The Preface: Reigns, Sects, & Religions (Part I)
In Nostradamus’ letter of preface, on the second page (275 words in ), he wrote, “, & non tant
seulement du temps present, mais aussi de la plus grande part du futeur, de mettre par
escrit, pource que les regnes, sectes, & religions feront changes si opposites, voire au
respect du present diametralement, que si je venoir à referrer ce que à l’advenir sera, ceux
de regne, secte, religion, &”. That amounts to 52 words.
This literally translates to state, “, & not so much only of the time present, but likewise to there
more great part to the future, with to set through writing, because that them governments,
sects, & religions will be causing changes so opposites, to see in the respect of the present
diametrically, that any I to view in to refer this which at them to happen will be, those to rule,
faction, religion, &”.
To put this in a poetic style for better understanding, it presents in this manner:
& not so much only of the time present,
but likewise to there more great part to the future,
from to set by writing,
because that them governments,
sects,
& religions will be causing changes so opposites,
surely with the comparison to the present diametrically (or oppositively, in opposition to)
that as I arrive at to report this which in them to happen will be,
those with rule,
faction,
religion,
In this manner of presentation, it becomes clearer to see that one word was written as a stand-
alone statement at two places. That one word is “secte.” That French word can be translated to
mean, “a sect, or faction; a rout or troup; a company of one opinion (most commonly a bad
opinion).” In the 1611 Old English translation dictionary, “rout” and “troup” are references to
“people of the lowest class” rallied together as a force, as “troops,” and as opposed to an
orderly militia with a commander of rank and proper upbringing.
From that view of the definition parameters, when placed with the context of “regnes” and
“religions” (as it appears both times, once in the plural and once in the singular), the intention of
using the word “sect” is to show people of common upbringing, who are equally influential as
kings, princes, popes, and bishops. The exception is that one of a “sect” is not directly
connected to Jesus Christ, as bloodline descendants (royalty) or body-line descendants
(dedicated service to Christ through the Church). This important contextual meaning must be
grasped.
From this perspective, one must next look to a deeper level (one degree deeper), where the
lack of capitalization bears significance. In the language used by Nostradamus, one must learn
to recognize a difference between a “King” and a “king” (“Roy” versus “roy” – Old French
spellings). As such, there would be significance had Nostradamus written the capitalized word
“Regnes,” as such recognition (capitalization) would be to place importance on a “Kingdom,
Realm, or Sovereign domain” of a born to “rule King.” The quatrains do offer capitalized
versions of “Regne” (example quatrain III-49), but both letters only display the word spelled in
the lowercase. This level of deeper inspection allows one to see the meaning intended from
“regnes” as being away from a royal implication (stemming from “realm”) and towards a more
generalized statement of “rule, government, and the continuance of (the hierarchy designed to
meet) a manner of government.”
With those observations, one can then see how the “stutter” of a comma being followed
immediately by an ampersand (implying, “and and”) is a systemic placement that indicates a
separate thought is being made (comma), which is one of special importance (ampersand).
The comma-ampersand conjunction is then a “break point” throughout both letters of instruction,
as an indicator of significance that is important to the theme within The Prophecies. These
themes are stated in the preface and explained further in the letter to Henry II. In the example
stated above, the combination of “regnes, sects, and religions” is placed into two important and
separate theme statements.
In the first theme statement, the word “religions” is not found. That word is actually the first word
of the second separate series, while still linking to the first separate series by the placement of
an ampersand. In a secondary sense, an ampersand does imply continuation as an additional
(“and”) thought. The comma separates “religions” from “sects.” However, “and”, as implied by
the comma’s placement, is importantly added to the next separate statement (as the
ampersand’s primary function), by introducing that something of significance is to follow, relative
to the precedent. That makes the addition (“and”) that is introduced be an important theme
about “religions” (the first word).
Through this deduction, one sees the first theme is about the “sects,” while the second theme is
about the “religions.” This means the element of “reigns” is relative to those two “realms” of
influence. This is an indirect way of stating that true “kingdoms,” where “Kings rule,” is not a
focus of The Prophecies. This can be deduced because this information comes from the
preface, which is an overview of what can be found within the text that follows (ten “Centuries” of
quatrains).
