This was originally written in 2011, as it was relevant to the news at that time. It is about the death prophesied of Osama bin Laden. I welcome readers to ponder what I wrote then and see if the current news (2023 to 2025) is a reflection of the Western world not knowing all it thinks it knows. Send the children away. Let them sink what is left of their puny brains into the addictive electronic gadgets you poison them with. They are beyond understanding or caring what the future holds.
| All Material Copyright of Katrina Pearls apart from the obviously stolen stuff Reproduction by Permission Only |
I want to discuss the Nostradamus quatrain recognized as I-94, or the 94th listed in the initial
“chapter” of The Prophecies, called Centurie Premiere (Century First). As a quatrain from the
first chapter, it has been public since 1555. That was 456 years ago [2011]. However, only recently did
historic events take place that shed light on the true meaning of this quatrain.
The quatrain states in Old French:
Au port Selin le tyran mis à mort,
La liberté non pourtant recouvree:
Le nouveau Mars par vindicte & remort,
Dame par force de frayeur honoree.
Erika Cheetham wrote (1975) that she guessed this quatrain was about the Battle of Lepanto,
which took place in 1571. That was only 16 years after Nostradamus published this quatrain,
but five years after his death. So, Nostradamus could not publicly take credit for seeing that
battle. But then, John Hogue assured us this was not about that battle, pointing out other
possibilities, stating that Edgar Leoni called it a “failed quatrain.” The reality is none of the
above is true, because the event of this quatrain took place well after everyone jumped the gun
on matching it to an historic event (they all interpreted before 1996). The event that matches
this quatrain took place on May 1, 2011.
To help one see this develop, look at this quatrain translated in this way:
With he * bringing * Arabian * him * A ruler who exercises power in a cruel manner * reduced * at * departure out of this life
There * freedom * not * yet for all that * reobtained:
Him * recent * War * by reason of * revenge * & again dying,
Lady * through * violence * of * terror * honored.
Certainly, other words can be substituted for the ones used above. They too can make sense of
the event that recently happened. However, the point of presenting this quatrain in a translation
format where asterisks are inserted is to show where pause for reflection needs to be
observed. One needs to read these words without attempting to form them into one sentence.
Feel the full meaning of each word.
The event is about the killing of Osama bin Laden. Look at how that is stated in the main theme
line (line one). See how the words match the way we learned about that news in the days (and
now weeks) that followed.
The capitalized preposition-article contraction, Au, shows how “one” (the individual focus from
the article “the,”) [versus a plural focus from les, as Aux] was the important (capitalization)
connection “With him” bin Laden. Some messenger he trusted was allowed “In it,” the network related to a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, whereby “To him” Osama bin Laden gave updates and messages, letting his whereabouts be known in the outside world. Some Muslim traitor then received new assigned tasks, which the traitor sought to make millions of dollars in reward money (after nearly a decade in hiding) and contacted the American authorities. It was “From him” (someone with bin Laden) “To he”(the traitor Muslim) via a cell phone call he received, from a cell phone known to be related to a bin Laden aide, which signaled American intelligence to follow the courier “To it” the place where bin Laden was hiding. The capitalized first word is thus showing the importance of movements that would
importantly be necessary, to take “he To” the one being sought.
The second word is “port,” which can represent a “harbor.” While this word identifies the use of
Selin as a body of water on which a “port” can be found, the word “port” is a verb of “carriage,
bearing, and bringing.” The aspect of bin Laden’s body being “buried at sea” is a secondary
reading that can come from this word, but its primary meaning is to confirm the meaning of
movement found in Au. Thus, one can see how the “he With” bin Laden will be
“bringing” those watching him to bin Laden, while he will be “carrying” out his duty, “bringing”
information to his boss. As such, the one leading the way would become a “portal” to the
hideout (with the Latin word porta meaning “gate.”)
