote: > > > Hello dear Mr. Thor, > > Your points are always thought provoking with quite reasonable astrological factors. > > Best wishes. > > > > > > - > Cosmologer > samva > Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:17 PM > The major powers: a question of empire > > > Dear friends, > > Sometimes, it is helpful to go a little bit outside the box in ones thinking, in an effort to better understand the dynamics of countries and what they are essentially about. > > One salient issue in the international context is the concept of empire. Certainly, this issue is of relevance to mundane astrologers. At its core, the concept of Empire is that some country or civilization becomes pre-eminent in the geo-political domain while other countries live in the shadow of the empire. Even then, there are always other countries that for some reason act as potentential rivals to the country holding the mantle of empire, either because of their inherent strength or by being further away from the center of the empire. > > Many consider the USA to be an empire - either in the process of becoming one or being at risk of having expanded too far. Certainly, since its inception in 1781, the federal powers have grown in strength and it has exercised a growing presence in the world. Great Britain was an empire where the Sun never set. It is no longer an empire - only a shadow of its former glory. The European Union contains almost 30 well developed countries with a land mass and population to rival the USA. However, its constitutional structure is so weak that it has no federal powers and the power resides firmly with the member states, making it a weak actor on the global stage. Hence, the EU is not an empire. China is by some considered having the potential to become an empire again due to its land mass and staggering population. India is another potential candidate for the same reasons. However, many think that the lack of dynamism in these countries, due to their internal structures, or central operating principles, makes them too weak, and will deny them such powers on the world stage. In fact, such problems may be making their sheer size an obstacle to such development. > > The ideas of popular writers are all over the place in this respect. The central idea of Niall Fergusson's 2004 book " Colossus - The Rise and Fall of the American Empire " is contained in the title. He thinks the Bush Administration is operating on the principle that the USA is an empire and has to recognize this role, while liberals are in " denial " about this fact. Ferguson, however, echoes the sentiments of Paul Kennedy's 1987 book " The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers - Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 " which warned the US of going into " military overstretch " . Earlier, Ravi Batra in his 1978 book " The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism - A New Study of History " warned that the present Age of Acquisitors (Capitalism) would be supplanted by an Age of Commanders leading to the true birth of an American Empire. All these writers look to the transformation of the Roman Republic into Roman Empire over 2000 years ago as a textbook case of empire, its prospects, influence and limits. Samuel Huntington in his 1996 book " The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order " argued for a civilizational thrust, rather than by country, with the clash involving e.g. Christian nations and the Muslim ones. This idea has been more or less rejected. Francis Fukyama argued in his 1992 book " The End of History and the Last Man " that the social model of liberal markets was the future and that no other social organisation made sense. This order would preclude empire. Rather, the protection of markets became the priority of influential countries beholden to this vision. Perhaps this book comes closest to reflecting the uneasy alliance of US military power and market reach. That said, this seems to be a nexus that has made the USA into what it is - a vibrant commercial culture that are protected by a strong state and military that exerts its power to expand the reach of laws and regulations supporting commerce and protecting the investments across the globe through international bodies. > > For mundane astrologers, it should be interesting to see what it is that promises such preeminence among countries - to have an undisputed place as the strongest country in the world. The SAMVA USA chart is consistent with such a presence, and Fergusson actually cites the debate about the Articles of Confederation as a signal to the future emphasis. > > " That the United States would expand was decided almost from its very inception. When, in the draft Articles of Confederation of July 1776, John Dickinson proposed setting western boundaries of the states, the idea was thrown out at the committee stage. To George Washington the United States was a " nascent empire, " later an " infant empire. " Thomas Jefferson told James Madison he was " persuaded no constitution was before as well calculated as ours for extending extensive empire and self-government. " The initial " confederacy " of thirteen would be " the nest from which all of America, North and South [would] be peopled. " Indeed, Jefferson observed in a letter of 1801 that the short history of the United States had already furnished " a new proof for the falsehood of Montesquie's doctrine, that a republic can be preserved only in a small territory. " Madison agreed; in the tenth of the Federalist Papers, he forcefully argued for " extend[ing] the sphere " to create a larger republic. Alexander Hamilton too referred to the United States in the opening paragraph of the first of the Federalist Papers - as " in many respects the most interesting...empire...in the world. " He looked forward eagerly to the emergence of a " great American system, superior to the control of all trans-Atlantic force of influence, and able to dictate the terms of connection between the Old and the New World. " p. 34. > > In short, the ambition is expressed at the very founding