Nostradamus was full of crap

I totally do not have the energy to waste on the ever-absurd Nostradamus predictions. Yet, here it is. I hate them, they are stupid, wrong, and they continue to come up after every large world event.

Here is the latest: Michel de Nostredame, kick-ass astrologer, predicted the rise of The Donald – The great shameless, audacious bawler – as president.

The despicable “History Channel” capitalized on such nonsense by running an “Election special“.

BoingBoing actually noted this back in the Trump candidacy days.

You can read Nostradamus’ drivel if you have nothing better to do here and match it to any event you wish through creative translation and pattern seeking. I’d advise against it because it will drive you mad. It’s a profoundly silly exercise. Predictions are only useful if they are actually understandable and allow people to act. Can we forget this guy already? We have enough on our plates.

Hey, thanks to the tabloids for producing their usual bird cage liner quality journalism, but also to Tech Times and USA Today for tacitly promoting utter BS without any critical thought at all.

I know I should write more to explain my cynical disgust with everything-Nostradamus but that would take a few hours to do right – hours that I don’t have – and result in something that few would appreciate. So I didn’t and I apologize for that. That YUUUGE rock needs to be pushed up the hill again tomorrow and the next day and the next day… so I’m going to bed.

Just remember, Nostradamus was so very correct in presaging that gullible people would be around forever. Make it vague and they will eat it up.

Here are other “predictions” of a Trump presidency:

  8 comments for “Nostradamus was full of crap

  1. Margot Robinson
    November 14, 2016 at 11:17 PM

    If anyone wants a nice, half-hour summation debunking Nostradamus, the Smithsonian Channel series “Mystery Files” did a good episode on him.

  2. November 15, 2016 at 12:09 AM

    I really should not comment on this, but “Audacious BAWLER” ?
    What sort of audacious person bawls (i.e. weeps)?
    It’s sad. DoubtfulNews, your heart is in the right place, but I suspect you are tilting against cardboard windmills. Perhaps even paper-maché or laminated chicken-fat windmills.

    I keep repeating this scientific fact: Fully 50% of the US citizenry have IQs of under 100. And they have the vote.
    Try this “democratic”scheme in China. They have more sense.

    Sorry if I seem a tad snobbish. I am at present a semi-indigent retiree** and the only sensible solution, at least for me, is either death or a lobotomy. I cannot agree to the former- I have cats and plants in the house to take care of – and the damn Canadian government would never pay for the latter.
    So you’re (at least for the present) stuck with my ramblings.

    ** Unlike in the US, penury is pretty good in Canada & Québec, even if your wife(‘s lawyers) have stolen most of your life’s pension.

  3. November 15, 2016 at 8:23 AM

    Even though by this time in my life I should really know better, it still astonishes me that people give any kind of credibility to this kind of thing. But I have to admit that it is breathtakingly easy to pull this kind of thing on people. One thing that struck us immediately when we did the tarot card experiment back in the early 1970s was not just how easy it was to pull off Nostradamus type tricks, but how readily our subjects cooperated, tended to ignore errors we made and only remember the ‘hits’ when we did readings, how they even fed us information that we were able to use later in the readings. They would forget the dozens of things we got wrong and instead focus only on the very few things we got ‘right’…

    It often seemed that they were going out of their way to try to make themselves believe. They’d lose a quarter in a vending machine, and suddenly our comments that they would ‘suffer a financial setback’ would be accurate in their minds. Meeting a nice young man or woman at the local pub would become associated with a comment we’d made about a possible ‘romantic adventure’.

    So from personal experience I should not be surprised when this kind of thing turns up, but it still makes me want to bang my head on the table.

  4. Tom
    November 15, 2016 at 9:15 AM

    Just the usual lazy jounalism and the fringe catch all, since the name Nostradamus is the only seer most people recognise.
    Its fun to then ask them to point out exactly the quatrains they think predicted the future.
    My favourite is the quatrain mentioning Hister usually thought of as being Hitler but really was the old name of part of the Danube River and this is as good as it gets.
    If people want to consult quatrains they might as well use the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, it makes more sense than Michel’s drivel.

  5. November 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM

    Gee, I thought I was punchy while writing this. I refuse to give up on humanity. There still is about 20-40% of us that are undoubtedly reasonable, most of the time, and trying to do our best for ourselves and each other. I don’t see IQ as a major part of this discussion at all.

  6. TheRook
    November 16, 2016 at 9:04 AM

    What I find hilarious is that so many of Nostradamus’ “predictions” are reinterpreted over and over again as events occur. They seem to be vague enough to mean just about anything you want them to mean. But giving us insight to what actually will happen they never do.

  7. Steve Chaput
    November 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM

    I was disgusted to see the amount of promotion that “election special” was given. It fits right in with your recent column on fake news. These shows are the equivalent of click bait on social media. Advertisers ans the folks working in sales love these programs.

    December 5, 2016 at 4:18 AM

    If I recall correctly, the old Latin name of the Danube was Ister. The quatrain alleged to predict Hitler goes (approximately): ” Hister. The prince. He comes to the river. He asks three times and is denied. He leaves.”….. The old Pelican paperback about Nostradamus presents a patient analysis of N. … He wrote in a mixture of Medieval French, Old French, Latin, and Ancient Greek, so some of it is incomprehensible…. I have seen other books that have re-written N. into “translations” that say whatever the books’ authors want N. to say.

Comments are closed.