| INTERPRETATION OF QUATRAIN IX - 34 |
Hello again. A while back I promised to explain a trilogy of quatrains, all of which link to help understand the
importance that the recreation of the State of Israel will play, in the story of the end of the world. In that regard, I have
previously explained quatrain III-97 and VI-81. I hope everyone has had a chance to scout out what has been written
about quatrain IX-34, because that is the topic of this writing. I had warned that VI-81 and IX-34 were “head-
scratchers”, because neither appears (at first glance) to have anything to do with Israel. Now I will point out how to
see that aspect.
Having done my own research into what the popular interpretation is about quatrain IX-34, I can safely say that some
have made a big deal about it being an example of Nostradamus’ truly prophetic powers. The only problem with that
summation is it is based on people seeing something absolutely not written as being what was written.
Let me explain. My personal copies of books about Nostradamus (the ones I have after Hurricane Katrina ruined the
books I once had), primarily one written by John Hogue, and another written by Erika Cheetham, both state that
quatrain IX-34 is solidly about Louis XVI, and (generally) about some minor events that occurred during the French
Revolution. However, a couple of glaring errors need to be addressed, which by themselves destroy their visions.
To begin this part of the discussion, it becomes necessary to provide a student with the evidence in question, which is
the quatrain. Following will be presented the Old French, then the translation of an online version of quatrain IX-34 (in
English). My translation will come after I have torn apart this French Revolution nonsense, because the 1948 version
of Israel has absolutely nothing to do with Louis XVI.
The Old French states (according to the 1568 Lyon edition, the one perfect edition to go by):
Le part soluz mary sera mittré,
Retour conflict passera sur le thuille:
Par cinq cens un trahyr sera tiltré,
Narbon & Saulce par coutaux avons dhuille.
Some random site I found on the Internet states this translates:
The single part afflicted will be mitered,
Return conflict to pass over the tile:
For five hundred one to betray will be titled
Narbonne and Salces we have oil for knives.
This translation makes it extremely difficult to stretch to fit the interpretation of Louis XVI, but then this site offers no
interpretation. However, Ms. Cheetham and Mr. Hogue (and others) agree with a translations that looks like this:
The husband, solitary, afflicted, will be mitred,
The return, conflict will cross over the Tuileries:
By five hundred one betrayer will be ennobled,
Narbonne & Saulce, we will have oil for knives.
The most important part of the Louis advocate’s argument comes from transforming “thuille” into “Tuileries.” The
place known as Tuileries is a palace that stood on the banks of the Seine River, until it was destroyed in 1871. Its
construction and completion was ordered by Louis XIV, and it was the residence of Louis XIV, XV, and XVI, at one time
or another. It was called the (in French) Palais des Tuileries, which means, “Palace of the Tile Kilns”. That name
came due to the fact that kilns had existed on that site, which were used to make tile. As interesting as that history is
to know, it has absolutely nothing to do with the spelled word written by Nostradamus, “thuille”.
I will get into the true meaning of “thuille” a little later, but for now, one has to realize something quite obvious. Such a
leap, from “thuille” to “Tuileries” requires some logical explanation, such as, “This is a documented pet name by local
French people, who speak a rare dialect.” No one has gone into any level of explanation as to how they deduced, or
imagined “thuille” turned itself into “Tuileries”. For one (very important one) thing, lower case letters do not become
capitalized letters, particularly if the spelling is changed. For another thing, while the possibility of an unknown word
can find it necessary to be examined as an anagram to solve, only the letter used by Nostradamus can be
rearranged. There has to be evidence if missing letters are added, such as a dictionary instruction to, “see [a
differently spelled version].”
Nostradamus wrote “thuille”, and the meaning that comes from those letters, and only those letters can tell what the
meaning is. Plain and simple. This is a rule that works in this quatrain, for this word, and works in every quatrain, for
every word. Certainly, there are some allowable exceptions (due to common abbreviations, differences in dialects
yielding differences in spelling, et al), but all exceptions have rational explanations. There can be no rational
explanation for the name Tuileries appearing from out of nowhere in quatrain IX-34, and that was the most specific
detail that allowed one to see Louis XVI.
The other obvious flaw comes from the second capitalized word in line four, “Saulce”. This word actually appears as
spelled in the 1611 dictionary, referring one to look up “Sauce.” The word’s meaning then is still how we all know
“Sauce”. It is defined as, “A sauce, condiment, seasoning for meat.” Today, we pour “sauce” over spaghetti (among
many other things). However, because of one thinking one sees Tuileries, when only thuille existed, one begins to see
the name of some Frenchman surnamed Saulce appearing. In the history of Louis XVI, after caught trying to escape
to safety, he spent the night at the house of a man named Saulce (a chandelier maker). Other than that night in a
commoner’s home, the man named Saulce is unimportant. It only seems important when one sees an imaginary
Tuileries.
Nostradamus only used specific names when he listed planets (Mars, Saturn, etc.), astrological signs (Aries, Leo,
etc.), mythological figures (Selene, Bellerophon, etc.), important historical figures (Hannibal, Nero, etc.), historical
places (France, Italy, etc.), historical peoples of Europe (Celts, Allobroges, etc.), and cities (Rome, London, etc.).
Whether I missed a few proper names in The Prophecies does not matter. All that needs be known is that every name
Nostradamus did list was a name from the past, not the future. This means that Nostradamus did not name someone
named Sauce. When one takes out the fantastic likelihood that “thuille” can turn into “Tuileries”, then it s easy to see
how ridiculous it is to think Nostradamus would name some MINOR character, who played no important role at all in
history (keep in mind, a capitalized word is ALWAYS stating importance).
Take away those two errors, and just like a math problem, which requires the only correct answer at the end, after
having shown the work getting to that correct answer, the conclusion that Nostradamus wrote quatrain IX-34 to be
about Louis XVI being captured at Varennes, and placed under house arrest in the Palace of Tuileries is WRONG.
Now, it is time to show how to read this quatrain. Get your notepads and pencils.
EVERY quatrain has a main theme, which is stated in the first line. Without knowing what the main theme is about,
one cannot solve the quatrain. The main theme line of quatrain IX-34 is difficult to come to, but it can be realized
through higher assistance (which I have been graced with, for your benefit). Still, the systems, where each line inter-
relates in a way of confirming themes, and adding details to those themes, means one can start at which ever line
seems the easiest to understand, and work backwards, or from the center out. In the case of this particular quatrain, it
is best if I start opening your eyes from line one, to line four, so you can see how all this interrelationship plays out.
The main theme states (in French), “Le part soluz mary sera mittré”, where the word “mary” is to be read as “mari” (in
Nostradamus’ Old French, a “y” = “i”, and often an “i” = “j”. They have to be seen as interchangeable.). What needs
to also be realized is that Nostradamus frequently pluralized words that typically are not found with a plural ending. In
many cases, the simple addition of an “s”, “z”, or “x” became a way to turn a verb into a plural noun, as “ones” who
acted in the way of the verb. As such, words with a plural ending need to be looked up with the pluralizing letter
removed. This applies to the word, “soluz”. That word must be read as, “solu – z”.
Our aforementioned translators must have read this word as “solos”, since they translated it to make line one say,
“The single part”, or “The husband, solitary.” There is nothing in the word “soluz” that says, “single.” The word “solu”
is a noun that means, “loose, free, careless, of scope” (meaning, “loose of scope, …” etc.) The addition of a “z” at the
end makes this become “ones loose of scope, free of scope ones, or careless of scope ones”.
Next, one finds that there never was an accepted spelling of the word “mitré”, where there was an extra “t” in the
middle. One finds that Nostradamus had a lot of words with an extra letter, like in the word “mittré”, where the extra
letter slips out and attaches to the front of the word, as a contraction of two words. This means the word “mittré” has
to be seen as a simple anagram (a simple word scramble, if you will), where it gets read as, “t’mitré”. This then
becomes, “yourself mitered”.
