I recently joined a private “discussion group” about Nostradamus.  I was not looking for a group to join, but found it by accident.  It, at the time, seemed a welcome opportunity to find someone to test logically what I have found the texts of Nostradamus to mean.  Well, after being approved to become a member of the group on August 24, 2008, I have officially been banished from the group, on August 29, 2008.  I lasted five days.  Why, you may ask?

The reason is simple.  It was a group of silent watchers (mainly), with only one (other than myself) offering opinion for public scrutiny.  That one was the “big daddy,” the “great kahuna,” the one whom everyone was expected to bow down to and worship.  One other member actually gave responses to and asked questions in reference to what I posed; but even that was tempered somewhat, as if the member was trying to not arouse the wrath of the moderator towards him.  

It seems being a pundit on productions that make it on The History Channel and the Discovery Channel has made one Nostradamean a star (in his own mind mostly).  This is particularly so in this this group I entered, where such a star moderates to his own twinkling delights.  In retrospect, it seems I joined during a season when the tribe was in search of its next human sacrifice.  The silence the majority produced seemed eerily due to their fearing they could just as easily become the sacrificial lambs, should they voice opinion contrary to their king’s.

I was expelled because I challenged the moderator’s use of ridicule, rather than logic, as a way of intimidating the “discussion group.”  Without any need or provokation (other than voice a contrary translation possibility) the moderator used force to make it clear to everyone that they must believe only the moderator, because in his world it is “my way or the highway.”  The rationale he used was, (paraphrased) “because I have read more classical literature than anyone, and speak more languages fluently than anyone, therefore I am the Nostradamus god.”  Where’s Steve Martin when you need him to say, “Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse meeeeeeeeeeeee!” 

Logic is established by set rules.  It is not an issue of how much you know, but how well you can expand your knowledge to clearly see issues from more than one side.  The issue of Nostradamus is about how can you prove something beyond everyone’s knowledge (including the most knowledgable, or the issue would be not an issue), based on an unemotional, unbiased, open-minded ability to look at the facts relative to the argument.  In other words, if you think Nostradamus meant this, when there is proof he actually wrote that, then you have to prove why I should think like you do, by using facts related to Nostradamus himself stating your claim.  To simply say, "I believe this because I am well-read and intelligent", or to reject concrete evidence that does not fit one’s preconception, then one is being illogical. 

There is no way to logically debate someone who says, (paraphrased) "Nostradamus contradicted himself, so you cannot believe half of what he stated; but I have a handle on the true half, kinda, so I'm still trying to figure those out."  That's like arguing for a pathological liar, because you believe there is partial truth to what the liar stated.  That is a biased opinion that rejects the lies for some illogical reason.  I see Nostradamus as telling only the truth; and that is backed up by the truth that has come from what he wrote.  I see nothing that contradicts.  I am willing to discuss these differences of opinion to find out where the common ground of agreement can be found; but the moderator was so emotional he felt common ground was too far below his pedestal.       

The wrath of ridicule was what I was forced to encounter instead; and when I had been insulted for having different beliefs (which came with evidence, as the logical foundation for belief) too many times, it became time to call a spade a spade.  That was good enough for the boot.  I have been rejected by a group of people (well the most important member of the group, at least) who in name (again, at least) professes to be interested in finding the true meaning of Nostradamus.  So much for that misconception.

I certainly was not looking to get kicked out of a private Nostradamus club; but I also was not looking to join an admiration society for a moderator who, while he obviously knows a lot of things, has nothing conclusive to say about the truth that really matters about Nostradamus.  This is why you cannot believe anything anyone says is the meaning of Nostradamus, unless they are willing listen and respond with true reason.  I include myself in this.  Feel free to question the logic of my opinions about Nostradamus.  I want everyone to know the truth.    

I want to give you an example of one exchange I had with  the one other than the moderator.  I posed two questions to him, based on his presumption that Nostradamus did not place punctuation in his manuscripts.  The presumption was stated to be based solely on the lack of standardization in the printing industry (the various printing-publishing centers around Europe), during the 15^th and 16 Centuries, leading up to 1555.  The presumption was, (paraphrased) “due to the fact that so many other published books of the same period (and before) did not have a standardized use of periods, commas, colons, semi-colons, question marks and exclamation points, it is presumed the printers had ‘copyright’ over what to add to the text and where to add it, leaving the author to be nothing more than the ignorant sob that just wrote a manuscript, without punctuation.” 

That is a statement of probability, with some degree of chance for being right; but there is also some degree of chance for being wrong.  It, therefore, cannot be entered as evidence that it is known beyond any shadow of a doubt that Nostradamus placed punctuation in his texts and the printers copied his punctuation into the publication.

Here is part of that exchange:

(I asked) Is it possible (a greater than zero percent chance) that Nostradamus punctuated his manuscripts/epistles, those specifically for the preface, The Prophecies, and his letter to Henri II?



(I also asked) Is it possible (a greater than zero percent chance) that the Lyon publishing house produced an original book that followed Nostradamus' handwritten documents as written, as closely as humanly possible, without any unapproved printer additions?



(his answer) Certainly possible. But then it's also possible that aliens dictated every word to Nostradamus in the first place (their translation devices probably weren't working very well, which would account for the gobbledy-gook). Probability is a better bet than possibility.

Then wonder-moderator answered the same questions posed:

Not in the slightest.

Now, “not in the slightest” is a firm statement of proof.  It says that the original manuscript of Les Propheties is something I have personally inspected (thoroughly) and nowhere in that manuscript is a period, a comma, a colon, a semi-colon, a question mark, or an exclamation point to be found.  Nada.  Zilch.  No punctuation there at all.  It was all made up by the printers, so I can therefore make up my own punctuation, disregarding the printer's copyrights.  Unfortunately, this claim was not made, because it cannot be made.  The moderator had previously answered a similar question, leading me to look at the Nostradamus manuscript that is known to still be preserved, the Orus Apollo.

The Orus Apollo is a publication dated to 1545, or ten years before The Prophecies.  What one did ten years earlier is not proof of what one does now.  A baby does not do many things that a ten year old child does, because things change over time.  The response, “not in the slightest”, is a biased opinion, based on an emotional cling to a personal reputation, based on probabilities rather than facts.  While facts are used to create probabilities, a probability can only lead one to look for evidence that supports a theory based on probability.

Of course, the friendlier exchange between the one other than the moderator and myself still had him making signs to the moderator that he was not challenging the moderator’s superiority.  He truthfully answered that without this original document available anything is possible.  Then he added his funny remark about aliens.

My response to that can be summed up by saying, (paraphrased) “if the spirit of Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit, was to come sit down by you or enter into you, allowing you to prophesy, I imagine one could call that ‘alien’.  Still, don’t go thinking an ‘extraterrestrial spaceman’ told Nostradamus what to write.”   

This is how close-minded people act.  We all do it at times; but then it is awful unbecoming, and not something we usually take pride in afterwards, when a realization of guilt takes hold.  Maybe that’s why someone invented the word, “epiphany”?  We need one word that sums up why we have changes of mind that make sense, contrary to the sense we had before.