From this analysis, one can see the series of words between ampersands 1 and 2 shows an
importance of theme that states a focus of The Prophecies (“from to set by writing”). This focus
has little to do with the “times” of Nostradamus’ “present” (“not so much alone”), as did his
yearly Almanacs. The preface is instead focusing on The Prophecies being about “more great
part to the future”. This “future” is so important “to put” down “by writing because that (the
future)” will be one brought on by “them.” This plural pronoun is then identified as
“governments,” specifically those of the “future” set aside as being “governments” by “them,”
relative to “sects.”
It is important to maintain a separation of thought that keeps one from drifting into a modern use
of “sect,” as a word relative to “religions.” While that is true of the divisions within Christianity
that had already begun by 1555 (the Church of England split, as well as the Lutheran split),
these are still to be considered the plural of “religions,” not “sects.” The word “secte” has to be
seen through the modern definition of “sect.” That states, “A group of people forming a distinct
unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.” It
can thereby also relate to the definition, “A faction united by common interests or beliefs.” The
Latin root is then also implied, as “A course; or school of thought.”
The best way to describe a “secte” of the 16th century is as being a group whose influence was
granted by either the State or Church, due to need. This then represents groups of people with
special talents, such as are known to have been demonstrated by artists like Michelangelo,
architects like Brunelleschi, composers like Josquin, inventors like Leonardo da Vinci,
philosophers like Machiavelli, and astrologers like Nostradamus. These men were directed to
produce works for the enjoyment of the people, with the understanding known that their works
were expected to meet standards of morality. The State and Church, jointly, oversaw this
morality, as recognized agents acting as direct influences for keeping the people connected to
God and Christ (“reigns” made possible through the “religion” Christianity). While the
individuals represented individual “sects,” all within each “sect” of a common talent were
allowed the freedom to interpret sovereign instructions within the parameters of their natural
talents.
By the later centuries, and especially by the time the 20th century arrived, the “sects” of
influentially talented individuals had grown to replace the need for a royal decree to influence the
masses. The advent of revolution had replaced the “Kingdoms” and “Sovereign rulers,” as
predetermined by royal birth, with “governments” based on a variety of philosophies. Thus, the
influential element named in these segments in the preface, as “sects,” or “factions,” is forecast
to become (in “times future”) those who would replace kings and princes as "rulers" over
nations.
We know that modern “governments” differ by having focused on being “sects” of philosophies,
in particular those that have risen since the overthrow of “Sovereign kingdoms.” Their
philosophies of self-government have increasingly promoted some form of “government” that
allows the common man to hold the power of “reigns.” These philosophies present this
transition of power as a natural evolution of humanity. In a hind sighted historic view of this
change, historians have termed this “diametrically opposite” change as the Age of Reason, or
the Age of Enlightenment. Such a title signifies a period when humanity began to “think” for
itself, and see the “light” of grandiose principles.
This is actually describing an Age of Philosophy, where the Greek root meaning of
“philosophos” means, “lover of wisdom.” This change towards “wisdom” ruling is a central
theme of The Prophecies. This theme is stated here, in the preface, for the purpose of stating
that theme as what is central to The Prophecies.
Along this line of thought, Nostradamus would write later in the preface, “, & from such height
(or sublimity, altitude), not least that there natural clarity & according to nature clearness
would yield them Philosophers (or Lovers of wisdom) so assured ones, that [the assurance of
nature] being the means of them principles (or maxims) to there first reason had attained
from more profound chasms with more high doctrines.”
Placed in a poetic style, this more easily reads as:
& of such height (or sublimity, altitude),
not least that there natural clarity
& according to nature clearness would yield them Philosophers (or Lovers of wisdom) so
assured ones,
that [the assurance of nature] being the means of them principles (or maxims) to there
first reason had attained from more profound chasms with more high doctrines.
This explains this theme of “sects” by terming the most important influence being (capitalized, to
indicate importance) “Philosophers,” who would use “reason” as a way of bringing on the “first”
to use the power of thought to take positions of “such height” as is rulership over nations. Their
elements of reason will have been nothing new, as their concepts were “first” pondered by the
Greeks, who never crossed the “chasms” that separated thinkers from rulers, even though their
“profound” thought yielded “more high doctrines” (ethics) than those who would come after
Nostradamus’ “times.”
In quatrain III-67, the main theme states, “Une nouvelle secte de Philosophes,” which translates
to state, “One unheard of before (or new, strange, rare) sect (or faction) of Philosophers”. This
main theme statement of a quatrain is supporting both the segment explaining a theme to be
found within the quatrains that is focusing on “sects,” while also supporting the explanation of
that theme (in the same preface), where the “sects” are called (capitalized to denote
importance) “Philosophers”. The connecting of these elements is not coincidence, as each
supports one another as expressing the same central theme.