This then means one must understand the meaning of “mitered”, which is detailed somewhat in the 1611 dictionary
translation. There, Cotsgrave wrote, “hooded with a miter, wearing a miter”. In English, the word “miter” is then
defined as, “The liturgical headdress, and part of the insignia of the Christian bishop. In the Western Church it is a tall,
pointed hat …” Still, a second definition states, “a. A thong for binding the hair, worn by women in ancient Greece.” It
then further states, “b. The ceremonial headdress worn by ancient Jewish high priests.” Hmmmmm, Jewish?
Hmmmmmm. But wait, there is more information found in the etymology, particularly when one looks up “mitre”. The
Latin root, which stems from the Greek root, both “mitra”, means, “turban.” Hmmmmm, like what the Turkish Sultan
was known for wearing? Hmmmmmm.
Okay then, knowing that, the whole of line one now states, “The part free of scope ones husband will be wearing a
turban,” where one has to read that very slowly, word-by word. Remember, it is imperative to understand the main
theme statement to a quatrain correctly.
The first word of a line is ALWAYS important, simply because it is always capitalized. This means that even a little
old article, like “Le”, is important. All by itself, this French article is not limited to stating only, “The.” Depending on the
word it attaches to, it can be read as stating, “A”, or “An”, or even (since it a masculine article) “Him”. However, as
important, whichever translation fits best, it makes the statement that ONE of importance is about to be identified.
That importance of ONE of important significance is then transferred to the following word, like an introduction, “Ladies
and gentlemen, here is THE ….”
That next word then becomes an important “part”, which is the same in French or English, but can equate to, “share,
portion, piece; joint, quarter; also, a party, side; also, a place, coast, or country.” In another usage altogether,
Cotsgrave identified “part” as meaning, “birth, or bringing forth, as of children; the fruit of a woman’s womb; any brood,
or litter.” This wide variety of choices means that this main theme operates on many levels of interpretation, such that
it cannot be quickly “pencil-whipped.” However, because we have looked ahead to the next word, and found out it is a
plural, where “ones” are involved (this implies human life forms, rather than inanimate objects), we can pick out a word
that will best be an important “part” involving “loose of scope ones”.
Let’s try “The share”, where this becomes an important act of Sharing, which implies more than one, but where one of
the Sharing parties, or sides, is free of scope, or careless of scope. That one party then becomes The careless of
scope ones. If one had a clue this quatrain was in some way linked to the story of the recreation of the State of Israel
(hint: a country), one could begin the main theme statement as, “The country free of scope ones”.
This then leads to the word “mari”, which only means, “husband.” When we look back to the second word, as “share”,
the lead into “husband” is an indication of a marriage. Since Nostradamus was seeing this in 1555, we know it was not
a marriage between two of the same, but between two of different persuasion. In this sense, “husband” does not have
to mean a male individual, as much as it has to be seen (sorry ladies) as a word of dominance. In fact, when one
looks up the definition of the word, “husband” we find one definition states, “Chiefly British A manager or steward, as
of a household.” Another states, “Archaic A prudent, thrifty manager.” Further, into its etymology, from the Norse
word, “husbondi”, means “master of the house.”
This means that we are being led to “A manager” in a relationship of “Sharing”, where “An important Share” of
responsibility, like in a marriage, falls upon “ones free of scope”, perhaps even “loose of scope”, or “careless of
scope”.
At this point, we see what “will be” of this relationship, at which point this turns out to “be wearing a turban.” The use
of the future tense of the verb “estre” (now etre) means that the “husband” had not previously worn such headwear,
but “will be” found “wearing a turban” after becoming a “husband”, or “manager”. On the other hand, it also means
that at the time of the marriage, when one is declared wedded in “partnership”, the “free of scope ones will be wearing
a Christian bishop’s tall hat”.
Take a moment to see how that same set of words says two things at the same time. That is called “amphibological”,
which means (from the Greek root), “to throw on either side.” Nostradamus explained in his Letter to Henry II that his
words must be read in this manner. That is why syntax has to be tossed out the window. Nothing only means one
thing. There is ALWAYS an alternate view, where all views make sense.
Now, with me whispering softly, “This quatrain is in the story linking to tell about the recreations of the State of Israel”,
allow yourself have an eye-opening moment. See that the main theme is talking about the British, in 1918-1920, being
announced as the new manager of Palestine (and after a split of Palestine, Transjordan), as well as Mesopotamia, by
the brand new League of Nations. Those lands had previously had to share rule with the Ottoman Empire, who acted
the role of husband, or manager, or steward. But due to that Mandate as Protectorate, A portion of the Middle East
was given to the British, to manage as they felt best (free of scope) for the ultimate good of those countries. In
addition, the French would also get A share, as they would be the Mandated Protectorate over Syria (and after a later
split, Lebanon). That is the meaning of the main theme in this quatrain.
Having that eye-opening experience in mind, it becomes time to look at line two. Line two of EVERY quatrain is where
the secondary theme is found. A secondary theme is a theme that is related to the primary theme, but still free to take
another slant on things, or to come from another perspective, relative to one overall historic event. The secondary
theme of quatrain IX-34 states (in Old French), “Retour conflict passera sur le thuille”, where that word “thuille” is
known to not mean, “Tuileries”.
If one recalls, back in line one there was that word “mittré”, where one of the “t’s” was removed, and placed at the front
of the word “mitré”, as a common French contraction. To understand the word “thuille”, one has to see the “t” at the
beginning as being another contraction. This means what one is seeing is really “t’huille”, which states, “you oil”, or
“yourself oil”. To get an idea how this sort of contracted word is being present, without the presence of an
apostrophe, to make it all seem official, look at the last word of this quatrain. You will find that Nostradamus had the
printer display “dhuile.” There is no word spelled “dhuile”, but that series of letters makes perfect sense as, “d’huile.”
It is a standard practice in translating The Prophecies.
Now, if one is very attentive, one spotted that the rhyming word at the end of line two is very similar to the rhyming
word in line four. Line two ends “t’huille”, and line four ends “d’huile.” The main word appears to be the same, which
means they could also mean the same thing. In fact, “huille” meant “oil” in 1611, but while defining the word as such,
Cotsgrave referred one to also look up “huile”. The “one-elled” version is defined as both “huile” and “huilé”. The
“double-elled” version can also be accented, as “huillé”. All words are related to “oil”, but there are some subtle
differences, which justified the need for the same word being with one “l” and with two “l’s”. For now, just toss the
word, “oil” in the back of your mind, along with the whispers about this quatrain being about the Middle East.
When we go back now and look at line two as one statement, we can see it saying, “Return conflict will pass above
them yourself oiled” (using the accented t’huillé). As some kind of syntactical “sentence”, it is easy to grasp how one
has moved from the main theme statement, and the surrender of the World War I Axis, to a secondary theme focused
on World War II. From one war to another is a major (capitalization) “Return” to “conflict”. This can even be further
supported by the words, “will pass above them”, where our little article friend, “le”, is read as a stand-alone word
“them”, or “it”. That recognizes the increased amount of aerial combat, including bombing raids, which was part of that
“Return conflict”. In this sense, the main theme is one time period (the beginning of the marriage between England
and France with the Middle East), while line two is stating a later timeframe, when that marriage would be soon to end.
Still, the main theme is intact, about The share of rule there.
This is where one has to refocus the eyeballs, and look at line two from a different angle. This angle is relevant to the
whispers about Israel being part of the mix, as a result, when there was no Israel during World War II. This means one
has to go back to the capitalized first word, “Return”, and see it with a higher level of meaning. Upon further
inspection, one can even realize that the French word “Retour” can also mean, “Returning” or “Coming back”. This is
the word that links line two directly to line one. This is where “miter” being read as the “ceremonial headdress worn by
ancient Jewish high priests” has meaning.