The third word, Selin, is a capitalized word. As such, it is important to understand. All
capitalized words are important, but “Selin” is a major theme word, making it vital to
understand. It is a major theme word because Nostradamus wrote this “name” in variations
twelve times. He wrote Silene (1), Seline (2), SELIN (all-caps -1), Selin (capitalized – 5), selin
(lowercase – 1), selyn (lowercase, with y = I, – 1), and celin (phonetic c = s, 1). All these references are presented in several Centuries (7), along with common connective words, which act to assure
the observant reader that the variations refer to the same intent and focus.
Let me make it clear that twelve times is making a statement of importance through that number
of repeating appearances. As a repeated term, all twelve quatrains with those variations in
them can be placed together to tell a story about Selin. The variations disappear when a
common translation is found that represents an understanding of Selin. All spelling then
represent that translation. In attempting to determine this translation, it does not take long to
recognize that Selin is not a cleanly spelled word from any known language. In such cases,
rules for determining “misspelled” words apply.
In a phonetic sense, Nostradamus often spelled words that he applied a “French” ending to,
such that a dialectical form of a word ending with a (such as the Catalan word Nissa) would
be written with an e ending (such as Nisse). Of the twelve repeating forms, Silene and
Seline give the indication that the pronunciation is as one would pronounce Celine, or Selene.
If you look up the name Celine, it references a root in Selena, or Selina. In those variations, all
state the etymology to be rooted in the mythological goddess Selene (which is spelled Selen in
French). This goddess was known in Roman mythology as Luna. Thus, Selin represents the
Moon in its meaning.
Since it is impractical to interpret line one in the physical sense, where the theme begins, “With
the Moon,” one must look at the symbolism of the Moon. Symbolically, the Moon is closely
related to Islam. This is evident by the Crescent Moon being present in the flags of many
Islamic nations. Because the goddess Selene represented one figure symbolizing all the
Moon, Selin is one icon that represents all of Islam. Because Mecca holds that symbolism for
Islam, and because Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, those places can be seen as important symbols
reflected by Selin. As an individual representing Islam, as Osama bin Laden was, Selin can
be seen as recognizing him as an “Arabian,” which is the name of the sea his body was “set at
death” into, after being “carried” beyond the “port” of Pakistan, to where an aircraft “carrier”
awaited.
Now, as solid as the phonetic meaning is, one cannot overlook how being one letter off allows
Selin to yield other information. This information would do nothing to cancel the meaning just
discussed, as it would add to the information “Selene” produced. That new meaning comes
from seeing Selin as a combined form word, just as Au combined two words. In that sense,
Selin can turn into S’elin and Se-lin.
In both forms, one word attached to the another is “Se,” which is contracted as “S’.” This is a
pronoun, which means, “oneself, himself, itself, or themselves (pl.).” It thus often acts as a
possessive pronoun, in particular an indication of one possessing the word it attaches to. In the
case of elin, this is ancient French, used between the ninth and fourteenth centuries. It means,
“of noble birth; illustrious; or illuminate.” In this sense, it does identify Osama bin Laden as
being from a Saudi family that made “Oneself illustrious,” from birth into great wealth and
fortune. It also acts to show how the courier would “Himself illuminate” the way to bin Laden.
This brings one to find the word lin is French for “linen, or flaxen,” but in Old French it meant,
“line” or “flax, yarn,” from which “linen” was made. In other words, lin means a “thread” or a
“line.” In that vein of thought, the downfall of Osama bin Laden was the need to have “One’s
line” to the outside world of al-Qaeda. To maintain that “line,” he kept a thin “thread to Himself,”
via a trusted courier. All these meaning apply to the story we have been told, as everyone
involved in this link was “Muslim” (the general meaning of “Selin”).
Now look at the fourth word, which is the simple French “article,” le. This typically translates as
“a, an, or the,” depending on the following “masculine” noun. However, in reading Nostradamus
for understanding of true meaning, such articles only appear at the secondary level of
interpretation. When the word le is read alone, it becomes the pronoun usage, such that it
means, “him.” This reflects on the masculine singular contraction of the first word
(capitalized), Au, which is the combination of À + le. The purpose of this pronoun is to point
to a male that is relative to Selin, portage, and “With him.” This, by itself, is not limited to
one “him,” which is important to keep in mind.
