The Archangel Michael Is An Anarcho-Capitalist

While reading through some near death experiences, I found this one by Ned Dougherty to be fairly fantastic in its descriptions.

In his experience, Ned describes the Archangel Michael making a statement that sounds like it came right out of Human Action.

The angel speaks:

You became a nation of spoilers, man against man, brother against brother, government against citizens, and the chosen nation became a warrior with and against other nations. You have become a nation of criminals and murderers. You murder in wars. You murder the innocent. You murder your children. Your leaders create laws to justify the murders, to attempt to make wrongs right, to rewrite morals and ethics to support your own earthbound greed and desires.

Clearly the archangel is advocating that mankind must do away with the State and create a society based on voluntary peaceful interactions.

Society must put down the gun in the room; no good can come of it.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
While reading through some near death experiences, I found this one by Ned Dougherty to be fairly fantastic in its descriptions.

In his experience, Ned describes the Archangel Michael making a statement that sounds like it came right out of Human Action.

The angel speaks:

You became a nation of spoilers, man against man, brother against brother, government against citizens, and the chosen nation became a warrior with and against other nations. You have become a nation of criminals and murderers. You murder in wars. You murder the innocent. You murder your children. Your leaders create laws to justify the murders, to attempt to make wrongs right, to rewrite morals and ethics to support your own earthbound greed and desires.

Clearly the archangel is advocating that mankind must do away with the State and create a society based on voluntary peaceful interactions.

In my insignificant opinion, clearly assumptions are made based on human interpretation.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Clearly the archangel is advocating that mankind must do away with the State and create a society based on voluntary peaceful interactions.


You mean a NWO..? If so, yes the archangel Michael is promoting a new world order...but isn't that what he has always been doing..?





Any anyways, from source:

Ned Dougherty was a most successful nightclub owner and lived life in the fast lane. Despite his religious upbringing as a Roman Catholic, he had no interest in a spiritual life because he didn't believe in an afterlife. He was too busy searching for a good time to be bothered with such things. This all changed when he had a near-death experience resulting from a heart attack during a heated fist fight with a business associate.

Hind-sight is 20/20, huh..? The heart attack should have been enough, but no...a fabricated story was needed as well.

reply to post by facelift


I'm not sure what the NWO has to do with voluntary interactions.

The NWO are a bunch of bankers that rely on fiat currency and legal tender laws.

None of which are voluntary.

Believing his story or not is up to you, as is accepting the moral principles he espouses.

Violence against the innocent is wrong.

Taxation requires violence against the innocent.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Voluntary is subject to interpretation...


And I was trying to connect a NWO with Dogma, considering it was an archangel that spoke to him, not JFK...

Originally posted by facelift
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Voluntary is subject to interpretation...

LOL

WTF

One should not interpret what a supposed higher entity is attempting to explain, since we only use at best and under ideal circumstances less than 5% of our brain function.

Obviously that is, if one believes in a higher entity.

Originally posted by tristar
One should not interpret what a supposed higher entity is attempting to explain, since we only use at best and under ideal circumstances less than 5% of our brain function.

Obviously that is, if one believes in a higher entity.

You're right.

We should take it at face value.

Hence, he's an anarcho-capitalist.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by tristar
One should not interpret what a supposed higher entity is attempting to explain, since we only use at best and under ideal circumstances less than 5% of our brain function.

Obviously that is, if one believes in a higher entity.

You're right.

We should take it at face value.

Hence, he's an anarcho-capitalist.

Take nothing at face value, as you would with any human, nothing is as what it seems, it is merely and interpretation of your surroundings and interaction with those surroundings, therefore in assuming a higher entity is within our realm of thought is provoking ones imagination.

Originally posted by tristar

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by tristar
One should not interpret what a supposed higher entity is attempting to explain, since we only use at best and under ideal circumstances less than 5% of our brain function.

Obviously that is, if one believes in a higher entity.

You're right.

We should take it at face value.

Hence, he's an anarcho-capitalist.

Take nothing at face value, as you would with any human, nothing is as what it seems, it is merely and interpretation of your surroundings and interaction with those surroundings, therefore in assuming a higher entity is within our realm of thought is provoking ones imagination.

Have you ever read any Rand?

Because you are nearly quoting her verbatim.