This is where the element of Zionism comes into play. The “Jewish high priests” were only found at the Temple in
Jerusalem. The city Jerusalem is called Zion in Hebrew. The Zionist movement began as a group of Jews desiring to
Return Jews to Jerusalem, with that city being the focal point of a new Jewish homeland. Therefore, the first word of
line two is showing an important movement towards that “Return” being realized, in the period between the two wars.
Before line one, there were very few Jews in Palestine, much less Jerusalem. By the beginning of line two, Jews,
under the free scope ones, or the careless scope ones British (for almost 20 years) there were many Jews in
Palestine.
At this point, one can take the words “conflict passera sur le” and turn out a translation that states, “battle will suffer
before it”. This would be the suffering that the Jews of Europe faced, as part of Hitler’s Holocaust. The world would be
made aware of this tragedy before the new United Nations would recognize Israel as a new land (quatrain III-97).
This then returns focus to the last word, where “oil” became as valuable as gold. All of Europe would suffer at the
hand of Hitler, largely due to his tank corps, and his Luftwaffe air corps. All of these machines ran on fuel extracted
from “oil”. The fact that “oil” was not discovered in Saudi Arabia until 1938, at the beginning of Hitler’s hostile
expansions, is significant. Germany had become allied with most Middle Eastern nations, in part, if not largely
because of similar anti-Semitic views. Since Hitler had no large deposits of “oil’ in Germany, he needed to get that raw
material from an ally which did have “oil”. While the Arabs owned the oil fields, it was British Petroleum that was
processing it and selling it at a profit. In that regard, the Germans were buying Arab “oil” from the British, for use in
German tanks and planes, against the British. It meant, “battle will hold on course toward them”, allowing more
civilians to suffer from Hitler’s plan to purify the racial genes of Europe.
From that level of atrocity that occurred during World War II, and due to the new important role that “oil’ would play in
the world’s power games, two birds could be gotten with one stone. The British could allow the Zionists to create the
homeland they desired, and that new homeland could secure British interests in the oil fields of the Middle East. As
such, when the “Return conflict will pass” the British, and their allied victors (mainly the USA) would place “on them”
(both the Jews and the Palestinians) their good wishes. In that regard, “you (British) anointed with oil” the new owners
of Middle Eastern property, while “yourself oiled” as the sole controllers of Saudi, Kuwaiti, Iraqi oil fields, as well as
having “yourself anointed with oil” the Shah of Iran (the daddy of the last Shah of Iran).
All of that anointing with oil is relative to who had their own freedom in the Middle East, following World War II. The
story of Lawrence of Arabia took place in World War I, and largely took place in Mesopotamia, rather than what we
know as Saudi Arabia today. Mesopotamia was where the Germans, who were allied with the Ottomans, had a strong
presence. Along the Persian Gulf, small “sheikdoms”, like Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain, as well as the large Arabian
Peninsula, were technically under Ottoman domination, but without a real presence.
This was the land dominated by what would become the crown princes of Saudi Arabia, and a few others Bedouin-led
tribal territories. It was these sheikdoms that assisted Lieutenant Colonel T. E. Lawrence in his “terrorist activities”
against the building of a German financed and constructed railroad, which went through Kuwait, Mesopotamia, and
Arabia. Due to the support of these fiefdoms during the “Arab Revolution”, who aided Lawrence against the Germans
and Ottomans, the promised reward would be their freedom, as independent nations. Great Britain had promised them
that they would help them in that endeavor. When “oil” was discovered in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and all
others in the late 1930’s, the British were glad they held dominion over the progress of those small nations towards
independence. While the British were not officially mandated as Protectorates in some places, that did not keep them
from exercising strong influence, even control over many Middle Eastern nations. Eventually, as reward for their
dedication to British wealth, one-by-one all were eventually given status as independent countries. Kuwait, for
instance, was officially allowed to run itself in 1961, almost 45 years after World War I.
That history leads us to line three. On the whole, line three states (in Old French), “Par cinq cens un trahy sera
tiltré”. That appears to state, “For five hundred one betrayed will be entitled,” but it does not. Numbers in The
Prophecies are designed to throw people off. Especially, when a string of numbers appear together, we all get excited
and start thinking it means a multiple digit number, like “five hundred one” usually converts in our brains to be “501”.
Unfortunately, EVERY word must be understood separately, so “five” has to be understood before anything else.
If you were keeping count during the history lesson, one might have noticed that I named five countries that were
given over to the British and French to manage, by the League of Nations. Those five were Syria and Lebanon (to the
French), and Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Transjordan (to the British). Take my word for it, you will need to
remember those names and that number.
The word that follows “five”, “cens”, does not translate to state “a hundred”, even though it does, some places, at
some times. The spelling, “cens”, is shortened by one “t”, where the word for “hundreds” is actually, “cents.” That
does not work with The Prophecies. We actually have to find if a word spelled, “cens” actually exists first, in French or
Latin, before we can go imagining letters that are not there. Low and behold, there is an Old French word perfectly
spelled as “cens”. That word translates to mean, “rent of assist, quick rent, old rent, or chief rent.”
That means one has to understand what a “rent of assist” is. About this history, Randle Cotsgrave wrote, “The first
pecuniary charges laid on conquered or unrented land, as a sign or acknowledgment of the direct [Sovereignty of
lordship] of him that grants it [the rent of assist]”. He then continued, stating, “This charge had its origin from the first
conquest of Gallia [ancient France] by the French. [From them] whose princes [gave] whole territories unto their
captains, who made a division thereof unto their soldiers, and the natural inhabitants of the country. [This was done]
on condition that those should assist, and attend them [the lands] in the wars (which condition, being a trust, they be a
Fief). [Additionally stipulated was] that these should till their land, and pay unto them for it such yearly rents, or
tributes, as they had formerly yielded to the Romans. Thus, this charge was imposed at first as a resemblance of
former servitude. It continues to this day [1611] as a mark of a base, or servile, tenure.”
Let me sum that up for everyone, as a comparison to what happened at the end of World War I. The British and
French were conquerors of the Ottoman Empire, which held the five territories I mentioned previously. The League of
Nations acted like the Seignory, or the all-powerful Sovereignty, who doled out conquered lands. Its captains were
France and Great Britain, who then allowed the poor folks of those five countries to stay where they were, but with the
condition that they all had to pay their “Protectorates”, until such time that the Protectorates decided to give the
people a cut of the conquered land.
Now, in line three we have to recognize that a directional preposition is capitalized, “Par”. That word either means, “By
reason of, By, Through, For, Of, or On”, while having the right to mean all of those things, one at a time. That
directional preposition is linking back to line two, which ended with a colon. That means line three is a clarification of
the newfound importance of the Middle East, due to the discovery and need for oil. This makes the translation as, “By
reason of” an excellent place to begin, because a clarification requires a reason, and it would be good to have a
reason that relates to the main theme of foreign governments managing while wearing turbans.
Because of the great importance of oil, the British had good reason to be in the region of the world’s greatest oil
deposits. They were entrenched there By reason of three of the five nations given to them as conqueror spoils. The
French were also in a good position, By reason of two of those five. All of the five were tenants of the Almighty
League of Nations, suddenly no longer in existence, but was reforming to become the Almighty United Nations, who
owed the very air they breathed to their captains of industry (British Petroleum, etc.). This means those five were rent
of assist nations, under ancient ways of doing things, where the spoils of war are concerned.
This is where we come to the last of those three “numbers”, which is one. That one word can only be a number,
representing a single entity, thus “one”. Since this number follows the prior five, it is one of those five. It is also one of
those two captains, who governed over the five. Of who decided those two, it was the one entity (the U.N.) which ruled
to determine the one ruling over (Britain) the one being ruled over (each: Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, and
Mesopotamia). Still, at this point, it could be any one of the five.