The fifth word in line one is another important word, which is tyran. This word is important
even though it is written in the lower case. Just as was stated prior, about the twelve times
some form of “Selin” appears in The Prophecies, meaning the number of repeated uses
makes it important, with some of those twelve being presented in the lower case (selyn, selin,
and celin). Some form of the word tyran appears in the quatrains seven times, written as
tyran (5), Tyran (capitalized – 1), and tiran (1). These also link the quatrains containing those
repeated terms together to tell a story of a “tyrant,” with common key terms associating all
the uses of that central word. Therefore, that knowledge allows me to make it known to you that
tyran is indeed a significant word to understand. Please, check me on this information.
The French word tyran translates as “A tyrant,” but that can be further described as, “A cruel
king, lord, or ruler; a violent governor.” In the translation I produced originally in this
interpretation, I quoted one of the definitions of the word “tyrant,” as being, “A ruler who
exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.” Other definitions are: “An absolute ruler who
governs without restrictions,” and “An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.” (All definitions are
pulled from the Free Dictionary by Farlex, which uses The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Edition.)
The point of using a definition for “tyrant” is to show precisely what the word means, before
wandering into the realm of careless language, where an overstatement could be read,
mistakenly seeing some superfluous meaning. While it is true that the word can be thrown
about to identify individuals who act in ways that can be deemed as characteristic of a “tyrant”
(“tyrannical”), the primary use is to denote one who holds true power over many others. When
one understand this distinction, one can then see how a quatrain referencing Nero (Neron)
is one truly pointing to a “tyrant” (He is said to have used the burning bodies of Christians, hung
from poles, to light his garden path at night), making Neron a personification of a “tyrant,”
indirectly stating “tyrant” as one who will act like Nero.
The presentation of tyran in the lowercase does not diminish the level of power that one holds
as a tyran. One gains this understanding from recognizing how Nostradamus wrote the two
forms of the word roy (modern French roi). He wrote in the lowercase (roy) and in the
uppercase (Roy), and he did so to show two different kinds of “kings.” The lowercase
represents one that is not truly a “king,” but has all the power of a “King.” This is seen in
presidents of nations, and prime ministers of nations. They rule as “Kings,” but without any royal
blood making them gain this title by birthright. They must be elected. A capitalized “King” is
then a distinction of true royalty, either as a “King” of a sovereign nation, or as “Pope” to the
Roman Catholic Church. Thus, a tyran is as powerful as a “king,” but not limited to being
elected by a physical vote.
The use of tyran is then a stand-alone statement of one who abuses “his” (masculine use of
le) powers, as one who acts in “a harsh, cruel manner.” This is then relative to “him Selin,”
which is describing Osama bin Laden, but it is also the “him With” a “port” (where the word
means, the behavior of a man, or the way one carries himself) that “Himself threads” to bin
Laden. In other words, the one tracking down bin Laden is also identified as “him” also being a
significant “tyrant.” It becomes important to see this duality coming from these words.
The word tyran is then followed by the sixth word in line one, which is the preposition à. This
is the second use of that preposition in this line, as the quatrain began with the important
(capitalized) Au (À + le). When one reads the quatrains, it is not uncommon to find some
instances of repeated words, within the four poetic lines, as well as in one individual line. The
most frequently repeated words are prepositions (most commonly de and à). Since these
words have multiple contextual uses, it becomes a rule to seek different contexts as the primary
intent each new time presented, such that one repeated French word results in multiple different
English translations.
For instance, the preposition à means, “at, in, with, to, and from,” depending on the context.
When a little one-letter word is read as a stand-alone statement for meaning, all contexts are
open for analysis and possibility as representing the primary use. When one then sees a
second use in one quatrain, the first use will have previously been established as primarily best
read as “fill in the blank.” Then, the second use would complement that first use, as its primary
intent. Thus, it à were to be seen first as primarily meaning “to,” a second use of à would
compliment “to” by primarily meaning “from” (a to-from relationship). In this quatrain, the
capitalization of Au was seen best presented as “With he,” such that this second use would
eliminate “with” as a repeated primary context, causing one to look for another translation
possibility, bearing more weight. In the translation I originally presented, I chose “at” as the
primary choice.
The English word “at” is primarily defined as meaning, “In or near the area occupied by; in or
near the location of” (Same Free Dictionary by Farlex source.) While that choice is my
personal decision, and all choices will find merit, in the storyline of Osama bin Laden’s death,
we find the important context leading to that death as being relative to “location.” He had to be
located, before he could be killed. To focus on that location, intelligence had to first
make a connection to a significant “one With” information of that location. Therefore, the word
à makes sense as a connection of one “him tyrant” to another “him tyrant,” “at” the place
where an operation would be planned to intercept “him Muslim tyrant.”
The final word of line one is “mort,” which means, “death; bane; a decease or departure out of
this life,” but also bearing the meaning, “dead, deceased, departed; and also killed, murdered,
slain, and/or made away.” (all translations based on an Old English perspective of meaning)
This word is confirming what the plan would be (a kill mission), as well as where “him tyrant”
would be found, to be “killed.” However, when one recalls how the word “tyrant” can
also be representative of “him” who will “govern without restrictions,” and “exercise power in a
harsh, cruel manner,” one can see how the plan drawn up for the location “at” Abbottabad,
Pakistan, “in” a private, “lavish” compound, was completely designed “to murder” (“à mort”).
With all of the building blocks individually understood, one has been taken through the meaning
of this main theme, which governs how one is to read the whole quatrain, so that it matches all
that has been made public about the death of Osama bin Laden. It also brings out the
questions about the mission having committed “murder,” rather than being a “capture and bring
to justice” operational plan. Still, line one can be seen as still telling further of that event, on a
secondary level of wholeness (as a sentence), becoming the later released facts of that mission.
In this sense, the same words of line one can be read to collective say, “With him (meaning
With Osama bin Laden in the hands of U.S. SEALs) carried (the reports of his body being
dragged to an awaiting helicopter, which then went beyond the ports of Pakistan, hundreds of
miles away) Arabian (meaning the proper name of the sea to which Pakistan has ports, as well
as the nationality of bin Laden, as well as Selin representing his Islamic religion, the customs of
which were said to have been followed once on an aircraft carrier) him tyrant (Osama bin
Laden) thrust into (or laid, pitched, reduced, or sent [from the French word mis]) at (another
location of place, or in, to the water of the Arabian Sea) death (optimally meaning buried at sea,
but also meaning the destroying of evidence relating to a murder). This whole view fully
complies with the known history of the killing of Osama bin Laden, while also supporting the
concept of a planned act of ridicule, where the body of a powerful Islamic leader (Selin tyran)
was simply thrown away, after being murdered.
This exposes what has not been made public, although it has been voiced in theory. Such
voices that question the actions of leaders, to prevent one from ever becoming a
tyrannical ruler, have been suppressed, through public ridicule in the media. The event of
Osama bin Laden’s death followed soon after the final submission by Barack Obama, to
answer the question of his legal right to be president of the United States of America. On April
27, 2011 (4 days prior to the Osama bin Laden news), Obama made public his long-form birth
certificate. That act eased questions about his authority, which had been ridiculed by Obama
supporters as the rantings of “birther idiots.” Immediately after people began to question why
Osama bin Laden could not have been captured alive, the questions of murder began being
ridiculed as the rantings of “deather idiots.” It helps us to realize that the purpose of The
Prophecies is to expose the hidden agendas of all tyrants, as they (and their secrets) are why
the world would be put in grave danger. Keeping this “conspiracy theory” exposure theme in
mind will help one to understand the remainder of the quatrain.
I will complete this interpretation in a separate posting. It is important that one be able to see
this meaning, just from the main theme, for him or herself. Look at the Old French words
written. Double check the translation possibilities. See how the translation possibilities are
defined. Make the meanings rise before your own eyes, so it is not me telling you what to
believe. Seeing is believing. I see and I believe. I want you to believe by seeing through your
own eyes. There is no magic involved here. No suggestive language is used, designed to have
one fall for my biased, illogical opinion. Still, you must “receive the spirit” intended by a
higher source.