Seeing this, certainly from a wider “whole view” perspective (having an idea what the quatrains
hold, as well as the rest of the preface and other letter), one can then see how the ampersand
that signifies importance is directly relative to the word “religions” (in the second segment) while
also playing a role in relationship to “sects”. This relativity is not so much the “factions” that
would spring up as new “religions” (although that does play a secondary role), but instead to the
“separate” (use of a comma before the ampersand) relationship “religions” would play as
power brokers in “governments” controlled by “sects,” rather than “reigns.” One must also
recognize the study of “religions” falls under the general heading of “Philosophy.”
This relationship seen, one can then focus entirely on the “main theme” of this second segment
that states, “religions will be making changes as such opposite ones.” This says that
“religions” of “times future” will cease being a, “Belief in and reverence for [God] regarded as
creator and governor of the universe; and, A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the
teachings of a spiritual leader (Christ for Christians).” Instead, the presumption is the way
“religions” have been allowed to project themselves (especially through “televangelism”) evil
money-grubbing corporations. This “change” has led many away from “religions” and towards
the teachings of “Philosophers,” who promote a “separation” of Church and State (an
“opposite” position), rather than a joint rule, shared by Church and State (the condition in 1555).
This view is expanded in the second series of words, which state, “surely in the comparison to
the present diametrically.” The word “dimetralement,” when translated as “diametrically,”
bears the definition, “exact opposite; contrary.” This confirms that the “changes as such
opposite ones” does not mean a simple shift away from the methods of “religions” in 1555 (“in
the present”), but to the “exact opposite” of how “religions” were during the times of
Nostradamus.
While the specifics of “religions” could be discerned in a comparison-contrast method, to show
the similarities and differences that existed in “religions” of the 16th century, one must realize
the importance of the Roman Catholic Church, and the “sects” of that “religion,” versus other
“religions” that were not allowed to exist freely in Europe. From this broader perspective, one
can then look to the general characteristics of those “religions” of European Christianity that
have since become “exactly opposite” from the positions held in "times" past.
This is a confirmation of the “comma ampersand” division, where a “separation” is
“emphasized.” This is the separation of Church and State, such that “religions” were seen to
play absolutely no role in influencing the people through the “realms” of royal personages. The
advent of the “sects,” most importantly those “Philosophers” of “governments” headed by the
influential of the commoners (“sects”), would lessen the role of the Church to the point of
extinction. By separating the “vine of Christ” from the tree of wealth (the wealth of a nation,
through the value of its land and that production, plus the wealth provided by a work force of
citizens [slaves to the State]), the vine would eventually wither and die. In the late 20th century,
this “diametrically opposite” position was publicly questioned by the New York Times (and later
Time magazine), when it boldly asked, “Is God Dead?”
Such a question during Nostradamus’ time would have meant severe punishment to the one
feeling strong enough to publish such rubbish. In our times, however, it is common place to see
the absurd placed in print, under the protection of the “Philosophers” who demanded not only
separation of Church and State, but freedom of the press and the right to publicly speak freely.
The right to speak freely is the cornerstone of propaganda, and the way the “Philosophers”
influence the masses to think the way they want the people to think.
The Church acted as the moral police in the 16th century, while also working in concert with
royals (whose right to “rule” was ordained by God). The Kings were born with the right of “rule”
through a royal bloodline (via Christ). The removal of royal heads (via the axe and guillotine)
thus freed thrones for common leaders [“sects”], and made it possible to reduce the Church’s
influence. People were no longer required to be Christian, as they were “freed” to voluntarily go
to Church and pay tithes.
By the time 400 years had passed, so many people had stopped paying tithes to the Church it
had become economically bankrupt. This led to a corruption of moral values, where the Church
sold its soul for “thirty pieces of silver,” laundering crime money for the ability to stay in
business. These generalities have indeed occurred, which proves Nostradamus prophesied
that downfall of the Church. This prophecy becomes an important theme of the “times” of the
“future,” which the preface introduces as what will be found in The Prophecies.
The next series of words state, “that [a reference back to the diametrical] as I arrive at to report
this which in them will happen to be.” This is then a statement about how Nostradamus came
to know this element of the future as a certainty. This will need further clarification, because his
statements about what “will happen” were unknown at the time. It would take 400 years to fully
develop this theme to the level of “surety,” thus this statement is beyond the scope of rational
thought to believe he calculated things would be differently, when they had existed similarly for
the 1,200 years prior (minimally).