We begin to whittle down those five to the right one with the next word. That word is betrayed, or the other possibility
of translation, the one treacherously dealt with. In the history of this rent of assist set up, the League of Nations had
given free reign to the British and French, to rule with the expressed goal being eventual independence. All the five
had to do was keep the land picked up nicely, while the British and French were out going to wars. When World War II
was over, those nations had done their part, even though the Nazis were trying to recruit them to fight the British and
French. However, when all was said and done, one would not see the bargain fulfilled by one of the captains,
because that one would instead be betrayed, and treacherously dealt with.
That betrayal is then explained as it will be, which then says the word that means, “titled, entitled, and/or given the
deed, or title to land.” In other words, the one would be treacherously dealt with in regard to being given ownership of
its own land. the one betraying was Great Britain, and the one treacherously dealt with was Palestine. That is a
clarification of how much a role oil played in that decision, as the reason the Brits would cheat a nation out of what was
rightfully theirs to begin with.
Line four begins with what appears to be two proper names, but just like thinking three numbers means one big
number was wrong, Nostradamus warned about thinking about cities. That is what the first word appears to be,
because there is a city in France named Narbonne, which the Romans called Narbo Martius, and some of the regional
dialects call Narbona. The problem is, the word written is “Narbon”, which is not any of the above. That actually is a
good thing, because Narbonne, France has nothing to do with the British cheating Palestine.
In the letter of preface that Nostradamus wrote for understanding The Prophecies, he stated, “limitant la particularité
des lieux,” which says, “limiting the particularity of the places”. By definition (of “particularity”), this is saying that the
quatrains are particular, or following “great attentiveness to detail”, but the “places” have had this “particularity
limited”. That means that only so many “places” are actually named by Nostradamus, as being meant to be
recognized immediately. When some “word” that looks like it is identifying a “place” comes up, like “Narbon”,
Nostradamus instructed the reader not to jump to any conclusions that the “place” Narbonne is the meaning in
“Narbon”. The “particularity” comes from realizing that what is spelled in a quatrain (the 1568 Lyon edition only) is
what was meant to be spelled. There are no misspelled names of cities, because of the “particularity of the places”.
This means that “Narbon” is some form of manufactured word, like an anagram (letters scrambled), or a word that
includes contractions and roots of words. In the case of “Narbon”, it can be seen as being “N’arb-on”, which would
express, “Not (Ne) one (-on) of business affairs (arb.)”. The word “arb” is an accepted informal word for “arbitrageur,”
which (as far as Old French was concerned) is one who argues before a judge (an arbiter), over a matter in arbitration
(a process where disputing parties present their arguments). This makes perfect sense in the theme of this quatrain.
Certainly, the Palestinians did not go down without a fight over the legalities of the theft of their land, due to the rent of
assist promises made previously, by the then defunct League of Nations. Partly because there was subversion at play
among the judges and the whole United Nations – League of Nations ventures, to steal Palestine and make it appear
on the up and up – and partly because the Arabs of Palestine were not skilled in the matters of legal business. At
least, the Palestinians were not as skilled as the slick tongued British.
The history of the debate that played out in the new United Nations, particularly in the last step, the Palestine
Commission. The commission was established to ram through a Partition Plan for Palestine, which included two
separate nations, Palestine and Israel. It convened in early January 1948, with a preset deadline of October the same
Year. The Palestinian delegation adjourned on May 17, 1948, “sine die”, which means, “without a next date
scheduled.” The discussions were not going in the direction the Palestinians wanted, so their next step was war,
followed by flight as refugees. Certainly, the Palestine representatives were importantly “Not one of business affairs”.
This then leads to an ampersand, which is a mark that identifies what to follow is important. What follows that is the
capitalized word “Saulce”, which has nothing to do with some Frenchman of the 18th century. Here we have a simple
anagram, even though it too can be spread apart like “Narbon” was, to find the true meaning. In my mind, the
anagram words best, such that ending “ce” (French for “this, that”) goes to the front. Walla, presto chango and one
sees, “ce Saul”, or “this Saul”. Nostradamus used a name from the past.
If one knows even a little biblical history, it becomes easy to see the IMPORTANCE of this name. Saul was the first
king of the Israelites. Following the failure of the Palestinian delegation to cease the Partition Plan in the U.N., Israel
would have a leader take control on the battlefields of Palestine. That would be David Ben-Gurion, who would then
become Israel’s first Prime Minister. He would become this new version of Saul.
At this point we encounter the second presentation of the directional preposition, “par”. As a rule, multiple uses of the
same word in a quatrain calls for multiple translation uses, if the word has that capability. In the case of “par”, it has
several, one that I like here is “for”. This works well with this Saul, as Ben-Gurion was for the new Israel, thus being
representative of the impact Israel would have on those for its survival, as well as on those for its removal. This then
connects well to the following word, as well, which translates as, “expensive”.
If one is observant, one realizes that the original translations all said something about “knives”. That is because the
word “couteaux” means “knives”. Unfortunately, Nostradamus did not write an extra “e” in “coutaux” so it is either
translated as “cout-aux” (cost-to them), or an allowable variation (based on very similar spelling, with the same
meaning) “couteux” (expensive, costly). Both “cout-aux” and “couteux” refer to the same condition of “cost”. This
means that “for” Israel to remain, or be overthrown, it would be “expensive”. The cost would certainly mean monies to
finance wars, but more importantly the cost to them who would die trying to forcibly remove unwanted people, or
forcibly try to protect against unwanted people.
The next word, “avons”, is perhaps best translated to state, “hold”, or even “obtain”. The use of “hold” is perfectly
representative of the length of time this conflict has raged, non-stop (on one level or another). Both sides have held
their stance on this matter. Where obtain comes into play is how one gets the money to hold an expensive grudge.
The answer is to obtain arms from those willing to give you money. The Israelis have their sugar daddy in the United
States (I heard $300-million annually for arms), while the Palestinians have some wealthy neighbors to their southeast,
who are Arab and doing fairly well for themselves. As long as this financial support is maintained, the fighting will
never cease.
Of course, a smart person would ask, “Why would nations keep giving so much money so Palestinians and Jews can
forever try to kill one another?” The answer comes from the last word, “dhuile.” It is the same huile we saw earlier.
Nostradamus explained why Israel was needed to be in position in the long run, after all is said and done. The reason
is “from oil” having been discovered and pumped out of the ground, making military vehicles roll, and airplanes fly, and
big companies in big nations wealthy. Of course, along the way the Arabs nationalized their oil fields, meaning they
got rich selling it to those big oil companies and big nations. So, in essence, the USA is paying Israel to kill
Palestinians, while (indirectly) also paying the Palestinians to kill Jews. If only there was no oil ….
One last thing, before I leave you to your thoughts. Here is what David Ben-Gurion said about the “Arab problem” in
1956.
“Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we
have taken their country ... There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They
only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps
forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it is simple: we have to stay strong
and maintain a powerful army.” (from Wikipedia article, “David Ben-Gurion”, their source, “Nahum Goldman, 'The
Jewish Paradox', translated by Steve Cox, 1978, ISBN 0-448-15166-9, p. 98, p. 100, p. 99 )
With all of this known, quatrain IX-34 can be read so as to give a much better idea of what it is about, when the
translation is as follows. Please keep in mind that the depth of each word’s meanings makes it impossible to write one
translation of a quatrain that expresses the totality of the quatrain’s meaning. Understanding requires thinking with
feeling.
Them country careless scope ones manager of a household will be wearing a turban,
Returning battle will transport south them you anointed with oil:
For five rent of assist one will be betrayed will be entitled
Not one of business & this first King of Israel through cost to them possess from oil.
importance that the recreation of the State of Israel will play, in the story of the end of the world. In that regard, I have
previously explained quatrain III-97 and VI-81. I hope everyone has had a chance to scout out what has been written
about quatrain IX-34, because that is the topic of this writing. I had warned that VI-81 and IX-34 were “head-
scratchers”, because neither appears (at first glance) to have anything to do with Israel. Now I will point out how to
see that aspect.
Having done my own research into what the popular interpretation is about quatrain IX-34, I can safely say that some
have made a big deal about it being an example of Nostradamus’ truly prophetic powers. The only problem with that
summation is it is based on people seeing something absolutely not written as being what was written.
Let me explain. My personal copies of books about Nostradamus (the ones I have after Hurricane Katrina ruined the
books I once had), primarily one written by John Hogue, and another written by Erika Cheetham, both state that
quatrain IX-34 is solidly about Louis XVI, and (generally) about some minor events that occurred during the French
Revolution. However, a couple of glaring errors need to be addressed, which by themselves destroy their visions.
To begin this part of the discussion, it becomes necessary to provide a student with the evidence in question, which is
the quatrain. Following will be presented the Old French, then the translation of an online version of quatrain IX-34 (in
English). My translation will come after I have torn apart this French Revolution nonsense, because the 1948 version
of Israel has absolutely nothing to do with Louis XVI.
The Old French states (according to the 1568 Lyon edition, the one perfect edition to go by):
Le part soluz mary sera mittré,
Retour conflict passera sur le thuille:
Par cinq cens un trahyr sera tiltré,
Narbon & Saulce par coutaux avons dhuille.
Some random site I found on the Internet states this translates:
The single part afflicted will be mitered,
Return conflict to pass over the tile:
For five hundred one to betray will be titled
Narbonne and Salces we have oil for knives.
This translation makes it extremely difficult to stretch to fit the interpretation of Louis XVI, but then this site offers no
interpretation. However, Ms. Cheetham and Mr. Hogue (and others) agree with a translations that looks like this:
The husband, solitary, afflicted, will be mitred,
The return, conflict will cross over the Tuileries:
By five hundred one betrayer will be ennobled,
Narbonne & Saulce, we will have oil for knives.
The most important part of the Louis advocate’s argument comes from transforming “thuille” into “Tuileries.” The
place known as Tuileries is a palace that stood on the banks of the Seine River, until it was destroyed in 1871. Its
construction and completion was ordered by Louis XIV, and it was the residence of Louis XIV, XV, and XVI, at one time
or another. It was called the (in French) Palais des Tuileries, which means, “Palace of the Tile Kilns”. That name
came due to the fact that kilns had existed on that site, which were used to make tile. As interesting as that history is
to know, it has absolutely nothing to do with the spelled word written by Nostradamus, “thuille”.
I will get into the true meaning of “thuille” a little later, but for now, one has to realize something quite obvious. Such a
leap, from “thuille” to “Tuileries” requires some logical explanation, such as, “This is a documented pet name by local
French people, who speak a rare dialect.” No one has gone into any level of explanation as to how they deduced, or
imagined “thuille” turned itself into “Tuileries”. For one (very important one) thing, lower case letters do not become
capitalized letters, particularly if the spelling is changed. For another thing, while the possibility of an unknown word
can find it necessary to be examined as an anagram to solve, only the letter used by Nostradamus can be
rearranged. There has to be evidence if missing letters are added, such as a dictionary instruction to, “see [a
differently spelled version].”
Nostradamus wrote “thuille”, and the meaning that comes from those letters, and only those letters can tell what the
meaning is. Plain and simple. This is a rule that works in this quatrain, for this word, and works in every quatrain, for
every word. Certainly, there are some allowable exceptions (due to common abbreviations, differences in dialects
yielding differences in spelling, et al), but all exceptions have rational explanations. There can be no rational
explanation for the name Tuileries appearing from out of nowhere in quatrain IX-34, and that was the most specific
detail that allowed one to see Louis XVI.
The other obvious flaw comes from the second capitalized word in line four, “Saulce”. This word actually appears as
spelled in the 1611 dictionary, referring one to look up “Sauce.” The word’s meaning then is still how we all know
“Sauce”. It is defined as, “A sauce, condiment, seasoning for meat.” Today, we pour “sauce” over spaghetti (among
many other things). However, because of one thinking one sees Tuileries, when only thuille existed, one begins to see
the name of some Frenchman surnamed Saulce appearing. In the history of Louis XVI, after caught trying to escape
to safety, he spent the night at the house of a man named Saulce (a chandelier maker). Other than that night in a
commoner’s home, the man named Saulce is unimportant. It only seems important when one sees an imaginary
Tuileries.
Nostradamus only used specific names when he listed planets (Mars, Saturn, etc.), astrological signs (Aries, Leo,
etc.), mythological figures (Selene, Bellerophon, etc.), important historical figures (Hannibal, Nero, etc.), historical
places (France, Italy, etc.), historical peoples of Europe (Celts, Allobroges, etc.), and cities (Rome, London, etc.).
Whether I missed a few proper names in The Prophecies does not matter. All that needs be known is that every name
Nostradamus did list was a name from the past, not the future. This means that Nostradamus did not name someone
named Sauce. When one takes out the fantastic likelihood that “thuille” can turn into “Tuileries”, then it s easy to see
how ridiculous it is to think Nostradamus would name some MINOR character, who played no important role at all in
history (keep in mind, a capitalized word is ALWAYS stating importance).
Take away those two errors, and just like a math problem, which requires the only correct answer at the end, after
having shown the work getting to that correct answer, the conclusion that Nostradamus wrote quatrain IX-34 to be
about Louis XVI being captured at Varennes, and placed under house arrest in the Palace of Tuileries is WRONG.
Now, it is time to show how to read this quatrain. Get your notepads and pencils.
EVERY quatrain has a main theme, which is stated in the first line. Without knowing what the main theme is about,
one cannot solve the quatrain. The main theme line of quatrain IX-34 is difficult to come to, but it can be realized
through higher assistance (which I have been graced with, for your benefit). Still, the systems, where each line inter-
relates in a way of confirming themes, and adding details to those themes, means one can start at which ever line
seems the easiest to understand, and work backwards, or from the center out. In the case of this particular quatrain, it
is best if I start opening your eyes from line one, to line four, so you can see how all this interrelationship plays out.
The main theme states (in French), “Le part soluz mary sera mittré”, where the word “mary” is to be read as “mari” (in
Nostradamus’ Old French, a “y” = “i”, and often an “i” = “j”. They have to be seen as interchangeable.). What needs
to also be realized is that Nostradamus frequently pluralized words that typically are not found with a plural ending. In
many cases, the simple addition of an “s”, “z”, or “x” became a way to turn a verb into a plural noun, as “ones” who
acted in the way of the verb. As such, words with a plural ending need to be looked up with the pluralizing letter
removed. This applies to the word, “soluz”. That word must be read as, “solu – z”.
Our aforementioned translators must have read this word as “solos”, since they translated it to make line one say,
“The single part”, or “The husband, solitary.” There is nothing in the word “soluz” that says, “single.” The word “solu”
is a noun that means, “loose, free, careless, of scope” (meaning, “loose of scope, …” etc.) The addition of a “z” at the
end makes this become “ones loose of scope, free of scope ones, or careless of scope ones”.
Next, one finds that there never was an accepted spelling of the word “mitré”, where there was an extra “t” in the
middle. One finds that Nostradamus had a lot of words with an extra letter, like in the word “mittré”, where the extra
letter slips out and attaches to the front of the word, as a contraction of two words. This means the word “mittré” has
to be seen as a simple anagram (a simple word scramble, if you will), where it gets read as, “t’mitré”. This then
becomes, “yourself mitered”.