Once you have looked at this main theme statement, realize that the main theme covers
everything else that is to come in a quatrain. The whole of each quatrain relates to the main
theme that is stated in line one. It is that way for every quatrain. There is order with purpose by
design. Look at the remaining lines of quatrain I-94 and see what they mean to you, before I
present an interpretation that states what they mean to me.
With the main theme statement (line one) of quatrain I-94 understood to be presenting a
multifaceted view of the events that have recently been announced – the killing of Osama bin
Laden, one is now ready to look at how the next parts of the quatrain read. Before jumping
immediately into line two, one must check to see what punctuation signs (if any) are present at
the end of all first lines. These mark direct one in how to approach line two, which is a
secondary theme to the main theme. A secondary theme will always be related to the main
theme, but some are free to take an approach that focuses on another relative element, one
less directly connected to the main theme event. However, some secondary themes are directly
stemming from the main theme event.
I quatrain I-94, line one ends with a comma. That punctuation mark is defined as having the
purpose of being “used to indicate a separation of ideas or of elements within the structure of a
sentence;” and “A pause or separation.” Simply because Nostradamus did not write in
“sentences,” his use of punctuation still follows the intent and purpose of those marks. In that
way punctuation acts as signs instructing the reader to do as the mark instructs. In the case of a comma, it instructs the reader to see a “separation” from the main theme. It also instructs the reader to
expect the separation to allow for a new “idea or element” that is “within the structure” of the
main theme, and the order system present in all quatrains. Thus, line two is related to the death
of Osama bin Laden, but a separate (and probably subsequent) event, directly stemming from
the last idea presented, which was “death” and/or “killed, murdered.”
From that expectation, one sees line two stating, “La * liberté * non * pourtant * recouvrée”. As
originally translated, one English string of words to follow could be, “There * freedom * not * yet
for all that * re-obtained”. This theme should be understood to be a confirmation of the
concepts derived from the main theme, such that the information contained in those five words
will establish another theme that is equally important to follow, by itself, while being reflective of
the main theme of killing those enemies sought after.
The first word following the comma is the capitalized first word, La. This appears to be a
simple article of the feminine gender, simply meaning, “A, An, and The.” This brings out a rule
that is required to know for understanding the whole truth, which is, “If Nostradamus accented
the word, you cannot change it; but if Nostradamus did not accent the word, it can be read as
accented.” In the case of La, it must be read primarily as if it were accented, as Là. This
gives much more meaning to what appears to stand alone in need for the following word to
open its purpose. The word là means, “there, here, and/or then,” depending on the context. A
capitalized version shows the importance of “There,” connecting to the place “at death,” while
also separately becoming a statement of “Here,” where the order was given to “put to death,”
and “Then,” the consequences of that act of “killing.”
With all of those meanings of Là being directly focusing on the aspect of “death,” and in
particular the “death” of Osama bin Laden, the way his “death” was detailed by presidential
announcement, and then amended by subsequent White House briefings and news reports, line
two appears to be primarily focusing on “There,” the United States. While forces of the U.S.
Navy had to go “There,” to make the “kill,” one must look at the capitalization and ask, “Which
“There” is more important, and thus worthy of capitalization?” That is best describing America,
and the use of a comma allows for such a separation from the place of the main theme event
(“at”), to focus on another place related to that event, with more importance (“There”). However,
keep in mind the word “There” is always free to turn its spotlight wherever need be, although the
other directions would seem to be on more secondary levels of interpretation.
Seeing “There” as a primary focus on the United States, which had to use forces in a foreign
land (“There”) to defeat an enemy it had sought for nine-plus years, the second word confirms
that choice of primary meaning. The second word is liberté, which can easily be seen as
representing, “liberty,” as well as “freedom.” If there was any word that best representing the
ideal of the United States of America, both “Here” and all around the globe (“There”), it would
be how America represents “freedom” to the world’s huddled masses. One has the “liberty” to
climb out from the depths of human despair and rise to the heights that a “free” capitalistic
society offers, to everyone. Again, that is the IDEAL that has become the American dream, but
it is undeniable that America and “liberty” (and liberty and justice for all, amen) are connected
as synonymous.
