It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

France the end of the Republic

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:25 PM
Nostradamus claimed the French revolution
Was the beginning of the end of western Christian civilization

The great deception had begun

Until the year 1999 when three great leaders
Who meet in secret made an alliance
To destroy the west once and for all

The three are
Russia Iran and china

These three for the past 16 years have been plotting the destruction of the west

Setting traps for each other

And no one would know what is secretly brewing

China wants all of Asia and the pacific and will soon confiscate all western property

There will be a great Moslem empire that will emerge in the middle east that will spread into north Africa
Boko Haram and isil

Russia will invade Europe
an event in Egypt plus an attempt to poison the Russian leader
Will trigger this invasion

When Russia occupies Europe the Moslem world will rush upon southern Europe
And France will find itself attacked from 5 sides

The French leaders will be lead in captivity to turkey

This is the end of the French republic

France will be saved when the king comes
To restore the church in rome
This is the bourbon prophecy
The king of the flur de lis

The monachy shall return in france
Gods word the prophecy shall be forefilled

There is much more pain to come France.

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:36 PM
Ah Nostradamus.... The Fortuneteller

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:43 PM
Exactly what did Nostradamus say to predict this waffle?

Anyway, is this before or after the other Nostradamus prediction where the anti-Christ invades London, or nuclear Armageddon will destroy the Middle East etc...

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 04:15 PM

originally posted by: manuelram16
Ah Nostradamus.... The Fortuneteller

If Nostradamus was alive now writing this stuff on ATS I can imagine what type of member he would be.

I think the demon he was conjuring had a bit of a sense of humour or was drinking too much.

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 04:19 PM
a reply to: Revolution9
I think we wouldn't understand anything he wrote..but after four centuries we would

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 04:38 PM

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: Revolution9
I think we wouldn't understand anything he wrote..but after four centuries we would

He reminds me a little of Immanuel Velikovsky.

Both wonderfully bright and learned men, but afflicted with an untameable fanciful imagination and outlandish theories gathered from their studies. Wonderful eccentrics from an age before hard science. Velikovsky was a very strange classic throw back doing what he did as late as the middle of the twentieth century.

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 05:19 PM
This is a whole load of bollocks

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 05:49 PM
Nostradumus is correct.

For 1999 read 'the eve of the new millennium'. There are three. They are not what you say. They will overthrow 'de l'oocident'... The 'de l'' is important. It can mean a number of things. Prophecy 101.a: The most obvious interpretation is wrong 99% of the time. Remember Micah's prophecy of the Virgin giving birth to a ruler? That too is not what comes immediately to mind. Prophecy 101.b: Don't mix prophecies together. 'A virgin called Mary will give birth to a ruler, the Messiah'. No. The Virgin will give birth to the ruler. Mary will give birth to the Messiah.

101.c. Prophecies are intended to be understood retrospectively. You can rarely use them to predict the future.

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 05:56 PM
a reply to: piney
In a previous thread, you began your summary of the prophecy in this way;

There will be a world wide surprise
Of an act of war committed by egypt
Against a Soviet ally
Which will make the Russians go
From east Germany into west Germany
And from Malta as far as the var coastlines
Of France

Is that the same interpretation you are using now? Because that one obviously assumes the existence of a pre-1991 Soviet Union with armed forces in East Germany, and must originally have been written pre-1991.

edit on 21-11-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

top topics


log in