In this translation, the combined form “l’advenir” has been represented as “them to happen,” or
alternatively it could be read as, “them to come to pass.” The plural has to be seen in the
abbreviated “l’,” because this makes a statement relative to that stated prior, and also that to be
stated next, which included those identified as “reigns, sects, and religions.” Still, while
collectively they represent the plural “them,” individually each can be seen in the singular, as “it
to come to pass.”
This singular number is relative to the individual statements that follow, with the first being,
“those of government,” where the plural is indicated as the many who will play roles in the
singular sense of “rule.” This then specifically states that The Prophecies indeed tells of “those
of government,” who also will “rule” nations “diametrically opposite” in “times future,” than
“Kingdoms” were "ruled" in the past. The stories of “those of reigns” (in the lowercase
meaning non-royal rulers) will be told through the linking of quatrains together.
At this point, Nostradamus repeated his isolated use of the word “secte,” this second time in the
singular number. This stand-alone statement (separated by commas) has been translated as
“faction,” instead of “sect.” This is because the prior statement, leading up to this stand-alone
statement, tells of “those with government,” such that the reader is next told there will be
different forms of “government” over the different nations. When one understands the definition
of the word “faction,” such that it means, “A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually
contentious minority within a larger group,” one is then being told the nature of the world’s
“government” at the “future times” of The Prophecies.
This is a statement of oligarchies foreseen, where the majority of the people are controlled by
the minority. This state existed in the times of Nostradamus, but the forms of “rule” were
monarchical. It was expected that a minority of the population was of royal birth, and thus
predestined by God to be in line to the thrones of Europe. However, these were not “factions,”
or “sects.” The advent of the common man to the “height” of “rule” over nations is projected to
occur by conscious efforts to manipulate the people to replace monarchies with oligarchies,
while being sold a “bill of goods” about the “Philosophy” under which all are to be united.
This means that a “faction” is the oligarchy called Democracy, where one leader comes from
one party that is actually a minority of the whole, requiring “independent” voters be swayed to
surrender their independence to follow one of a named minority. A “faction” is then, likewise,
the form of oligarchy practiced in the Soviet Union, Communist China, and the residual Russian
Federation, where the “Philosophy” tells all people they are equal, all while those in power reap
tremendous wealth at the expense of the poor who are powerless. Certainly, Europe in the 20th
century found a “faction” in the oligarchy that was the Nazi Party, representing a “Philosophy”
named Fascism. This is how one must read this one-word presentation of “secte,” because this
is the history of the world, once kings began being beheaded, allowing “those” from the
common class to rise as the most driven “faction with reign.”
From this one word, “secte,” Nostradamus has detailed much of the first part of The
Prophecies. Multiple quatrains separate from the whole, to reconnect together in story fashion,
telling of the heads of these “factions” and their deeds. These stories tell of “those” who will
come “to reign” brutally upon their own nations, as well as the world. Included in these are some
tyrants of World War II (Hitler, Stalin, and Franco), with the establishment of “puppet rulers” in the
Middle East and North Africa (Saddam Hussein, Muammar Kaddafi, the Shah of Iran). These
are known to have been positioned by those “free” nations of Europe termed “greats,” which are
the United States, Great Britain, and France. All of those stories reference the one word stated
in this section of the preface, as the actions of “those with government,” who represent minority
“factions.”
With that one word making its own statement about “those with government” being “factions,”
this element of “faction” is then furthered through the one-word statement “religion.” This is an
important statement about how each “faction” will be generally classified, based on its
predominant “Philosophy,” as to how each adheres to some form of “religion.” The Western
forms of “government” have laws based on the remnants of Christian doctrines, with a majority
of their citizens still claiming Christianity as their “religion.” Still, those of the Middle East, as
well as across Africa, and in Eastern Europe (closest to Turkey/Greece) are strongly connected
to the “religion” of Islam. Those two “religions” have a history of conflict, which includes the
small “sect” known as Judaism, which is also a distinct “religion.” To the opposite extreme, the
Communist nations of Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and China, adhere to strict
principles (“Philosophies”) of atheism, which is a lack of “religion.” This one-word statement is
then telling the reader how “religion,” specifically those “diametrically opposite” the others, will
play a major role in the “future times” of The Prophecies.
