Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,511 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 137,408
Pageviews Today: 192,842Threads Today: 52Posts Today: 870
01:49 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Did Nostradamus Mention George W.Bush In His Prophecies?

 
TruthTeller
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 26602
United States
01/19/2006 04:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Did Nostradamus Mention George W.Bush In His Prophecies?
THE "W" PROPHECY:
Did Nostradamus use "Dubieux." (Doubtful One)
to name president Bush by his nickname, "Dubiya"?



Friends,
Four years ago on the eve of President Bush's first inauguration, a hoax Nostradamus prophecy described the new president as "The Village Idiot." On the rainy and chilly day of his first inauguration, Bush's armor plated limousine and serried ranks of armed secret service guards were momentarily stopped by a crowd of 10,000 protesters along Pennsylvania Avenue. They were demonstrating against the questionable election shenanigans in Florida that they believed robbed the rightfully elected president, Al Gore, of his presidency. Among the many placard messages melting in the freezing rain was the "Village Idiot" label.

Now it is four years later. On this day following President Bush's second inauguration, it is time to reexamine an authentic prophecy from the 16th-century French seer Nostradamus that may present his authentic label for the US president. It contains such rare and obvious clues to make it a sure prophecy for "Dubiya," the much cherished and well-known nickname for President Bush. Century 6 Quatrain 13 of Nostradamus' prophetic masterpiece from the 1550s says:

Vn dubieux ne viendra loing du regne,
La plus grand part le voudra soustenir:
Vn Capitole ne voundra point qu'il regne,
Sa grande change ne pourra maintenir.

A doubtful one will not come far from the realm,
The greater part will want to support him:
A Capitol, will not want him to rule at all,
His great burden he will not be able to maintain.

Nostradamus had a passion for hiding major historical figures behind their nicknames, especially if the nickname draws a wicked pun in old French. He only used the word "dubieux" (dubious or doubtful one) and its variant "dubieuse" once in over 36,000 words of his major prophetic work about the future of the world. The rarity is significant. It brings interpretive pressure to bare on its application to one important person in his future history, rather than using this word generally. An obscure Nostradamus prophecy becomes clear when an interpreter uses the right word as a key that unlocks its secrets. The word "dubieux/dubieuse" unlocks two quatrains (6 Q13 and 6 Q95) revealing a similar theme of two leaders, a father and son, and their checkered destinies. Are these the father--former President George Herbert Walker Bush (1988-1992)--and his son, George W. Bush?

This leader, at least from Nostradamus' point of view is a doubtful and dubious one. That means he is someone that bears the burden of illegitimacy in the seat of power. He could be one untrained and unprepared for the job thrust to him by means or the fate of being born the scion of either a royal or political dynasty. He is a "doubtful" man expected to follow his father to the seat of power who is less equipped emotionally and intellectually for the job. It is someone who could have great visions without a grasp of reality to see them fulfilled.. It is true, that many of these caveats can be applied to a whole assortment of mediocre or ill-starred leaders since Nostradamus composed these lines sometime in 1556. Indeed this prophecy was applied by me in 1997 to a great though flawed leader, President Richard Nixon, and the Watergate scandal in my book Nostradamus: The Complete Prophecies.

A good Nostradamus scholar is ever ready to consider new possibilities, especially if those include a word or phrase that matches a unique slang term or nickname. Until "W" or "Dubiya" Bush became president of the United States there had not been ANYONE whose name phonetically matched the word "dubieux" so closely!

Many sympathetic supporters of President G.W. Bush have written to me over the last four years arguing that this prophecy better applies itself to the man Bush defeated in the disputed (doubtful) vote count in Florida 2000, Al Gore. I would have agreed with them if it was not for the near-perfect phonetic match for Bush's nickname--Dubiya--with "dubieux."

A highly contentious debate in America over Bush's legitimacy as a leader has only intensified in four years, yet so has his support. A sight majority of Americans believe Bush is a bold leader in war. He is a man of God in the White House and a compassionate conservative poised to revolutionize the country. However, to that half of the United States and the majority of the world that sees him as a dangerous, unilateralist "cowboy" president, they might find support in Nostradamus' pun for "dubious" Dubiya. His detractors will remind us of Bush's record breaking deficit spending, his cutting taxes by trillions of dollars just when the nation finds itself needing to finance and fight a global world war of terrorism. One might call the president dubious for diverting US forces away from seeking and destroying the perpetrator of such a war--al-Qaeda and Usama bin Laden hiding in Afghanistan--to invade Iraq. Is it not "dubious" to invade a country that has not attacked the US in the war on terror? If I invaded a country, cut tax revenue while draining the coffers of the nation by hundreds of billions of dollars--several billion a month--without any exit strategy, or post war strategy plan, would you not call me a doubtful one? It is nearly two years since Bush led America into Iraq. After a brief war and the violence of the endless post "liberation" period, 100,000 Iraqis had been killed. They are mostly civilians. Another 1,400 American soldiers have been killed and nearly 12,000 wounded in a subsequent insurrection for which Bush and his administartion never planned. But if the butcher's bill for this war is not proof enough of doubtful leadership, we recently find out from the Bush administration that his original reason for killing and maiming all those people actually never existed. The grounds for going to war, ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, was a fluke. It is official. There are no weapons.

"Bring it on!" taunted the president to the terrorists and they did. A war of terrorism rages on the streets of Iraq where there was no war. Now that country is on the verge of a three way civil war between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. The administration's solution to a deepening quagmire in Iraq is to spread the conflict into Iran with air strikes planned as early as the summer of 2005. Those of you who listen to me on radio and read my articles already know that I have used astrological divination to predict and date such a planned air strike on Iran coming no sooner than the latter half of this summer in 2005. Moreover, I might add that I reported this potential war many months before Seymour Hersh came to the same date and conclusions in his recent New Yorker article. See: SATURN'S PRESIDENT

If Bush's behavior in Iraq is not doubtful enough then consider the Patriot Act that puts into doubt many freedoms Americans enjoy--now sacrificed to fight a war on terror. There is the dubious plan to partially privatize US Social Security. The president encourages CEOs to out-source US jobs. He promotes a Homeland Security policy that leaves the southern borders of the US wide open to Mexico. Each year millions of illegal aliens flood in--this includes hundreds of undocumented aliens from known terrorist harboring nations. But if rolling back freedoms is not dubious enough there is the rolling back of restrictions against industries polluting water, air and earth in the US that would make a Republican President like Richard Nixon (the man who established the Environmental Protection Agency) roll in his grave.

I have no doubt that supporters of Dubiya will cry "foul!" But four and a half centuries ago, someone cried "dubieux!"

Let us take apart Nostradamus' Century 6 Quatrain 13 line by line:

A doubtful (dubious) one will not come far from the realm...

Beyond the argument that "dubieux" stands for "Dubiya" President Bush is noted for his lack of interest in visiting foreign lands unless it is absolutely unavoidable. Even now, compared to other modern presidents, such as Nixon, Carter, Reagan, even his father George H.W. Bush, and Clinton, he has put in the fewest frequent foreign flyer miles of any modern president. It could be said that he has and "will" continue not to venture "far from the realm" of the US.

...The greater part will want to support him...

This fits G.W. Bush. Though the country be divided, and despite those who latch onto all the themes listed above that support his being called "dubious," it is a fact that after four years Bush gained significant popular support. He transformed a popular vote deficit of 500,000 in 2000 into a slim but telling mandate over J.F. Kerry in the 2004 election of 3.5 million. So one could say, as Nostradamus did, that the "greater part will" and did "want to support him."

...A Capitol, will not want him to rule at all...

This prophecy contains not one but TWO clear and rare references supporting a US president as the theme of this vision: "dubieux" for Dubiya, and "Capitole" for the US "Capitol" building. Out of 36,000 words of Nostradamus, "Capitole" is only used once.

The line is ominous if it applies to Bush. At some stage the "Capitol," meaning the US house and Senate, may move to impeach or force President Bush to leave office. Bush's political party now has a majority in the House and Senate. I cannot rule out a long held gut feeling that Bush will find his presidency betrayed by members of his party. But we will see. Perhaps by the mid-term elections scheduled in 2006 the opposition Democratic party may take back the House of Representatives and Senate.

The last line says:

...His great burden he will not be able to maintain.

Few presidents have risked more in economic and foreign policy than G.W. Bush. He has made it clear that he intends to prosecute his agenda with redoubled intensity in the next four years, despite all signs of flaws and vague planning. His second inauguration speech defined a grand and some are saying militant vision throwing down the gauntlet to bring democratic freedoms to people beyond Iraq--to dictatorships around the world. Though he did not mention them by name, the emerging message between the lines of his speech to countries like Syria, Iran and North Korea is: become democratic "or else." Does this mean that his presidency will fall because his ambitions are too doubtfully grandiose? Can he disarm or use military force to defeat Iran and North Korea, or bring democracy to the Arab nations of the Middle East, transform the US Judiciary, cause US tax reform, transform the US Social Security System all in four years? Is the president a visionary, or a dreamer burdened with a vision too grand and too dubiously thought out to maintain?

Einstein once said, "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius knows its limits."

Does Bush know his limits?

The president himself has said that his new mandate has earned him much "political capital" and he aims to spend it. There are others in his own political party that have also earned political capital for keeping mum about their differences with the president's policies. Many Republican senators, legislators and governors want something too. Some leaders of his party deem Bush religiously, fiscally and politically extreme. They too will demand payment of political capital. So far Bush has not shown himself to be a good conciliator. Will he fail to satisfy both the religious right and the more moderate wings of his Republican party now in power in the Capitol?

Line 3 implies scandal and impeachment. Line 4 implies overreach and overwhelm. Perhaps line 4 also describes this president's last "prophetic" hurdle. Will he be the first president in history elected under a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction to survive a first term unscathed "and" a second term without dying in office? Starting in 1840 every president elected under this conjunction in 1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, and 1960 has faced death while in office and has not survived. Ronald Reagan became president under the conjunction in 1980 and was shot by an assassin the following year. He barely survived his wounds. No one so far has passed unscathed through a first term to survive a second. For instance, Abraham Lincoln elected under the conjunction in 1860 was reelected to a second term in 1864. He was slain by an assassin shortly after. Franklin.D. Roosevelt successfully ran for a third term under the conjunction in 1940 only to die early on in his fourth term.

I have never sensed a death danger for President Bush from assassination. There is a threat of accidental death through a plane or air accident. However, it has always seemed to me that the strain of the presidency is most likely the source of his brush with death in office. It could come from a sudden and unexpected health crisis. If President Bush takes good care of his heart, he may break the curse of the conjunction.

I hope he will.

Now to the second Nostradamus quatrain using the word "doubtful" as a link. I believe it continues the vision of 6 Q13. The quatrain is the 95th entry from the same Century or "Volume" of Nostradamus' prophetic work: Century 6 Quatrain 95. Many times the prophet continued his account of a vision in a second quatrain placed somewhere out of sequence in the same volume. This prophecy may continue the tale, shining more light on exactly what makes a second term of a Bush presidency such an unmaintainable "burden" that the Congress in "the Capitol" do not want him to rule. The prophecy reads:

Par detracteur calumnié à puis nay.
Quand istront faicts enormes & martiaux:
La moindre part dubieuse à l'aisnay,
Et tost au regne seront faicts partiaux.