of the country for such a destiny. The evident success of this vision in ensuing centuries suggests strongly that the authentic mundane chart for the USA should possess strong military characteristics and status in the foreign sphere. The Cancer rising SAMVA USA chart, being based on the moment when the 13th state formally but belatedly (only after the claims of a number of other states to the western territories were rescinded) decided to enter the union, offers these elements in a stunning way. The major astrological factors are the > - opposition of L1 Moon in H11 with L10 Mars and L6 Jupiter in H5 > - the strength of L2 Sun in H7, albeit with an affliction from L8 Saturn in H5 > > By comparison, the Virgo rising chart for the EEC's (later EU´s) Treaty of Rome is quite weak in this comparison, although the L1 Mercury, L2 Venus and L12 Sun are placed in H7, with L12 Sun closely afflicting H7 and H1. Moroever, L8 Mars (MMP) is afflicting closely H9, H12, H3 and H4. This is not an auspicious chart for military success or status as empire - although it denotes clearly many challenges in this regard. > > India's independence chart shows Taurus rising with L12 Mars afflicting H2, H5, H8 and H9, while Ketu afflicts H7, H11, H1 and H3 and L3 Moon. This is not a chart that indicates success akin to an empire. > > It will be interesting to explore charts for China, which is is a country that is by some viewed with potential awe and worry, given the " militaristic " nature of the leadership, rapid economic growth and large population. > > Best wishes, > > Thor > > > > > > Get your own web address. > Have a HUGE year through Small Business. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2007 Report Share Posted April 9, 2007 Dear friends, I attach a fascinating insight into scholarly research on the struggle for power between the US Presidency and the US Congress. The authors find that the US Presidency is generally winning, sometimes based on manipulation, making the democracy loopsided. The term " Imperial Presidency " is used. Morover, the research shows that the way the nation choses its Presidents, and this has changed in the 20th century, is shaping the office of the President, maybe with future additional consquences for the democracy and the tendency for empire. Best wishes, Thor How U.S. Presidents Make End-Runs Around Hapless Congress By Michael Glennon April 9 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush-Cheney White House isn't the first one to treat Congress with contempt. Its bitter disputes with Capitol Hill over war funding, U.S. attorneys and recess appointments (to name just the most recent examples) are part of a long, troubling history of executive-branch high- handedness. As Matthew Crenson and Benjamin Ginsberg show in ``Presidential Power: Unchecked and Unbalanced,'' the ``imperial presidency'' (the late Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s term) has been upending the balance of powers set forth in the Constitution for the past century. The courts have usually gone along, while Congress has fought a losing battle to reverse the erosion of its authority. It may not look that way today, with assertive Democrats finally attempting, however haphazardly, to challenge the Bush administration. To Crenson and Ginsberg, though, we've been here before. In their unsettling portrait of American politics, the presidency (scandals, impeachments and unpopular wars notwithstanding) relentlessly amasses power, Congress retreats and democracy suffers. The first half of ``Presidential Power'' is a fact-filled history of these various power shifts since the earliest days of the republic. The authors -- political scientists at Johns Hopkins University -- write in a sterile, academic style, which makes this long survey slow going. Hacks, Superstars One of their themes is that ``the kinds of presidents we get depend on the processes by which we get them.'' Nineteenth- century chief executives were often pliant underachievers handpicked by powerful party bosses. But by the early 20th century, ties between candidates and parties were fraying, and would-be presidents began to mount White House bids on their own. These ambitious free agents, the authors argue, wanted to make history, and to do that they needed power. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088 & sid=arKAwHB2dJMk & refer=home SAMVA , <siha wrote: > > > Hello dear Mr. Thor, > > Your points are always thought provoking with quite reasonable astrological factors. > > Best wishes. > > > > > > - > Cosmologer > samva > Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:17 PM > The major powers: a question of empire > > > Dear friends, > > Sometimes, it is helpful to go a little bit outside the box in ones thinking, in an effort to better understand the dynamics of countries and what they are essentially about. > > One salient issue in the international context is the concept of empire. Certainly, this issue is of relevance to mundane astrologers. At its core, the concept of Empire is that some country or civilization becomes pre-eminent in the geo-political domain while other countries live in the shadow of the empire. Even then, there are always other countries that for some reason act as potentential rivals to the country holding the mantle of empire, either because of their inherent strength or by being further away from the center of the empire. > > Many consider the USA to be an empire - either in the process of becoming one or being at risk of having expanded too far. Certainly, since its inception in 1781, the federal powers have grown in strength and it has exercised a growing presence in the world. Great Britain was an empire where the Sun never set. It is no longer an empire - only a shadow of its former glory. The European Union contains almost 30 well developed countries with a land mass and population to rival the USA. However, its constitutional structure is so weak that it has no federal powers and the power resides firmly with the member states, making it a weak actor on the global stage. Hence, the EU is not