Thursday, August 23, 2012

Harbinger Economics off to a rocky start

Now I'm into the second half of David James' book and this will probably be slow-going for me, because even in reading The Harbinger and listening to Cahn's talks I didn't take the time to fully understand his claims about the economic crashes of the last decade. I got the general idea that he had found the Biblical Shemitah or Sabbath laws, having to do with seven-year periods, expressed in the timing of America's crashes since 9/11, and since I accepted the basic revelation of the harbingers I accepted that he must be right about the economic timing as well. But it would take study to test that and since James is no doubt going to raise questions that call for such study I'm going to be a while at this.

James does point out something I hadn't noticed in my reading of The Harbinger, which is that The Prophet speaks of efforts to rebuild the American economy as the "hewn stones" of Isaiah 9:10. James says this is allegorizing, which it is, but the bigger problem it seems to me is that everything else is completely literal in the appearance of the harbingers. That is, the Freedom Tower cornerstone is already the representative of the hewn stones of Isaiah 9:10, it's confusing to now make economic rebuilding representative of them. If Isaiah 9:10 included a mention of how Israel's economy had been destroyed by the Assyrian attack but that they also planned to rebuild there as well, that would be some kind of basis for a parallel. But in fact there isn't even a clear-cut destruction of the economy on 9/11 that is clearly the reason for America's attempt to "rebuild" that I can see. 9/11 certainly set in motion a deteriorating economy but that's not the same thing as fallen bricks or a dead tree, that is, it wasn't a one-time event that could be rebuilt the way a tower could be rebuilt or a tree replanted.

So that is certainly a confusing and indefensible part of The Harbinger it seems to me. I'll have to think about it more, and I hope the rest of this section doesn't raise equally confusing issues.

No comments: