It is quite possible to have ten-ten vision in each eye yet not to have twenty-twenty vision overall, for instance as the result of each eye focusing at a slightly different distance. The numbering of X 10 reminds me that we might understand each quatrain well enough to navigate it meaningfully and yet still miss the overarching plan of all this, should there be one. Is there a big picture that deNostradame intended at least one of us to see clearly some day? (My current view is that the End Time quatrains hold that position and all other quatrains, amazing accomplishments though they are, serve as thought-provoking and persuasive page fillers.)

Despite the centuries of Nostradamian research I think it is still at the work-in-progress stage insofar as the general conclusions drawn feel to me to be premature. Comprehending a complex undertow’s effect upon some cycling sequence of surface waves would be much easier if there were a little less going on below than we had suspected at first but unfortunately that is one wish always left unfulfilled by my analyses.

It seems undeniable that an intriguing tract that piques attention will grip most people better than a dull and obvious one – and yet mystery is not the ring-master of accurate communication.

Perhaps the balance between Michel Nostredame’s pointing sword and his safeguarding shield has tipped too far into concealment?

Or could some strange gaps and inexplicable errors occur in the earliest editions of the Centuries quatrains because there is an unrevealed cipher causing these malocclusions?

(The later editions may have become corrupted progressively. I try to avoid using them.)

It surprises me that one famous-name Nostradamiste who labours profitably at the Centuries mineshaft does never profess, as most readily do, that Nostradame is sincere in his predictions. Either way, there’s a lot more digging to be done before we can say that we have fully penetrated Michel’s curious gallery of cloak-and-daggery!

 X 10

Tasche de murdre, enormes adulteres,

Grand ennemi de tout le genre humain

Que sera pire qu’ayeuls, oncles, ne peres

En fer, feu eau, sanguin & inhumain.

Line 1, OF ‘tasche/tache’ is a noun meaning brand, spot, mark, mess or stain. Figuratively it signals moral defilement.

At a time when human slaughter had more legal categories (and let-out clauses) than it has today, OF ‘murdre’ conjured thoughts of an accompanying stealth under cover of darkness and a secretive slaying in a private place.

In the late 1300s in England, Chaucer wrote of unlawful death as being ‘mordre’, an Anglo-French substitute for OE ‘mordor’. It meant homicide or assassination whilst other specified forms of illegal killing (L. ‘murdrum/murdri’) attracted group taxation by the King if left ill-sorted locally.

Nostredame never made use of the specific legalisms for Medieval murder types and, anyway, OF ‘meutre’ became the general term with OF ‘meutrier’ being a murderer.

Selecting OF ‘murdre’ seems likely to be pointing up the domestic type of this evil.

The only alternative take on this might be that it is a printer’s error for OF ‘mure/mur’, wall (though as ‘mûr’ it betokened reaching a mature age) with ‘tasche de mure’ being the besmirchment of a wall. Using house in its biblical meaning of a particular bloodline or family tree we might then deduce that familial moral stains and a monumental number of ‘adulteres’ occupy Line 1.

OF ‘adultere’ meant either the adulterer or the act of breaching conjugal fidelity. There was a Medieval spiritual definition also, spiritual adultery or partaking in the Devil’s nourishment.

Line 2 was a usual way to describe the Christian Devil, to be called Satan, but could equally well have referred to something sinister yet to come.

In 2018 in Surrey, England, it seems a mature lady was forcibly taken away for mental health checks when she opined to her doctor that a new cellphone tower put up near her house had made her feel unwell and produced a file of Internet web-articles in support of her contention.

Presently we have looming corporate totalitarianism, with the threat of global technological enslavement at our own expense, together with stealth eugenics and mal-directed land appropriations as the new wealth model.

An attack by corporate household names upon their very customers may seem too bizarre and yet this mix of big business with left-right fascism is nothing new.

I suppose – after seven decades of seductive marketing ideas like lifestyle, the customer as king, laws of labelling and consumer satisfaction as a design and manufacturing priority – that employees and customers of a corporate giant feel mutually purposeful. Via familiar and friendly products they virtually meet each others´eyes in the supermarket aisle. Not so the major shareholders of household-name corporations. They may even despise their remote and lowly customers. All they know is that for most of their lifetime piles of money have dropped into their laps at the close of every working day with little or no effort by them at all. They have material things, they have virtual relationships, they know that money is power. They want more power.

In the US, Senator Prescott Bush plus several corporate families, including famous household names still voiced over breakfast tables today, had organized a foiled and subsequently hushed-up private military coup (half-a-million fighting men!) prepared against President Roosevelt’s Washington known variously as the Business Plot, the Plot against FDR, the Putsch against the White House and the Wall Street Coup of 1933. (See The Fascist Plot to Overthrow FDR on Youtube)

It happens that the letters of ‘Ligue américaine de liberté’ are available from the quatrain as a whole once we allow the ampersand ‘&’ to represent the letter ‘b’ (see UNDERSTANDING NOSTRADAMUS: EXPLORING SOME SUBJECTS RECURRENT IN THE CENTURIES: AMPERSAND

Line 3, the OF ‘ne’ still troubles me with its peculiar non-particle usages. In OF the particle ‘pas’ seems to have been a negative intensifier and not essential to the basic OF negative ‘ne’ (as with verbs like ‘savoir’ today) although the Occitans used the negative ‘pas’ without the use of ‘ne’. I am not a linguist but my humble observation is that in the confused mix of proto-French a ‘ne’ with no particle ‘pas’ was also applied from time to time as an intensifier in itself. (Middle English had ‘nay’ which although from a Norse negative could open a statement in the same emphatic manner as ‘moreover’.)

There is no necessity to take-in the following narrowed-interest paragraphs. They are here for reference. Read them should you be interested, if not they may be skipped.

Forgive me if I try publicly to educate myself on the non-particle use of the powerful ‘ne’ starting with one simple example, the calque translation ‘Forget-me-not’ which is the OF ‘Ne m’oubliez mie’. Moving on, the negatively aspected ‘ne/ni’ would express the conjunctions ‘and, or’ within a negative connotation, even a tenuous one. Next comes the negating OF ‘ne/no’. The adverbial ‘ne’ is of no effect when linked to an auxilliary verb and so is ‘non-predicative’ in that it suggests only that a thing could have been done that is not, or that from a certain point of view it is not done or that it could have been done yet it is somehow more desirable that the proposition is considered false.

It may be used to express non-affirmingly some obstructed, reserved or prohibited action. Yet there is a quasi-positive use of ‘ne’ also in that the ‘ne litteraire’ and ‘ne  explétif’ usages (each attach to different verbs) leave the subordinate clause un-negated.

The mark ​​‘ne’ indicates that a proposition is false when used within a solely negative orientation that presupposes a context of virtuality (the possibility of true or false) or within a foreclusive structure.

I am a little clearer now, having put confusing thoughts onto paper, yet I’m still experiencing a negative response that is quite positively felt – another use for ​​‘ne’? There are plentiful other usages and combinations of those, too many to list them all here.

What of ‘ne peres’?

In metric forms a gap may well exist between a word inserted poetically so as to maintain a metre’d rhythm and its regular meaning. And in daily life a slurring of speech to hasten across an unpalatable word sometimes occurs signalling something unspeakably stressful to discuss (a ‘linguistic transversality’ or slightly psychotic approach to communicating the taboo realities).

For reasons I have stated, Line 3’s OF ‘ne peres’ which superficially looks like ‘not fathers’ (or perhaps a mistaken ‘oncles, né pères’, oddly suggesting ‘uncles, natural fathers’) may not be the only interpretations available. Whilst it seems possible that Nostredame may have intended to hint ‘perhaps fathers’, he could have intended some more neutered subtlety like ‘surely not fathers’.

Darkly in his visions Nostredame might even have viewed future exclusive, wealthy, powerful family sects widely said to be sexually deviant.