an empire. China is by some considered having the potential to become an empire again due to its land mass and staggering population. India is another potential candidate for the same reasons. However, many think that the lack of dynamism in these countries, due to their internal structures, or central operating principles, makes them too weak, and will deny them such powers on the world stage. In fact, such problems may be making their sheer size an obstacle to such development. > > The ideas of popular writers are all over the place in this respect. The central idea of Niall Fergusson's 2004 book " Colossus - The Rise and Fall of the American Empire " is contained in the title. He thinks the Bush Administration is operating on the principle that the USA is an empire and has to recognize this role, while liberals are in " denial " about this fact. Ferguson, however, echoes the sentiments of Paul Kennedy's 1987 book " The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers - Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 " which warned the US of going into " military overstretch " . Earlier, Ravi Batra in his 1978 book " The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism - A New Study of History " warned that the present Age of Acquisitors (Capitalism) would be supplanted by an Age of Commanders leading to the true birth of an American Empire. All these writers look to the transformation of the Roman Republic into Roman Empire over 2000 years ago as a textbook case of empire, its prospects, influence and limits. Samuel Huntington in his 1996 book " The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order " argued for a civilizational thrust, rather than by country, with the clash involving e.g. Christian nations and the Muslim ones. This idea has been more or less rejected. Francis Fukyama argued in his 1992 book " The End of History and the Last Man " that the social model of liberal markets was the future and that no other social organisation made sense. This order would preclude empire. Rather, the protection of markets became the priority of influential countries beholden to this vision. Perhaps this book comes closest to reflecting the uneasy alliance of US military power and market reach. That said, this seems to be a nexus that has made the USA into what it is - a vibrant commercial culture that are protected by a strong state and military that exerts its power to expand the reach of laws and regulations supporting commerce and protecting the investments across the globe through international bodies. > > For mundane astrologers, it should be interesting to see what it is that promises such preeminence among countries - to have an undisputed place as the strongest country in the world. The SAMVA USA chart is consistent with such a presence, and Fergusson actually cites the debate about the Articles of Confederation as a signal to the future emphasis. > > " That the United States would expand was decided almost from its very inception. When, in the draft Articles of Confederation of July 1776, John Dickinson proposed setting western boundaries of the states, the idea was thrown out at the committee stage. To George Washington the United States was a " nascent empire, " later an " infant empire. " Thomas Jefferson told James Madison he was " persuaded no constitution was before as well calculated as ours for extending extensive empire and self-government. " The initial " confederacy " of thirteen would be " the nest from which all of America, North and South [would] be peopled. " Indeed, Jefferson observed in a letter of 1801 that the short history of the United States had already furnished " a new proof for the falsehood of Montesquie's doctrine, that a republic can be preserved only in a small territory. " Madison agreed; in the tenth of the Federalist Papers, he forcefully argued for " extend[ing] the sphere " to create a larger republic. Alexander Hamilton too referred to the United States in the opening paragraph of the first of the Federalist Papers - as " in many respects the most interesting...empire...in the world. " He looked forward eagerly to the emergence of a " great American system, superior to the control of all trans-Atlantic force of influence, and able to dictate the terms of connection between the Old and the New World. " p. 34. > > In short, the ambition is expressed at the very founding of the country for such a destiny. The evident success of this vision in ensuing centuries suggests strongly that the authentic mundane chart for the USA should possess strong military characteristics and status in the foreign sphere. The Cancer rising SAMVA USA chart, being based on the moment when the 13th state formally but belatedly (only after the claims of a number of other states to the western territories were rescinded) decided to enter the union, offers these elements in a stunning way. The major astrological factors are the > - opposition of L1 Moon in H11 with L10 Mars and L6 Jupiter in H5 > - the strength of L2 Sun in H7, albeit with an affliction from L8 Saturn in H5 > > By comparison, the Virgo rising chart for the EEC's (later EU´s) Treaty of Rome is quite weak in this comparison, although the L1 Mercury, L2 Venus and L12 Sun are placed in H7, with L12 Sun closely afflicting H7 and H1. Moroever, L8 Mars (MMP) is afflicting closely H9, H12, H3 and H4. This is not an auspicious chart for military success or status as empire - although it denotes clearly many challenges in this regard. > > India's independence chart shows Taurus rising with L12 Mars afflicting H2, H5, H8 and H9, while Ketu afflicts H7, H11, H1 and H3 and L3 Moon. This is not a chart that indicates success akin to an empire. > > It will be interesting to explore charts for China, which is is a country that is by some viewed with potential awe and worry, given the " militaristic " nature of the leadership, rapid economic growth and large population. > > Best wishes, > > Thor > > > > > > Get your own web address. > Have a HUGE year through Small Business. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.