By the detractor calumny (lodged) against the younger born.
When enormous and warlike deeds will go on:
The least part doubtful for the elder one,
And soon in the kingdom there will be patrician deeds.

Let us probe this prophecy one line at a time:

By the detractor calumny (lodged) against the younger born...

The "younger born" could be the 43rd president (George W. Bush), son of the 41st president (G. H. W. Bush). Someone levels a slanderous accusation at the son. Perhaps it is an unfair accusation, and G.W. Bush is innocent, but the calumny gains momentum.

...When enormous and warlike deeds will go on...

A detractor accuses G.W. Bush of scandal when he is fully engaged in a great war, much more wide spread and risky than experienced today. The president could be fighting a losing battle of occupation in Iraq sometime after July of 2005. He could rashly widen the war across the Middle East with a joint US-Israeli air strike on Iran to take out its nuclear industries. A military crisis with North Korea and with China over Taiwan could add to this president's overwhelming war burden any time after late July 2005 through September 2007 when Saturn transits Leo--a time of intolerance, partisan mindsets and war. At the darkest hour of war, scandal undermines this president, or worse. He must answer those who question his military blunders, or even question his mental capacity to be president of the US.

...The least part doubtful for the elder one...

History already views the father, the "elder" Bush, as an accomplished unilateralist better able to establish and sustain military and economic alliances. The younger Bush is a unilateralist who in four short years has abandoned treaties and isolated the US from its allies and friends more thoroughly than any modern US president in history. This line may infer that a second term of Bush the "minor" will only sweeten the memory of Bush the "major" as a better president than his son.

...And soon in the kingdom there will be patrician deeds.

The word "partiaux" is a classic Nostradamian double-entendre for the old French "partial"--partisan. It also means "patrician." The line could promise partisan debates in the House and Senate over Bush's capacity to be president. If Bush became a liability to the future of the neo-Conservative revolution he would be "removed" one way or another by his own patrician class--the rising plutocracy that one now sees emerging in America. This is the same power class that would pit one member of the Yale secret society--Skull and Bones--against another in the 2004 election: the Democrat J.F. Kerry against the Republican G.W.Bush.

I have often said that the next president might be Senator Hillary Clinton leading a resurgent and "partisan" Democratic Party. However, let me set forth a few prophetic caveats. The Democratic Party cannot attain the White House and a majority in the House and Senate in 2008 if they do not support their reformers. I would consider it a sign of hope for them to win in 2008 if next month (February 2005) the party leadership should elect a reformer like Howard Dean as Chairman of the party. If they do not, then the emerging "patrician," plutocracy of CEOs may rule this country for eight more years.

Strangely enough, scandal and tragedy may help the patrician aim. If the president were to fall from office in disgrace or die in office, his Vice President, Dick Cheney--his chief adviser for the neo-Conservative plutocracy--would step in as president. Look then to Cheney choosing a Vice President who will become the heir apparent of the neo-Con movement in the White House. Next, a health crisis with Cheney's heart, true or fabricated, could see him step down as president or die in office. Thus Cheney's Vice President, chosen for him by the plutocracy, could successfully run for office and perhaps lengthen their stay in power for another four to eight years.

A less seditious future destiny would see President Bush endure all crises and astrological curses to successfully finish his second term. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that Cheney's plutocratic duty is to step down before the end of Bush's term. Thus he will defer to a younger Vice President who will run against Hillary Clinton in 2008--and if he wins, the heir to G.W. Bush will run again for a second term in 2012.
John Hogue
Rogue Scholar/Author:
Someone
User ID: 1622
United States
01/19/2006 06:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Did Nostradamus Mention George W.Bush In His Prophecies?
No, Nostradamus DID NOT mention Bush, OR the United States in his prophecies.


.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 8527
United States
01/19/2006 06:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Did Nostradamus Mention George W.Bush In His Prophecies?
Unless there are references to a "LARGE STUTTERING ASS, cockeyed, the son of shrubs" I doubt it.

News