Is Line 3 about depravities that incidentally break down the family or actual familial breakdowns into depravity? Few speak badly about the Sabbateanist and Frankist families of great wealth and power whose ancestors founded several great institutions. They are dealt with briefly in the Article END-TIME NOSTRADAMUS SERIES (2) CHOSEN along with others including the Jesuit Catholic and Crypto-Catholic clique. For more about this high-achieving, academized and respectably professioned, papal-infantry-behind-enemy-lines and their patently cut-throat cult see the page Archive for April 2017 The Swings Around Heaven …
at nostradamondo.wordpress.com under the sub-heading A JESUIT IS TAUGHT THIS:

Without doubt the strong family unit is seen as a barrier to total political power and the lapdog media entertainment and communication moguls are relentlessly moving depravity into the mainstream for the reason that collapse of the family mores is deemed necessary before any exercising of complete mental controls over society as a whole.

Line 3, OF ‘ayeuls/aïeul’ is not to be confused with the mod.Fr. ‘ailleurs’, elsewhere. These are the generation of grandparents, great grandparents, elders and uncles, the old ones against whom dastardly deeds may be done. Or are they a particular generation that knows how to divide fathers from their children, as has happened for several decades?

Line 4 looks like messy printing to me. Was OF ‘En fer’ a mistaken OF ‘Enfer’, Hell. (The ancient meaning of ‘Enfer’ was the underground dwelling place of the dead whereas Christianity’s newer meaning is the place for the torment of the damned.)

I could be wrong, of course, as Line 4 lists its dastardly deeds in a way that we have seen before in the Nostradamus Centuries. In fact ‘fer, feu, eau, sanguin’ is something of a recurring chant, allowing for variations in word sequence. Is this line perhaps a sort of suggestive substitute for something so unfamiliar and inhumane that it could not be named?

Michel writes in the Epistle to the King that there will be

coursing human blood through the public streets, from temples, as water from rainfall flows, and reddening by blood the nearest rivers

and that

there will be more grievances wars and battles, and there will be towns, cities, chateaux, and all other kinds of buildings fired, distressed, destroyed, with great effusion of the blood of virgins, married women and widows raped, suckling babes dashed against the town walls, squashed and crushed, and so many of these ills will be committed by the intermediaries of Satan, prince infernal, that almost the entire great global system will be demolished and distressed

so a literary timidity by him here in X 10 doesn’t seem too likely unless Michel foresaw the head-reeling child sex and blood rituals, unaccountable child disappearances and enormous child trafficking exposures of today which most people so far seem bent on avoiding or else denying for denial’s own sake.

How inhuman can our sadistic leaders/narcissistic opinion formers/psychopathic propagandists be?

What are the odds that these cruel agents will profit from the belief that the death of many or even all will bring benefit to the planet and so they are doing a demi-god’s work with their holy element being not fires purefying the air, nor pure waters naturally contained, but the dead dirt of their subterranean shelters.

A well-presented toothsome translation of Line 3 is on the web as

One who will be worse than all his predecessors

which takes away any stress by skating clean over any problem. Really the Second Couplet does not add up at all and, of all the winning web translations, the following is probably the most satisfying so far,

One who will be worse than his grandfathers, uncles or fathers,
In steel, fire, waters, bloody and inhuman

as it fits so well to the Antichrist of the Epistle to the King and because in French grammar the placing of ‘ne’ within a negative connotation, even a tenuous one, can express equally either of the conjunctions and/or. Even so these lines starting ‘One …’ and ‘In …’ fail to agree other than fantastically.

Line 3’s OF ‘sera’ is the verb tense ‘will be’ but of a similar spelling is OF ‘serain’ which is nightfall, that time of day when all nature seems at one. (Figuratively it could be the closing period of life. In Tarbé’s ‘Romancero de Champ’ the name ‘Seraine’ was given to the trumpet of death.)