To ensure that the concept of “liberté” was similarly seen in 1555, when this quatrain was first
published, it is important to get the full scope of meaning that comes from a 1611 Old French –
Old English dictionary. The word “liberté” is translated as representing, “liberty, freedom; full
scope, good leave, ample or free choice; an uncontrollable condition; also openness,
plainness, boldness in speech or action.” These possibilities of meaning not only show how
the United States is identified as “There” where the “freedom” bell rings, but it shows that
“There” held all the cards in the matter relative to the “death” of Osama bin Laden.
In this sense, the word liberté states that the operation to take place in Abbottabad, Pakistan
had the “freedom” to move at will, with “liberty” to act in any manner the troops on the ground
saw fit. It also shows how everyone in President Obama’s cabinet sat in the “Situation Room,”
with a “full scope” of what was about to go down, with Obama having the “free choice” to stand
down the troops, or the ability to stop the mission, should it become an “uncontrollable
condition.” Obama also had the ability to order “good leave” to spare the life of Osama bin
Laden, should he be found unarmed and defenseless. All these meanings are known to have
happened, as there have been reports and pictures released making these elements of liberté
publicly known.
When one sees “There” as representative of the place that is “at” the site of “death,” one sees
the importance of capitalization fall upon the nation of Pakistan. As a bought and paid for ally of
the United States, who allows U.S. Troops access to the landlocked Afghanistan, it has been
Pakistan that has given the United States the “liberty” to perform military actions in Pakistan.
These actions have been primarily drone bombings in mountainous regions bordering
Afghanistan, where the Taliban is said to have been finding refuge. Still, Pakistan is accused
(after the main theme event) of having been complicit in allowing Osama bin Laden the
“freedom” to live in that “lavish compound,” where Navy SEAL soldiers “killed” him and his son
(among others).
The other aspects of the meaning associated with liberté, as far as it applies to Pakistan, is
best read into liberté being attached to the next word, the negative non, meaning, “no or
not.” Pakistan has made it public (after the main theme event) that they did “not” allow the
United States the “liberty” to fly into a city where the largest Pakistani military base is located,
and endanger the lives of innocent Pakistanis, in America’s quest “to murder” Osama bin
Laden. They have steadfastly stated they did “not” know Osama bin Laden was “There.” Thus,
the government of Pakistan did “not” grand Osama bin Laden the “freedom” to live comfortably.
As such, they did “not” give the United States a “full scope” to go anywhere, and do anything,
without (“not”) the joint knowledge of the Pakistani government and its military. In essence, the
word “not” represents the denial of the Pakistani government of knowledge about bin Laden’s
whereabouts, as well as the disapproval of the actions of the United States.
When the primary focus of line two is seen as reflecting on “There” as the United States, where
“liberty” reigns supreme, the presence of “not” is making a statement about “liberty” ceasing, as
what was will “not” be. This is a statement about the illusion of “freedom,” when the reality is
(and has always been in a philosophical sense that everyone trapped in an earthbound
existence is never truly free) Americans were “not” allowed the “liberty” to vote on what
President Obama would decide about the fate of Osama bin Laden. That realization reflects
back on the main theme line’s use of the word “tyrant.” When one man has complete control
(“freedom”) over what will take place (by force) at home and abroad, that term shows just how
little “freedom” exists. The people have “no liberty” to control the “uncontrollable conditions”
placed upon them by higher ups. Beyond the “free choice” they voice their choice for supreme
leader (“tyrant“) on election day, most of the people are “not free” to do as they wish or
prefer. They are slaves to a leader and a system subservient to that leader.