This then means one must understand the meaning of “mitered”, which is detailed somewhat in the 1611 dictionary
translation. There, Cotsgrave wrote, “hooded with a miter, wearing a miter”. In English, the word “miter” is then
defined as, “The liturgical headdress, and part of the insignia of the Christian bishop. In the Western Church it is a tall,
pointed hat …” Still, a second definition states, “a. A thong for binding the hair, worn by women in ancient Greece.” It
then further states, “b. The ceremonial headdress worn by ancient Jewish high priests.” Hmmmmm, Jewish?
Hmmmmmm. But wait, there is more information found in the etymology, particularly when one looks up “mitre”. The
Latin root, which stems from the Greek root, both “mitra”, means, “turban.” Hmmmmm, like what the Turkish Sultan
was known for wearing? Hmmmmmm.
Okay then, knowing that, the whole of line one now states, “The part free of scope ones husband will be wearing a
turban,” where one has to read that very slowly, word-by word. Remember, it is imperative to understand the main
theme statement to a quatrain correctly.
The first word of a line is ALWAYS important, simply because it is always capitalized. This means that even a little
old article, like “Le”, is important. All by itself, this French article is not limited to stating only, “The.” Depending on the
word it attaches to, it can be read as stating, “A”, or “An”, or even (since it a masculine article) “Him”. However, as
important, whichever translation fits best, it makes the statement that ONE of importance is about to be identified.
That importance of ONE of important significance is then transferred to the following word, like an introduction, “Ladies
and gentlemen, here is THE ….”
That next word then becomes an important “part”, which is the same in French or English, but can equate to, “share,
portion, piece; joint, quarter; also, a party, side; also, a place, coast, or country.” In another usage altogether,
Cotsgrave identified “part” as meaning, “birth, or bringing forth, as of children; the fruit of a woman’s womb; any brood,
or litter.” This wide variety of choices means that this main theme operates on many levels of interpretation, such that
it cannot be quickly “pencil-whipped.” However, because we have looked ahead to the next word, and found out it is a
plural, where “ones” are involved (this implies human life forms, rather than inanimate objects), we can pick out a word
that will best be an important “part” involving “loose of scope ones”.
Let’s try “The share”, where this becomes an important act of Sharing, which implies more than one, but where one of
the Sharing parties, or sides, is free of scope, or careless of scope. That one party then becomes The careless of
scope ones. If one had a clue this quatrain was in some way linked to the story of the recreation of the State of Israel
(hint: a country), one could begin the main theme statement as, “The country free of scope ones”.
This then leads to the word “mari”, which only means, “husband.” When we look back to the second word, as “share”,
the lead into “husband” is an indication of a marriage. Since Nostradamus was seeing this in 1555, we know it was not
a marriage between two of the same, but between two of different persuasion. In this sense, “husband” does not have
to mean a male individual, as much as it has to be seen (sorry ladies) as a word of dominance. In fact, when one
looks up the definition of the word, “husband” we find one definition states, “Chiefly British A manager or steward, as
of a household.” Another states, “Archaic A prudent, thrifty manager.” Further, into its etymology, from the Norse
word, “husbondi”, means “master of the house.”
This means that we are being led to “A manager” in a relationship of “Sharing”, where “An important Share” of
responsibility, like in a marriage, falls upon “ones free of scope”, perhaps even “loose of scope”, or “careless of
scope”.
At this point, we see what “will be” of this relationship, at which point this turns out to “be wearing a turban.” The use
of the future tense of the verb “estre” (now etre) means that the “husband” had not previously worn such headwear,
but “will be” found “wearing a turban” after becoming a “husband”, or “manager”. On the other hand, it also means
that at the time of the marriage, when one is declared wedded in “partnership”, the “free of scope ones will be wearing
a Christian bishop’s tall hat”.
Take a moment to see how that same set of words says two things at the same time. That is called “amphibological”,
which means (from the Greek root), “to throw on either side.” Nostradamus explained in his Letter to Henry II that his
words must be read in this manner. That is why syntax has to be tossed out the window. Nothing only means one
thing. There is ALWAYS an alternate view, where all views make sense.
Now, with me whispering softly, “This quatrain is in the story linking to tell about the recreations of the State of Israel”,
allow yourself have an eye-opening moment. See that the main theme is talking about the British, in 1918-1920, being
announced as the new manager of Palestine (and after a split of Palestine, Transjordan), as well as Mesopotamia, by
the brand new League of Nations. Those lands had previously had to share rule with the Ottoman Empire, who acted
the role of husband, or manager, or steward. But due to that Mandate as Protectorate, A portion of the Middle East
was given to the British, to manage as they felt best (free of scope) for the ultimate good of those countries. In
addition, the French would also get A share, as they would be the Mandated Protectorate over Syria (and after a later
split, Lebanon). That is the meaning of the main theme in this quatrain.
Having that eye-opening experience in mind, it becomes time to look at line two. Line two of EVERY quatrain is where
the secondary theme is found. A secondary theme is a theme that is related to the primary theme, but still free to take
another slant on things, or to come from another perspective, relative to one overall historic event. The secondary
theme of quatrain IX-34 states (in Old French), “Retour conflict passera sur le thuille”, where that word “thuille” is
known to not mean, “Tuileries”.
If one recalls, back in line one there was that word “mittré”, where one of the “t’s” was removed, and placed at the front
of the word “mitré”, as a common French contraction. To understand the word “thuille”, one has to see the “t” at the
beginning as being another contraction. This means what one is seeing is really “t’huille”, which states, “you oil”, or
“yourself oil”. To get an idea how this sort of contracted word is being present, without the presence of an
apostrophe, to make it all seem official, look at the last word of this quatrain. You will find that Nostradamus had the
printer display “dhuile.” There is no word spelled “dhuile”, but that series of letters makes perfect sense as, “d’huile.”
It is a standard practice in translating The Prophecies.
Now, if one is very attentive, one spotted that the rhyming word at the end of line two is very similar to the rhyming
word in line four. Line two ends “t’huille”, and line four ends “d’huile.” The main word appears to be the same, which
means they could also mean the same thing. In fact, “huille” meant “oil” in 1611, but while defining the word as such,
Cotsgrave referred one to also look up “huile”. The “one-elled” version is defined as both “huile” and “huilé”. The
“double-elled” version can also be accented, as “huillé”. All words are related to “oil”, but there are some subtle
differences, which justified the need for the same word being with one “l” and with two “l’s”. For now, just toss the
word, “oil” in the back of your mind, along with the whispers about this quatrain being about the Middle East.
When we go back now and look at line two as one statement, we can see it saying, “Return conflict will pass above
them yourself oiled” (using the accented t’huillé). As some kind of syntactical “sentence”, it is easy to grasp how one
has moved from the main theme statement, and the surrender of the World War I Axis, to a secondary theme focused
on World War II. From one war to another is a major (capitalization) “Return” to “conflict”. This can even be further
supported by the words, “will pass above them”, where our little article friend, “le”, is read as a stand-alone word
“them”, or “it”. That recognizes the increased amount of aerial combat, including bombing raids, which was part of that
“Return conflict”. In this sense, the main theme is one time period (the beginning of the marriage between England
and France with the Middle East), while line two is stating a later timeframe, when that marriage would be soon to end.
Still, the main theme is intact, about The share of rule there.
This is where one has to refocus the eyeballs, and look at line two from a different angle. This angle is relevant to the
whispers about Israel being part of the mix, as a result, when there was no Israel during World War II. This means one
has to go back to the capitalized first word, “Return”, and see it with a higher level of meaning. Upon further
inspection, one can even realize that the French word “Retour” can also mean, “Returning” or “Coming back”. This is
the word that links line two directly to line one. This is where “miter” being read as the “ceremonial headdress worn by
ancient Jewish high priests” has meaning.