In Nostradamus’ letter of preface, on the second page (275 words in ), he wrote, “, & non tant
seulement du temps present, mais aussi de la plus grande part du futeur, de mettre par
escrit, pource que les regnes, sectes, & religions feront changes si opposites, voire au
respect du present diametralement, que si je venoir à referrer ce que à l’advenir sera, ceux
de regne, secte, religion, &”. That amounts to 52 words.
This literally translates to state, “, & not so much only of the time present, but likewise to there
more great part to the future, with to set through writing, because that them governments,
sects, & religions will be causing changes so opposites, to see in the respect of the present
diametrically, that any I to view in to refer this which at them to happen will be, those to rule,
faction, religion, &”.
To put this in a poetic style for better understanding, it presents in this manner:
& not so much only of the time present,
but likewise to there more great part to the future,
from to set by writing,
because that them governments,
sects,
& religions will be causing changes so opposites,
surely with the comparison to the present diametrically (or oppositively, in opposition to)
that as I arrive at to report this which in them to happen will be,
those with rule,
faction,
religion,
In this manner of presentation, it becomes clearer to see that one word was written as a stand-
alone statement at two places. That one word is “secte.” That French word can be translated to
mean, “a sect, or faction; a rout or troup; a company of one opinion (most commonly a bad
opinion).” In the 1611 Old English translation dictionary, “rout” and “troup” are references to
“people of the lowest class” rallied together as a force, as “troops,” and as opposed to an
orderly militia with a commander of rank and proper upbringing.
From that view of the definition parameters, when placed with the context of “regnes” and
“religions” (as it appears both times, once in the plural and once in the singular), the intention of
using the word “sect” is to show people of common upbringing, who are equally influential as
kings, princes, popes, and bishops. The exception is that one of a “sect” is not directly
connected to Jesus Christ, as bloodline descendants (royalty) or body-line descendants
(dedicated service to Christ through the Church). This important contextual meaning must be
grasped.
From this perspective, one must next look to a deeper level (one degree deeper), where the
lack of capitalization bears significance. In the language used by Nostradamus, one must learn
to recognize a difference between a “King” and a “king” (“Roy” versus “roy” – Old French
spellings). As such, there would be significance had Nostradamus written the capitalized word
“Regnes,” as such recognition (capitalization) would be to place importance on a “Kingdom,
Realm, or Sovereign domain” of a born to “rule King.” The quatrains do offer capitalized
versions of “Regne” (example quatrain III-49), but both letters only display the word spelled in
the lowercase. This level of deeper inspection allows one to see the meaning intended from
“regnes” as being away from a royal implication (stemming from “realm”) and towards a more
generalized statement of “rule, government, and the continuance of (the hierarchy designed to
meet) a manner of government.”
With those observations, one can then see how the “stutter” of a comma being followed
immediately by an ampersand (implying, “and and”) is a systemic placement that indicates a
separate thought is being made (comma), which is one of special importance (ampersand).
The comma-ampersand conjunction is then a “break point” throughout both letters of instruction,
as an indicator of significance that is important to the theme within The Prophecies. These
themes are stated in the preface and explained further in the letter to Henry II. In the example
stated above, the combination of “regnes, sects, and religions” is placed into two important and
separate theme statements.
In the first theme statement, the word “religions” is not found. That word is actually the first word
of the second separate series, while still linking to the first separate series by the placement of
an ampersand. In a secondary sense, an ampersand does imply continuation as an additional
(“and”) thought. The comma separates “religions” from “sects.” However, “and”, as implied by
the comma’s placement, is importantly added to the next separate statement (as the
ampersand’s primary function), by introducing that something of significance is to follow, relative
to the precedent. That makes the addition (“and”) that is introduced be an important theme
about “religions” (the first word).
Through this deduction, one sees the first theme is about the “sects,” while the second theme is
about the “religions.” This means the element of “reigns” is relative to those two “realms” of
influence. This is an indirect way of stating that true “kingdoms,” where “Kings rule,” is not a
focus of The Prophecies. This can be deduced because this information comes from the
preface, which is an overview of what can be found within the text that follows (ten “Centuries” of
quatrains).
From this analysis, one can see the series of words between ampersands 1 and 2 shows an
importance of theme that states a focus of The Prophecies (“from to set by writing”). This focus
has little to do with the “times” of Nostradamus’ “present” (“not so much alone”), as did his
yearly Almanacs. The preface is instead focusing on The Prophecies being about “more great
part to the future”. This “future” is so important “to put” down “by writing because that (the
future)” will be one brought on by “them.” This plural pronoun is then identified as
“governments,” specifically those of the “future” set aside as being “governments” by “them,”
relative to “sects.”
