V 29 LIBERTY WILL NOT BE REGAINED
1557 Lyon Du Rosne
La liberté ne sera recouuree,
L’occupera noir fier vilain inique:
Quant la matiere du pont sera ouuree,
D’Hister, Venise fachee la republique.
Liberty will not be regained,
A ravenning faith of the ignoble and iniquitous will overtake it:
How the matter of ‘the bridge’ will be crafted,
Hitler disgusted and dismissive of the republic atVenice.
Hitlerized, Venice rejects republicanism.
The Lateran Treaty between Mussolini and Pope Pius XII was signed in 1929. Hitler and Mussolini met in Venice to forge an alliance in 1934. V 29 is 5 + 29 = 34. Coincidence or caprice?
Line 4. Despite some assumptions to the contrary, the word ‘fachee’ (modern Fr. equates to ‘angry’) was rare but in use in the early Sixteenth Century. It seems to have been derived from the Vulgar Latin ‘fasticare’ probably arrived at by altering the tails of ‘fastidiare/fastidire’ (dismissively disgusted at or affected painfully by). Hitler is on record as having been disgusted by the licentiousness of the art he saw in Venice. Possibly ‘republican’ equates to ‘disgustingly licentious’ in this peculiar context and Nostredame’s shock at his remote visions of coming republics may have suggested as much to him, also (or he was underlining the election that brought Venice under the fascist wing of Mussolini). Certainly ‘fachee’ can easily bring the term ‘fasciste’ to the modern mind. Or the Roman ‘fasces’ that are still to be seen in WashingtonDC. These are sticks bundled with an axe-head: the symbol of summary power and judgement.
Line 3, the OF meanings of ‘occuper’ include ‘to overrun’.
“How the material of the bridge will be crafted” could be about either the Axis or the Pontiff – the supposed bridge between two worlds – whose Catholic agents in Germany had cast votes in the parliament that first brought legal substance to absolute rule by Hitler’s Nazi Party. Hitler was 100% political and not fond of religious bodies (many Catholics were among the German citizens the Nazis were to persecute) but officially respected the Pontiff’s Church in Germany. Mussolini had previously brought Catholicism back onto the world stage by granting it the absolute possession of Vatican City as a sovereign state with the Pope as its crowned head. Is the ‘pont’ or bridge analogous to a piece of common ground?
OF ‘quant’ is old Occitan for ‘how’ but might also be ‘quand’, when, making Line 3 a time-marker. OF ‘ouvree’ is over, finished. Combined with ‘matiere’ it suggests how a piece was crafted; otherwise how a task was accomplished.
Line 2. ‘fier’ can mean ‘to have faith in someone or something’ (Twelfth Century, ‘Roland’) so ‘noir fier’, dark faith, is a possible construction.
OF ‘pont’ = bridge. It is also the main component of ‘Pontife’, meaning the Papacy, the bridge between two worlds. Before 1934, Pope Pius XII stayed in the Vatican entirely isolated from Italy. After the re-establishment of an independent Vatican by Mussolini, the Pope still maintained political neutrality overall but arguably did soften towards Italy and may well have dealt indirectly with Germany. The unresolved extent of this inclination is the subject of many on-the-spot yet conflicting versions of unfolding events.
Line 1 is ultra dramatic; Liberty will not be regained! It is true that Germany and Italy were both relatively young insofar as being a united country was concerned. This is either the Republic of Italy/Kingdom of Italy pushed back into being a dictatorship in tandem with fascist Germany or the Western World today that has lived through WWII and thereafter under some grand illusion of liberty. Certainly some non-profit Foundations of America had already grown to work together so as to turn-out their social engineering of a previously unheard-of sort, plus strong educational biasings on a breathtaking scale, and still bring their enormous wealth and great skills to bear on society’s problems (yet with but one collective global future in mind).
This development was discussed fully in a filmed interview with Mr. Norman Dodd who, among other high-level research activities, produced the Dodd Report to the Reece Committee, a cutting document of public record that requires reading beyond the genuflective foreword written as if a report upon his nation’s most regal family. Unfortunately the official text of the Dodd Report to be seen at various websites is frequently found corrupted. The filmed interview by G. Edward ‘Ed’ Griffin is itself crystal clear, like Dodd himself, and recommended.
Here’s a tidy example of what went to the House of Representatives and provoked panic, denials and disinformation;
The Ford Foundation “gives ample evidence of having taken the initiative in selecting purposes of its own. Being of recent origin, it should not be held responsible for the actions or accomplishments of any of its predecessors. It is without precedent as to size, and it is the first Foundation to dedicate itself openly to “problem solving” on a world scale. In a sense, Ford appears to be capitalizing on developments which took place long before it was founded, and which have enabled it to take advantage of the wholesale dedication of education to a social purpose, the need to defend this dedication against criticism, the need to indoctrinate adults along these lines, the acceptance by the Executive branch of the Federal Government of responsibility for planning on a national and international scale the diminishing importance of the Congress and the states and the growing power of the Executive branch of the Federal government and the seeming indispensability of control over human behaviour.”