This is where the element of Zionism comes into play. The “Jewish high priests” were only found at the Temple in
Jerusalem. The city Jerusalem is called Zion in Hebrew. The Zionist movement began as a group of Jews desiring to
Return Jews to Jerusalem, with that city being the focal point of a new Jewish homeland. Therefore, the first word of
line two is showing an important movement towards that “Return” being realized, in the period between the two wars.
Before line one, there were very few Jews in Palestine, much less Jerusalem. By the beginning of line two, Jews,
under the free scope ones, or the careless scope ones British (for almost 20 years) there were many Jews in
Palestine.
At this point, one can take the words “conflict passera sur le” and turn out a translation that states, “battle will suffer
before it”. This would be the suffering that the Jews of Europe faced, as part of Hitler’s Holocaust. The world would be
made aware of this tragedy before the new United Nations would recognize Israel as a new land (quatrain III-97).
This then returns focus to the last word, where “oil” became as valuable as gold. All of Europe would suffer at the
hand of Hitler, largely due to his tank corps, and his Luftwaffe air corps. All of these machines ran on fuel extracted
from “oil”. The fact that “oil” was not discovered in Saudi Arabia until 1938, at the beginning of Hitler’s hostile
expansions, is significant. Germany had become allied with most Middle Eastern nations, in part, if not largely
because of similar anti-Semitic views. Since Hitler had no large deposits of “oil’ in Germany, he needed to get that raw
material from an ally which did have “oil”. While the Arabs owned the oil fields, it was British Petroleum that was
processing it and selling it at a profit. In that regard, the Germans were buying Arab “oil” from the British, for use in
German tanks and planes, against the British. It meant, “battle will hold on course toward them”, allowing more
civilians to suffer from Hitler’s plan to purify the racial genes of Europe.
From that level of atrocity that occurred during World War II, and due to the new important role that “oil’ would play in
the world’s power games, two birds could be gotten with one stone. The British could allow the Zionists to create the
homeland they desired, and that new homeland could secure British interests in the oil fields of the Middle East. As
such, when the “Return conflict will pass” the British, and their allied victors (mainly the USA) would place “on them”
(both the Jews and the Palestinians) their good wishes. In that regard, “you (British) anointed with oil” the new owners
of Middle Eastern property, while “yourself oiled” as the sole controllers of Saudi, Kuwaiti, Iraqi oil fields, as well as
having “yourself anointed with oil” the Shah of Iran (the daddy of the last Shah of Iran).
All of that anointing with oil is relative to who had their own freedom in the Middle East, following World War II. The
story of Lawrence of Arabia took place in World War I, and largely took place in Mesopotamia, rather than what we
know as Saudi Arabia today. Mesopotamia was where the Germans, who were allied with the Ottomans, had a strong
presence. Along the Persian Gulf, small “sheikdoms”, like Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain, as well as the large Arabian
Peninsula, were technically under Ottoman domination, but without a real presence.
This was the land dominated by what would become the crown princes of Saudi Arabia, and a few others Bedouin-led
tribal territories. It was these sheikdoms that assisted Lieutenant Colonel T. E. Lawrence in his “terrorist activities”
against the building of a German financed and constructed railroad, which went through Kuwait, Mesopotamia, and
Arabia. Due to the support of these fiefdoms during the “Arab Revolution”, who aided Lawrence against the Germans
and Ottomans, the promised reward would be their freedom, as independent nations. Great Britain had promised them
that they would help them in that endeavor. When “oil” was discovered in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and all
others in the late 1930’s, the British were glad they held dominion over the progress of those small nations towards
independence. While the British were not officially mandated as Protectorates in some places, that did not keep them
from exercising strong influence, even control over many Middle Eastern nations. Eventually, as reward for their
dedication to British wealth, one-by-one all were eventually given status as independent countries. Kuwait, for
instance, was officially allowed to run itself in 1961, almost 45 years after World War I.
That history leads us to line three. On the whole, line three states (in Old French), “Par cinq cens un trahy sera
tiltré”. That appears to state, “For five hundred one betrayed will be entitled,” but it does not. Numbers in The
Prophecies are designed to throw people off. Especially, when a string of numbers appear together, we all get excited
and start thinking it means a multiple digit number, like “five hundred one” usually converts in our brains to be “501”.
Unfortunately, EVERY word must be understood separately, so “five” has to be understood before anything else.
If you were keeping count during the history lesson, one might have noticed that I named five countries that were
given over to the British and French to manage, by the League of Nations. Those five were Syria and Lebanon (to the
French), and Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Transjordan (to the British). Take my word for it, you will need to
remember those names and that number.
The word that follows “five”, “cens”, does not translate to state “a hundred”, even though it does, some places, at
some times. The spelling, “cens”, is shortened by one “t”, where the word for “hundreds” is actually, “cents.” That
does not work with The Prophecies. We actually have to find if a word spelled, “cens” actually exists first, in French or
Latin, before we can go imagining letters that are not there. Low and behold, there is an Old French word perfectly
spelled as “cens”. That word translates to mean, “rent of assist, quick rent, old rent, or chief rent.”
That means one has to understand what a “rent of assist” is. About this history, Randle Cotsgrave wrote, “The first
pecuniary charges laid on conquered or unrented land, as a sign or acknowledgment of the direct [Sovereignty of
lordship] of him that grants it [the rent of assist]”. He then continued, stating, “This charge had its origin from the first
conquest of Gallia [ancient France] by the French. [From them] whose princes [gave] whole territories unto their
captains, who made a division thereof unto their soldiers, and the natural inhabitants of the country. [This was done]
on condition that those should assist, and attend them [the lands] in the wars (which condition, being a trust, they be a
Fief). [Additionally stipulated was] that these should till their land, and pay unto them for it such yearly rents, or
tributes, as they had formerly yielded to the Romans. Thus, this charge was imposed at first as a resemblance of
former servitude. It continues to this day [1611] as a mark of a base, or servile, tenure.”
Let me sum that up for everyone, as a comparison to what happened at the end of World War I. The British and
French were conquerors of the Ottoman Empire, which held the five territories I mentioned previously. The League of
Nations acted like the Seignory, or the all-powerful Sovereignty, who doled out conquered lands. Its captains were
France and Great Britain, who then allowed the poor folks of those five countries to stay where they were, but with the
condition that they all had to pay their “Protectorates”, until such time that the Protectorates decided to give the
people a cut of the conquered land.
Now, in line three we have to recognize that a directional preposition is capitalized, “Par”. That word either means, “By
reason of, By, Through, For, Of, or On”, while having the right to mean all of those things, one at a time. That
directional preposition is linking back to line two, which ended with a colon. That means line three is a clarification of
the newfound importance of the Middle East, due to the discovery and need for oil. This makes the translation as, “By
reason of” an excellent place to begin, because a clarification requires a reason, and it would be good to have a
reason that relates to the main theme of foreign governments managing while wearing turbans.
Because of the great importance of oil, the British had good reason to be in the region of the world’s greatest oil
deposits. They were entrenched there By reason of three of the five nations given to them as conqueror spoils. The
French were also in a good position, By reason of two of those five. All of the five were tenants of the Almighty
League of Nations, suddenly no longer in existence, but was reforming to become the Almighty United Nations, who
owed the very air they breathed to their captains of industry (British Petroleum, etc.). This means those five were rent
of assist nations, under ancient ways of doing things, where the spoils of war are concerned.
This is where we come to the last of those three “numbers”, which is one. That one word can only be a number,
representing a single entity, thus “one”. Since this number follows the prior five, it is one of those five. It is also one of
those two captains, who governed over the five. Of who decided those two, it was the one entity (the U.N.) which ruled
to determine the one ruling over (Britain) the one being ruled over (each: Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, and
Mesopotamia). Still, at this point, it could be any one of the five.