Might OF ‘Que sera pire’ be used strategically here by the author, as with the English phrase ‘‘What will be worst that’’ suggesting that this situation is ‘‘The worst of all’’ yet also implying the question ‘‘What could be worse than’’?

Does the line ‘Que sera pire qu’ayeuls, oncles, ne peres’ host only a repetition of the object relative pronoun ‘que’, that? ‘Entendant que’ meant whereas or in so much as. Would Nostredame abbreviate it to ‘que’ for the sake of the metre and leave his reader to work that out or is this a thought too obscure?

As a conjunction ‘que’ may charge itself with a variety of values from causal to consequential and with ‘pire’ enclosed becomes ‘What is worse that’.

OK, here goes for some alternative Line 3’s,

Que serain pire qu’ayeuls, oncles, ne peres

What worse an end (What worse a hell) than old ones, uncles, and fathers …

Que sera pire qu’ayeuls, oncles, ne peres

What will be worse that old ones, uncles, nay fathers …

The worst of all that (What could be worse than) old ones, uncles, surely not fathers …

What is worse will be that old ones, uncles, perhaps fathers …

In so much as it will be the worst case that old ones, uncles, or even fathers …

However as the ending of Nostredame’s Line 3 does not lead properly into Line 4 (if they were meant to be coupled grammatically then there is a verb missing) it would seem that all four lines might even have been meant to stand alone like separate sentences creating a four-faceted image rather than a narrative account. And it could be that some terrible concealed events of today are hidden in the obfuscation of Line 3.

Nostradamus Quatrain X 10 illustrates the disintegration of family morality both in Line 1, adulteries and domestic murders, and Line 3 which suggests perhaps that fathers have been taken away from their families or young husbands are not available to father the next generation or that incestuous deviations are being normalized in the period that is being envisioned. (It seems true that the word ‘uncle’ is and has been used in many societies to politely indentify males of a senior generation.)

Murder and incest are the two most serious crimes tackled by any attempt at a body of legislation by any culture in the world whilst the sanctity of marriage is a rightful convention older than law itself, hence a marriage under any one culture’s jurisdiction is considered unquestionably effective by any jurisdiction elsewhere in the world.

Line 2 introduces ‘‘the great enemy of all humankind’’:

Immature impulsiveness or a self-centered world view?

Non-natural levels of ambition and warmongering indulgences?

Broaching sacred marriage vows and/or treating life like a penalty-free game?

Religion’s regulators and/or the psychotic monkey-ape lurking within each of us?

Evil education patterns learned by rote and/or socialized brainwashing?

Desolate civil households flattened by nomadic warriors and/or Orwellian globalization by endless organized wars?

Satan, Moloch and those who would ‘‘sell their soul’’ to them to make gains over others.

Line 3. My final conclusion is that the ‘ne’ stands for what it essentially signifies, the verb ‘negate’.

Line 4 is a briefly drafted tapestry of horrors. They or we are depicted fallen into Hell with fire, water, blood and inhumanity all around. (Fire, water and blood are material things easily associated with Mars the planet-god of War, yet in their peaceful forms they are essential to our lives and have strong religio-spiritual associations. )

My Translation:

Households stained by murder,
an enormous quantity of adulterous players,

The great enemy of all humankind

What could be worse than/that old ones, uncles, negate fathers

Hell, fire, water, blood and inhumanity.

A last look at the original Line 4: ‘en fer eau sanguin & inhuman’

It is a possible source for Medieval anagrams and substituting the letter ‘l’ for the ampersand we can pick out ‘inhumain’, ‘n’ennuages’, ‘faleur’, where, OF ‘inhumain’ means a complete lack of humanity, ‘n’ennuages’ suggests unclouded and OF ‘faleur’ meant perfidy.


(Should the ampersand be held to represent a ‘d’ instead of an ‘l’ we shall then have ‘fadeur’ instead which in OF would indicate ‘disgust’.)

Either way, we shall have pieced together a slogan for these modern times of inhumane insanity/insane inhumanity.

                                          NigelRaymondOfford (C) 2018