It is important to maintain a separation of thought that keeps one from drifting into a modern use
of “sect,” as a word relative to “religions.” While that is true of the divisions within Christianity
that had already begun by 1555 (the Church of England split, as well as the Lutheran split),
these are still to be considered the plural of “religions,” not “sects.” The word “secte” has to be
seen through the modern definition of “sect.” That states, “A group of people forming a distinct
unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.” It
can thereby also relate to the definition, “A faction united by common interests or beliefs.” The
Latin root is then also implied, as “A course; or school of thought.”
The best way to describe a “secte” of the 16th century is as being a group whose influence was
granted by either the State or Church, due to need. This then represents groups of people with
special talents, such as are known to have been demonstrated by artists like Michelangelo,
architects like Brunelleschi, composers like Josquin, inventors like Leonardo da Vinci,
philosophers like Machiavelli, and astrologers like Nostradamus. These men were directed to
produce works for the enjoyment of the people, with the understanding known that their works
were expected to meet standards of morality. The State and Church, jointly, oversaw this
morality, as recognized agents acting as direct influences for keeping the people connected to
God and Christ (“reigns” made possible through the “religion” Christianity). While the
individuals represented individual “sects,” all within each “sect” of a common talent were
allowed the freedom to interpret sovereign instructions within the parameters of their natural
talents.
By the later centuries, and especially by the time the 20th century arrived, the “sects” of
influentially talented individuals had grown to replace the need for a royal decree to influence the
masses. The advent of revolution had replaced the “Kingdoms” and “Sovereign rulers,” as
predetermined by royal birth, with “governments” based on a variety of philosophies. Thus, the
influential element named in these segments in the preface, as “sects,” or “factions,” is forecast
to become (in “times future”) those who would replace kings and princes as "rulers" over
nations.
We know that modern “governments” differ by having focused on being “sects” of philosophies,
in particular those that have risen since the overthrow of “Sovereign kingdoms.” Their
philosophies of self-government have increasingly promoted some form of “government” that
allows the common man to hold the power of “reigns.” These philosophies present this
transition of power as a natural evolution of humanity. In a hind sighted historic view of this
change, historians have termed this “diametrically opposite” change as the Age of Reason, or
the Age of Enlightenment. Such a title signifies a period when humanity began to “think” for
itself, and see the “light” of grandiose principles.
This is actually describing an Age of Philosophy, where the Greek root meaning of
“philosophos” means, “lover of wisdom.” This change towards “wisdom” ruling is a central
theme of The Prophecies. This theme is stated here, in the preface, for the purpose of stating
that theme as what is central to The Prophecies.
Along this line of thought, Nostradamus would write later in the preface, “, & from such height
(or sublimity, altitude), not least that there natural clarity & according to nature clearness
would yield them Philosophers (or Lovers of wisdom) so assured ones, that [the assurance of
nature] being the means of them principles (or maxims) to there first reason had attained
from more profound chasms with more high doctrines.”
Placed in a poetic style, this more easily reads as:
& of such height (or sublimity, altitude),
not least that there natural clarity
& according to nature clearness would yield them Philosophers (or Lovers of wisdom) so
assured ones,
that [the assurance of nature] being the means of them principles (or maxims) to there
first reason had attained from more profound chasms with more high doctrines.
This explains this theme of “sects” by terming the most important influence being (capitalized, to
indicate importance) “Philosophers,” who would use “reason” as a way of bringing on the “first”
to use the power of thought to take positions of “such height” as is rulership over nations. Their
elements of reason will have been nothing new, as their concepts were “first” pondered by the
Greeks, who never crossed the “chasms” that separated thinkers from rulers, even though their
“profound” thought yielded “more high doctrines” (ethics) than those who would come after
Nostradamus’ “times.”
In quatrain III-67, the main theme states, “Une nouvelle secte de Philosophes,” which translates
to state, “One unheard of before (or new, strange, rare) sect (or faction) of Philosophers”. This
main theme statement of a quatrain is supporting both the segment explaining a theme to be
found within the quatrains that is focusing on “sects,” while also supporting the explanation of
that theme (in the same preface), where the “sects” are called (capitalized to denote
importance) “Philosophers”. The connecting of these elements is not coincidence, as each
supports one another as expressing the same central theme.