We begin to whittle down those five to the right one with the next word. That word is betrayed, or the other possibility
of translation, the one treacherously dealt with. In the history of this rent of assist set up, the League of Nations had
given free reign to the British and French, to rule with the expressed goal being eventual independence. All the five
had to do was keep the land picked up nicely, while the British and French were out going to wars. When World War II
was over, those nations had done their part, even though the Nazis were trying to recruit them to fight the British and
French. However, when all was said and done, one would not see the bargain fulfilled by one of the captains,
because that one would instead be betrayed, and treacherously dealt with.
That betrayal is then explained as it will be, which then says the word that means, “titled, entitled, and/or given the
deed, or title to land.” In other words, the one would be treacherously dealt with in regard to being given ownership of
its own land. the one betraying was Great Britain, and the one treacherously dealt with was Palestine. That is a
clarification of how much a role oil played in that decision, as the reason the Brits would cheat a nation out of what was
rightfully theirs to begin with.
Line four begins with what appears to be two proper names, but just like thinking three numbers means one big
number was wrong, Nostradamus warned about thinking about cities. That is what the first word appears to be,
because there is a city in France named Narbonne, which the Romans called Narbo Martius, and some of the regional
dialects call Narbona. The problem is, the word written is “Narbon”, which is not any of the above. That actually is a
good thing, because Narbonne, France has nothing to do with the British cheating Palestine.
In the letter of preface that Nostradamus wrote for understanding The Prophecies, he stated, “limitant la particularité
des lieux,” which says, “limiting the particularity of the places”. By definition (of “particularity”), this is saying that the
quatrains are particular, or following “great attentiveness to detail”, but the “places” have had this “particularity
limited”. That means that only so many “places” are actually named by Nostradamus, as being meant to be
recognized immediately. When some “word” that looks like it is identifying a “place” comes up, like “Narbon”,
Nostradamus instructed the reader not to jump to any conclusions that the “place” Narbonne is the meaning in
“Narbon”. The “particularity” comes from realizing that what is spelled in a quatrain (the 1568 Lyon edition only) is
what was meant to be spelled. There are no misspelled names of cities, because of the “particularity of the places”.
This means that “Narbon” is some form of manufactured word, like an anagram (letters scrambled), or a word that
includes contractions and roots of words. In the case of “Narbon”, it can be seen as being “N’arb-on”, which would
express, “Not (Ne) one (-on) of business affairs (arb.)”. The word “arb” is an accepted informal word for “arbitrageur,”
which (as far as Old French was concerned) is one who argues before a judge (an arbiter), over a matter in arbitration
(a process where disputing parties present their arguments). This makes perfect sense in the theme of this quatrain.
Certainly, the Palestinians did not go down without a fight over the legalities of the theft of their land, due to the rent of
assist promises made previously, by the then defunct League of Nations. Partly because there was subversion at play
among the judges and the whole United Nations – League of Nations ventures, to steal Palestine and make it appear
on the up and up – and partly because the Arabs of Palestine were not skilled in the matters of legal business. At
least, the Palestinians were not as skilled as the slick tongued British.
The history of the debate that played out in the new United Nations, particularly in the last step, the Palestine
Commission. The commission was established to ram through a Partition Plan for Palestine, which included two
separate nations, Palestine and Israel. It convened in early January 1948, with a preset deadline of October the same
Year. The Palestinian delegation adjourned on May 17, 1948, “sine die”, which means, “without a next date
scheduled.” The discussions were not going in the direction the Palestinians wanted, so their next step was war,
followed by flight as refugees. Certainly, the Palestine representatives were importantly “Not one of business affairs”.
This then leads to an ampersand, which is a mark that identifies what to follow is important. What follows that is the
capitalized word “Saulce”, which has nothing to do with some Frenchman of the 18th century. Here we have a simple
anagram, even though it too can be spread apart like “Narbon” was, to find the true meaning. In my mind, the
anagram words best, such that ending “ce” (French for “this, that”) goes to the front. Walla, presto chango and one
sees, “ce Saul”, or “this Saul”. Nostradamus used a name from the past.
If one knows even a little biblical history, it becomes easy to see the IMPORTANCE of this name. Saul was the first
king of the Israelites. Following the failure of the Palestinian delegation to cease the Partition Plan in the U.N., Israel
would have a leader take control on the battlefields of Palestine. That would be David Ben-Gurion, who would then
become Israel’s first Prime Minister. He would become this new version of Saul.
At this point we encounter the second presentation of the directional preposition, “par”. As a rule, multiple uses of the
same word in a quatrain calls for multiple translation uses, if the word has that capability. In the case of “par”, it has
several, one that I like here is “for”. This works well with this Saul, as Ben-Gurion was for the new Israel, thus being
representative of the impact Israel would have on those for its survival, as well as on those for its removal. This then
connects well to the following word, as well, which translates as, “expensive”.
If one is observant, one realizes that the original translations all said something about “knives”. That is because the
word “couteaux” means “knives”. Unfortunately, Nostradamus did not write an extra “e” in “coutaux” so it is either
translated as “cout-aux” (cost-to them), or an allowable variation (based on very similar spelling, with the same
meaning) “couteux” (expensive, costly). Both “cout-aux” and “couteux” refer to the same condition of “cost”. This
means that “for” Israel to remain, or be overthrown, it would be “expensive”. The cost would certainly mean monies to
finance wars, but more importantly the cost to them who would die trying to forcibly remove unwanted people, or
forcibly try to protect against unwanted people.
The next word, “avons”, is perhaps best translated to state, “hold”, or even “obtain”. The use of “hold” is perfectly
representative of the length of time this conflict has raged, non-stop (on one level or another). Both sides have held
their stance on this matter. Where obtain comes into play is how one gets the money to hold an expensive grudge.
The answer is to obtain arms from those willing to give you money. The Israelis have their sugar daddy in the United
States (I heard $300-million annually for arms), while the Palestinians have some wealthy neighbors to their southeast,
who are Arab and doing fairly well for themselves. As long as this financial support is maintained, the fighting will
never cease.
Of course, a smart person would ask, “Why would nations keep giving so much money so Palestinians and Jews can
forever try to kill one another?” The answer comes from the last word, “dhuile.” It is the same huile we saw earlier.
Nostradamus explained why Israel was needed to be in position in the long run, after all is said and done. The reason
is “from oil” having been discovered and pumped out of the ground, making military vehicles roll, and airplanes fly, and
big companies in big nations wealthy. Of course, along the way the Arabs nationalized their oil fields, meaning they
got rich selling it to those big oil companies and big nations. So, in essence, the USA is paying Israel to kill
Palestinians, while (indirectly) also paying the Palestinians to kill Jews. If only there was no oil ….
One last thing, before I leave you to your thoughts. Here is what David Ben-Gurion said about the “Arab problem” in
1956.
“Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we
have taken their country ... There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They
only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps
forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it is simple: we have to stay strong
and maintain a powerful army.” (from Wikipedia article, “David Ben-Gurion”, their source, “Nahum Goldman, 'The
Jewish Paradox', translated by Steve Cox, 1978, ISBN 0-448-15166-9, p. 98, p. 100, p. 99 )
With all of this known, quatrain IX-34 can be read so as to give a much better idea of what it is about, when the
translation is as follows. Please keep in mind that the depth of each word’s meanings makes it impossible to write one
translation of a quatrain that expresses the totality of the quatrain’s meaning. Understanding requires thinking with
feeling.
Them country careless scope ones manager of a household will be wearing a turban,
Returning battle will transport south them you anointed with oil:
For five rent of assist one will be betrayed will be entitled
Not one of business & this first King of Israel through cost to them possess from oil.
| All Material Copyright by Robert Tippett Except the Obvious Stolen Stuff Reproduction by Permission Only |
| Please Help Us Keep these Articles Flowing Freely |