1557 Utrech Du Rosne

Le grand Royal d’or, d’aerain augmenté,
Rompu la pache, par ieune ouuerte guerre:
Peuple affligé par vn chef lamenté,
De sang barbare sera couuerte terre.


This regal grandee adulterates the gold with brass,
The agreement broken, war opened by a young man:
People afflicted because of a lamentable or deplored chief,
Barbarian blood will cover the ground.

My very patriotic mother lived through World War II in London’s Westminster close to Big Ben – she refused to evacuate to the country – and once said “In peacetime they can never find enough money but they can always find wealth enough for war.”

That’s clearly true but what does it mean? That on considering a war they can suddenly find plenty of creditors for it? Or is it that such national creditors shoehorned them into the war in the first place, possibly against another state which has refused big lendings they had previously placed on offer? A war automatically gets both countries borrowing heavily from these monetary innovators/money printers and teaches reluctant, high-minded leaders a lesson to boot. (Assassination may be sometimes preferred but not always successful or possible, it seems. The military leader of a modern empire tried to have President DeGaulle assassinated eleven times, they say.)

There is so little information from Nostredame here that the quatrain’s ideas may not even be in chronological order. How could we tell? The broken agreement of Line 2 could represent, say, Nixon refusing to pay gold on demand to the French and ditching the ‘gold standard’. And the war opened by a ‘young man’? Well, a young Kermit Roosevelt initiated regime change/revolution against the elected head of Iran.

Unfortunately, this quatrain begs the criticism that it could apply to many situations at various places and times. Throughout history kings (and small ruling groups with the outlook of a king) have devalued their own currency either by adding cheap impurities to gold and silver coinage or by having no standard of value for paper moneys issued and then over-issuing it to reduce the exchange value of that unit. Repayment of fixed debts is greatly reduced by domestic monetary inflation and so that is at least as attractive as taxation to an indebted home ruler.

But the Administration and the closet advisors to President Bush the Younger went further. He and Prime Minister Blair virtually de-natured the economic base by starting a second-rate war leading over a few years to gigantic USA indebtedness to the private credit-underwriters of the private-not-public ‘Federal Reserve’. His Presidency has been deplored and this even led to President Obama receiving an ‘advance peace’ prize presumably for not talking like or walking like President Bush. Afghanistan and Iraq (which the Medieval French would have labelled as barbarians) have suffered and are suffering great and bloody loss of life and limb as a result, out of all proportion to the heavily-resourced USA and its follower’s losses, sad as they are. Since ‘Dubya’ got elected, multiples of the figure ‘trillion dollars’ are now commonplace in USA budget announcements for all sorts of spending which is difficult to reconcile with there being only 350 million American men, women and children who’ve been told they need to pay back all this debt and claw their way through the everyday inflationary mire.

Quantitative easing has reduced this burden by devaluing money but as the US dollar is a universal trade currency it amounts to constant inflation being imported by all the exporting countries. Economic affliction is now being experienced in an ‘uptight and personal’ way by many individuals in most parts of the globe.

Was Bush the Elder a lamented leader? Yes, economically he was. Did Bush the Younger open a war? Yes, but he was neither the first nor the last to do that. The young President Obama is said to agree to more (and more aggressive) actions by the unaccountable JSOC than Bush did. War is spreading and it is not known exactly how many wars the US is fighting right now as some may be by proxy or covert action rather than boots officially on the ground. Its military facilities are on every continent. Probable US ‘areas of responsibility’ include more than 50 African nations plus Afghanistan, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Germany, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea South, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan South, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, UAE, UK, Uzbekistan and Yemen whilst short stays and training sessions may also include Baluchistan, Belgium, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Georgia, Iran, France, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Spain and the Ukraine. Both categories attend the Philippines. In other words, this aggressive/defensive stance is well beyond accepted war zones. There is also the persistent fear that the US has weapons under wraps that remain unknown entities and may be worse than those currently imaginable due to its apparently having run a parallel scientific universe for decades under cover of the 1947 security act. The late President Kennedy complained about trying to make America’s huge power pertinent to the rest of the world. This invincible-seeming power must ever depend upon selling dollars that are reserved and so never circulated, like uncashed cheques, plus a semi-permanent policy of quantitative easing and the creation of financial devices for moving its huge debts temporarily back to the storefront of those to whom they owe everything.

Something may give way, bigtime, but wherever and whenever this could be Michel Nostredame is not saying.