Seeing this, certainly from a wider “whole view” perspective (having an idea what the quatrains
hold, as well as the rest of the preface and other letter), one can then see how the ampersand
that signifies importance is directly relative to the word “religions” (in the second segment) while
also playing a role in relationship to “sects”. This relativity is not so much the “factions” that
would spring up as new “religions” (although that does play a secondary role), but instead to the
“separate” (use of a comma before the ampersand) relationship “religions” would play as
power brokers in “governments” controlled by “sects,” rather than “reigns.” One must also
recognize the study of “religions” falls under the general heading of “Philosophy.”
This relationship seen, one can then focus entirely on the “main theme” of this second segment
that states, “religions will be making changes as such opposite ones.” This says that
“religions” of “times future” will cease being a, “Belief in and reverence for [God] regarded as
creator and governor of the universe; and, A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the
teachings of a spiritual leader (Christ for Christians).” Instead, the presumption is the way
“religions” have been allowed to project themselves (especially through “televangelism”) evil
money-grubbing corporations. This “change” has led many away from “religions” and towards
the teachings of “Philosophers,” who promote a “separation” of Church and State (an
“opposite” position), rather than a joint rule, shared by Church and State (the condition in 1555).
This view is expanded in the second series of words, which state, “surely in the comparison to
the present diametrically.” The word “dimetralement,” when translated as “diametrically,”
bears the definition, “exact opposite; contrary.” This confirms that the “changes as such
opposite ones” does not mean a simple shift away from the methods of “religions” in 1555 (“in
the present”), but to the “exact opposite” of how “religions” were during the times of
Nostradamus.
While the specifics of “religions” could be discerned in a comparison-contrast method, to show
the similarities and differences that existed in “religions” of the 16th century, one must realize
the importance of the Roman Catholic Church, and the “sects” of that “religion,” versus other
“religions” that were not allowed to exist freely in Europe. From this broader perspective, one
can then look to the general characteristics of those “religions” of European Christianity that
have since become “exactly opposite” from the positions held in "times" past.
This is a confirmation of the “comma ampersand” division, where a “separation” is
“emphasized.” This is the separation of Church and State, such that “religions” were seen to
play absolutely no role in influencing the people through the “realms” of royal personages. The
advent of the “sects,” most importantly those “Philosophers” of “governments” headed by the
influential of the commoners (“sects”), would lessen the role of the Church to the point of
extinction. By separating the “vine of Christ” from the tree of wealth (the wealth of a nation,
through the value of its land and that production, plus the wealth provided by a work force of
citizens [slaves to the State]), the vine would eventually wither and die. In the late 20th century,
this “diametrically opposite” position was publicly questioned by the New York Times (and later
Time magazine), when it boldly asked, “Is God Dead?”
Such a question during Nostradamus’ time would have meant severe punishment to the one
feeling strong enough to publish such rubbish. In our times, however, it is common place to see
the absurd placed in print, under the protection of the “Philosophers” who demanded not only
separation of Church and State, but freedom of the press and the right to publicly speak freely.
The right to speak freely is the cornerstone of propaganda, and the way the “Philosophers”
influence the masses to think the way they want the people to think.
The Church acted as the moral police in the 16th century, while also working in concert with
royals (whose right to “rule” was ordained by God). The Kings were born with the right of “rule”
through a royal bloodline (via Christ). The removal of royal heads (via the axe and guillotine)
thus freed thrones for common leaders [“sects”], and made it possible to reduce the Church’s
influence. People were no longer required to be Christian, as they were “freed” to voluntarily go
to Church and pay tithes.
By the time 400 years had passed, so many people had stopped paying tithes to the Church it
had become economically bankrupt. This led to a corruption of moral values, where the Church
sold its soul for “thirty pieces of silver,” laundering crime money for the ability to stay in
business. These generalities have indeed occurred, which proves Nostradamus prophesied
that downfall of the Church. This prophecy becomes an important theme of the “times” of the
“future,” which the preface introduces as what will be found in The Prophecies.
The next series of words state, “that [a reference back to the diametrical] as I arrive at to report
this which in them will happen to be.” This is then a statement about how Nostradamus came
to know this element of the future as a certainty. This will need further clarification, because his
statements about what “will happen” were unknown at the time. It would take 400 years to fully
develop this theme to the level of “surety,” thus this statement is beyond the scope of rational
thought to believe he calculated things would be differently, when they had existed similarly for
the 1,200 years prior (minimally).