The Carnegie Endowment and Guggenheim Foundation also figure, inter alia, and it is has also been asserted by James Petras, an American Professor of Sociology who specializes in the subject of revolution, that friendly philanthropic routes such as provided by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations have been utilized by the CIA for movements of funds.
This reads like a power group from way back, dead set against liberty, yet ‘for the public’s own good’, and who it is alleged have been manipulating minds over generations with the enormous means at their disposal whilst tipping-over what was originally designed as the USA’s essentially balanced tri-lateral government.
Hitler and Mussolini, the exonerated Franco, the much-remembered Stalin, the much-maligned Mao, hideous class-freak Pol Pot, joke Presidents like Bush and friends or those unelected mad professors exemplified by Kissinger might well be proud of this stealthy progress toward mass-control by a tax-free funded mixture of amoral intellect and invasive invention.
In a documentary called ‘Manufacturing Consent’ Noam Chomsky – and he should know – claimed that the top 10% of educated people are now the most indoctrinated of all in America. Disinformation abounds today because govts (which lever all institutions) are gross feeders at the globalist wealth buckets (that refill almost effortlessly under our fiat currency systems) and therefore value both inflation that enables national debt repayment and deflation which enables the top-dollar of the world elite to savour pennies-on-the-dollar asset acquisitions.
Deference to ‘professional truth’ rather than the inborn human instinct for the truly truthful is mixed-up with the professional ostracization of peers not demonstrating the requisite degree of respect for a given status quo. Add to this the skewing built into statistics and the suppression of source data when inconvenient, shadowy control over the mass-media, the public demonization of their critics by created associations, inventing feel-good info (lying the news) plus inventing hideous opponents so as to control public opposition – including the planting of ‘agenteurs’ who will deliberately draw opprobrium down upon their own heads – and last but not least, using respected or celebrity names to launch false paradigms that recategorize events in the public mind.
This is the Hegelian Dialectic, invented for the purpose of destroying discrimination. It depends upon all people borrowing their ideas; as they most always do. By repeatedly introducing public debates that involve counter-arguments of equally weighted logicality (the dreadful “in the interests of balance” broadcasting technique) the mind is driven further and further along a scale from ‘absolute belief’ in a held thought to ‘absolute intellectual dependence on others’ rendering those ‘others’ – our persuasive politicians and their professional puppets – almost mystical in their apparent powers of comprehension of that fading vision we hesitantly call “the world I was born into and used to think I understood”. Hegel’s original intention here was to make ‘peaceful revolution’ an easier alternative to both ‘evolution’ o\and ‘bloody revolution’ and it works.
The human psyche always seeks truth but the monstrous ego prefers a pat on the back emanated from ghostly consensual coercions.
Interestingly, these Hegelian operatives are easily disarmed when not being given covering fire from a discussion ‘chairperson’. Alternatively both may become outweighed by awakened public ire, hence fear of the Internet which has birthed the leadership-free, anonymous counter-activator who disowns ‘debating’ as a modern equivalent to proxy duelling by the paid champions of two elitists squabbling over some asset-grab or other.
Jesus once said that he had not come to bring peace but to set people against each other, even in the same house and family, i.e. to cure the wilfully ignorant or denialistic ‘herd instinct’, the circular congregationalism that is ever at knives with “Know Thyself”.
However, the tax-exempt foundations have done some good things for people from all over the world have inspired positive imagining of future perceptions and perspectives. Yet although sometimes fashionable and knowingly successful, they are determined to demolish and replace the best spiritual notion of all: dependence upon God. In fact, total positivity over the unending succour flowing mysteriously from God is the ultimate spiritual achievement but rarely achieved. Socially this might even destroy the herd, eliminate the elites and return us all to the freewheeeling lifestyle of hunter-gathers. That’s why Western religions have hated the hunter-gatherers and built enclosures around them.
“A better name for facism is corporatism.” Benito Mussolini
Enclosure is exactly where big wealth is at; legalization of asset ownership with big sticks striking lines in the sand and the invention of vertical games whereby one person will always reach the top perch no matter how self-serving and shallow or destructive that person may prove to be.
“I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration.” Adolf Hitler 1931
Which brings us straight back to debate as a mortal conflict by paid champions; the armed sides to a conflict with an institutionally-appointed judge and possibly a voting jury to pass judgement upon the trial of elitists wrestling with both sides of one agenda and which produces only a slightly refreshed odour of kingship. This is found in the governance of most Western countries today.
A motto for the likes of these modern masters and their makeshift monarchies?
“A Happy King Does Not Know His Own Kingdom.”
Nigel Raymond Offord © 2012