It seems logical that the reign of the third antichrist, like its predecessors, should also have disastrous consequences for France and Europe.
"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."
Comment of Padme on the announcement of chancellor Palpatine that he has taken absolute power and declares the transformation of the democratic republic into the first Galactic Empire
The Three Antichrists
Nostradamus is of French-Jewish origin living in France. We suspect therefore that in his work there must be a "French connection". Either because he invented the quatrains of his book of prophecy himself or because the occult source of his knowledge has also some relationship with the French. lets take this way of thinking a step further. In his work Nostradamus writes about three antichrists that cause huge suffering, damage and death. The first two antichrists have been said to be Napoleon and Hitler. The reign of both men have had deep impact on France and Europe in general. It seems likely to suspect that the third one should also have a similar impact on France and Europe. But must he therefore be French or European?
In our day and age the world has become a global village. Remote incidents can have equally severe consequences as the ones that happen closer to home. Leaders of powerful nations can cause grave consequences for the whole world by simply destabilizing the fine ballance of diplomatic relationships, controll of natural resources and the established international order.
An antichrist could be influential in starting a chain of events that causes the world to destabilize, finally resulting in war, large-scale destruction and suffering.
What type of person do we have to visualize, when we are talking about an antichrist? What is the nature of such a person? One country can see someone as a great leader while another country might see that same person as a tyrant or as a terrorist. Whether people do good or bad depends on the point of view of others that judge their actions.
The first two antichrists (if we believe that they were Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte) were no common criminals; they were both charismatic leaders of great nations. They both had millions of followers that believed their words and were prepared to give their lives for the ideas of these leaders.
At the beginning of their careers they were ambitious and in no way different than many other charismatic leaders of history and current times. It is not only their personality that determines the impact of their presence on history but also in what kind of position they managed to get themselves into.
It is the impact, and the tragic chain of events that has been set off by these people that has earned them the label evil and antichrist.
But why does the term only apply to Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte? History knows many ambitious, ruthless, leaders and conquerors. People who deserve the same label but are generally not known as antichrists. A few possible runners up for this title would be: Alexander the great, Nero, Stalin and Pol Pot. These were all ambitious individuals who used any method to achieve their supremacy and caused lots of suffering.
Of course, if we take the French point of view, then only Napoleon and Hitler have been of decisive importance for the history of France and its people.
People and nations firstly judge the importance of events to the impact they have had on their own history.
comments powered by Disqus