In this translation, the combined form “l’advenir” has been represented as “them to happen,” or
alternatively it could be read as, “them to come to pass.” The plural has to be seen in the
abbreviated “l’,” because this makes a statement relative to that stated prior, and also that to be
stated next, which included those identified as “reigns, sects, and religions.” Still, while
collectively they represent the plural “them,” individually each can be seen in the singular, as “it
to come to pass.”
This singular number is relative to the individual statements that follow, with the first being,
“those of government,” where the plural is indicated as the many who will play roles in the
singular sense of “rule.” This then specifically states that The Prophecies indeed tells of “those
of government,” who also will “rule” nations “diametrically opposite” in “times future,” than
“Kingdoms” were "ruled" in the past. The stories of “those of reigns” (in the lowercase
meaning non-royal rulers) will be told through the linking of quatrains together.
At this point, Nostradamus repeated his isolated use of the word “secte,” this second time in the
singular number. This stand-alone statement (separated by commas) has been translated as
“faction,” instead of “sect.” This is because the prior statement, leading up to this stand-alone
statement, tells of “those with government,” such that the reader is next told there will be
different forms of “government” over the different nations. When one understands the definition
of the word “faction,” such that it means, “A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually
contentious minority within a larger group,” one is then being told the nature of the world’s
“government” at the “future times” of The Prophecies.
This is a statement of oligarchies foreseen, where the majority of the people are controlled by
the minority. This state existed in the times of Nostradamus, but the forms of “rule” were
monarchical. It was expected that a minority of the population was of royal birth, and thus
predestined by God to be in line to the thrones of Europe. However, these were not “factions,”
or “sects.” The advent of the common man to the “height” of “rule” over nations is projected to
occur by conscious efforts to manipulate the people to replace monarchies with oligarchies,
while being sold a “bill of goods” about the “Philosophy” under which all are to be united.
This means that a “faction” is the oligarchy called Democracy, where one leader comes from
one party that is actually a minority of the whole, requiring “independent” voters be swayed to
surrender their independence to follow one of a named minority. A “faction” is then, likewise,
the form of oligarchy practiced in the Soviet Union, Communist China, and the residual Russian
Federation, where the “Philosophy” tells all people they are equal, all while those in power reap
tremendous wealth at the expense of the poor who are powerless. Certainly, Europe in the 20th
century found a “faction” in the oligarchy that was the Nazi Party, representing a “Philosophy”
named Fascism. This is how one must read this one-word presentation of “secte,” because this
is the history of the world, once kings began being beheaded, allowing “those” from the
common class to rise as the most driven “faction with reign.”
From this one word, “secte,” Nostradamus has detailed much of the first part of The
Prophecies. Multiple quatrains separate from the whole, to reconnect together in story fashion,
telling of the heads of these “factions” and their deeds. These stories tell of “those” who will
come “to reign” brutally upon their own nations, as well as the world. Included in these are some
tyrants of World War II (Hitler, Stalin, and Franco), with the establishment of “puppet rulers” in the
Middle East and North Africa (Saddam Hussein, Muammar Kaddafi, the Shah of Iran). These
are known to have been positioned by those “free” nations of Europe termed “greats,” which are
the United States, Great Britain, and France. All of those stories reference the one word stated
in this section of the preface, as the actions of “those with government,” who represent minority
“factions.”
With that one word making its own statement about “those with government” being “factions,”
this element of “faction” is then furthered through the one-word statement “religion.” This is an
important statement about how each “faction” will be generally classified, based on its
predominant “Philosophy,” as to how each adheres to some form of “religion.” The Western
forms of “government” have laws based on the remnants of Christian doctrines, with a majority
of their citizens still claiming Christianity as their “religion.” Still, those of the Middle East, as
well as across Africa, and in Eastern Europe (closest to Turkey/Greece) are strongly connected
to the “religion” of Islam. Those two “religions” have a history of conflict, which includes the
small “sect” known as Judaism, which is also a distinct “religion.” To the opposite extreme, the
Communist nations of Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and China, adhere to strict
principles (“Philosophies”) of atheism, which is a lack of “religion.” This one-word statement is
then telling the reader how “religion,” specifically those “diametrically opposite” the others, will
play a major role in the “future times” of The Prophecies.
| The Main Theme of The Prophecies |
| All Material Copyright of Robert Tippett with the exception of the obviously stolen stuff Reproduction by Permission Only |