The fourth word in the secondary theme is pourtant, which means, “notwithstanding, yet for all
that, and however.” It can also state, “still, though, and nevertheless.” In the cases of
“nevertheless” and “notwithstanding,” they are both defined as meaning “in spite of that,” which
matches the translation “yet for all that.” With this meaning realized, the word is reflecting on
the negative condition of “not.” It is a statement that a lack of true “freedom” will produce a
willingness to proceed into the future (definition parameter of “yet”) thinking actions that
“murder” bad guys are all for ensuring “freedom,” which is “not” real, and certainly “not yet for all
that.” Americans sold on the idea of the “killing” signifies secured “freedom” will find the
opposite true in the future (“yet for all that“). It means, “still” to come, “nevertheless” after “not”
having mean ole Osama bin Laden leading bad guys against America’s “freedom” anymore,
will be some form of retribution that will mean “no liberty” for the weary, especially the troops on
the front lines (defenders of freedom?).
When one sees the phonetic closeness of pourtant to “portend,” such that the Old French word
pourveoir referred the reader to look up prouvoir (a word meaning, “to foresee, forecast,
beware”, as does “portend”), one can get the feel for what is “yet for all that.” When one sees
how the Old French word pourtoir (with a u) referred the reader to look up portoir (without a
u and a word meaning, “to carry,” just as portant means “carrying”) one can see how
pourtant represents a reflection of “bearing” responsibilities for past acts. This makes it be a
subsequent reflection of “port,” found in line one. In this way, dragging the dead body of Osama
bin Laden to an aircraft carrier (“port“) to be dumped into the sea will “yet bear” a vision of pay
back to be expected. The “liberties” taken in the past allow for “liberties” to be taken in
response, in the future.
This brings one to the last word of line two, which is recouvrée. This word means, “recovered,
re-obtained, rescued; also gotten and procured.” As the past tense form of the regular verb
recouvrer, it states a repeating of something, where “again” is seen in the prefix ‘re-.” This
means something that had previously been “covered, obtained, cowered over, sat on,
cherished, bred, hatched, or brought to perfection” (all translations of couver) will “again” be
“hatched.” This can work two ways.
In the vein of retribution, where pourtant recouvrée says the acts of the past will be countered,
in some attack of retribution (as a repeat of something on the level of 9-1-1), forewarned
minimally in this quatrain, but historically proven to be a natural response to all attacks (in one
way or another). The suggestion here is one will be “bearing” the revenge of the “rescued,” in
response again to another death in the name of freedom. However, when line two is viewed as
a theme about the United States, this predicts a plan to take “liberties’ that will further the
actions of the past, “still” to come, which will be attempts to “re-obtain” control of the War on
Terror. Just as the plan “to decease” Osama bin Laden acted to raise Barack Obama’s
popularity in the polls, there will be no letting up in “recovering” those voters who had lost faith in
his promise of “hope.” This can say more violence is planned, to “hatch” support for a
“tyrant.” This, of course, remains to be seen.
In order to get a better feel for this last proposition, one needs to look at the punctuation at the
end of the secondary theme. The primary theme was about the event of Osama bin Laden’s
“death,” while the secondary theme was focused on the argument over one’s right to invade a
foreign nation and the issues of “liberties” to operate “There” “not” being maintained, or “still
recovered.” The question of this act being a political ploy to get reelected needs to be
examined, such that the sign of a colon indicates line three will help explain line two. By
definition, a “colon” acts, “after a word introducing a quotation, an explanation, (or) an example.”
At this point, it is necessary to pause this interpretation once again, so one can reflect on what
has just been presented. It is important to understand the duality of themes, where line one’s
“A” rhyme controls the whole, while allowing line two’s “B” rhyme to offer another important
aspect relative to one main event. One must follow the word flow carefully, leaving nothing to
the side, without consideration. One must see how this style of language is not within the
scope of human creation, as it would have taken Nostradamus all his adult life just to
“manufacture” this depth of meaning in so few words (948 times). One must realize the divinity
of these words. One must pray for guidance in understanding. After one has placed some
effort into this level of understanding, one will receive the spirit of guidance and have one’s eyes
opened to understanding, with the full awareness of just how little we do know without God’s
helping hand.
Nostradamus Blog 