"Man? What is man? He's just a collection of chemicals with delusions of grandeur," said Dr. Pritchett to a group of guests across the room.

Dr. Pritchett picked a canape off a crystal dish, held it speared between two straight fingers and deposited it whole into his mouth.

"Man's metaphysical pretensions," he said, "are preposterous. A miserable bit of protoplasm, full of ugly little concepts and mean little emotions-and it imagines itself important! Really, you know, that is the root of all the troubles in the world."

"But which concepts are not ugly or mean, Professor?" asked an earnest matron whose husband owned an automobile factory.

"None," said Dr. Pritchett, "None within the range of man's capacity."

A young man asked hesitantly, "But if we haven't any good concepts, how do we know that the ones we've got are ugly? I mean, by what standard?"

"There aren't any standards."

This silenced his audience.

"The philosophers of the past were superficial," Dr. Pritchett went on. "It remained for our century to redefine the purpose of philosophy.

The purpose of philosophy is not to help men find the meaning of life, but to prove to them that there isn't any."
An attractive young woman, whose father owned a coal mine, asked indignantly, "Who can tell us that?"

"I am trying to," said Dr. Pritchett. For the last three years, he had been head of the Department of Philosophy at the Patrick Henry University.

Lillian Rearden approached, her jewels glittering under the lights.

The expression on her face was held to the soft hint of a smile, set and faintly suggested, like the waves of her hair.

"It is this insistence of man upon meaning that makes him so difficult," said Dr. Pritchett. "Once he realizes that he is of no importance whatever in the vast scheme of the universe, that no possible significance can be attached to his activities, that it does not matter whether he lives or dies, he will become much more . . . tractable."

He shrugged and reached for another canape", A businessman said uneasily, "What I asked you about, Professor, was what you thought about the Equalization of Opportunity Bill."

"Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."

"But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"

"Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid."

"But it stands to reason that if-"

"Reason, my dear fellow, is the most naive of all superstitions. That, at least, has been generally conceded in our age,"
"But I don't quite understand how we can-"

"You suffer from the popular delusion of believing that things can be understood. You do not grasp the fact that the universe is a solid contradiction."

"A contradiction of what?" asked the matron.

"Of itself."

"How . . . how's that?"

"My dear madam, the duty of thinkers is not to explain, but to demonstrate that nothing can be explained."

"Yes, of course . . . only . , ,"

"The purpose of philosophy is not to seek knowledge, but to prove that knowledge is impossible to man."

"But when we prove it," asked the young woman, "what's going to be left?"

"Instinct," said Dr. Pritchett reverently.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by tristar

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by tristar
One should not interpret what a supposed higher entity is attempting to explain, since we only use at best and under ideal circumstances less than 5% of our brain function.

Obviously that is, if one believes in a higher entity.

You're right.

We should take it at face value.

Hence, he's an anarcho-capitalist.

Take nothing at face value, as you would with any human, nothing is as what it seems, it is merely and interpretation of your surroundings and interaction with those surroundings, therefore in assuming a higher entity is within our realm of thought is provoking ones imagination.

Have you ever read any Rand?

Because you are nearly quoting her verbatim.

"Man? What is man? He's just a collection of chemicals with delusions of grandeur," said Dr. Pritchett to a group of guests across the room.

Dr. Pritchett picked a canape off a crystal dish, held it speared between two straight fingers and deposited it whole into his mouth.

"Man's metaphysical pretensions," he said, "are preposterous. A miserable bit of protoplasm, full of ugly little concepts and mean little emotions-and it imagines itself important! Really, you know, that is the root of all the troubles in the world."

"But which concepts are not ugly or mean, Professor?" asked an earnest matron whose husband owned an automobile factory.

"None," said Dr. Pritchett, "None within the range of man's capacity."

A young man asked hesitantly, "But if we haven't any good concepts, how do we know that the ones we've got are ugly? I mean, by what standard?"

"There aren't any standards."

This silenced his audience.

"The philosophers of the past were superficial," Dr. Pritchett went on. "It remained for our century to redefine the purpose of philosophy.

The purpose of philosophy is not to help men find the meaning of life, but to prove to them that there isn't any."
An attractive young woman, whose father owned a coal mine, asked indignantly, "Who can tell us that?"

"I am trying to," said Dr. Pritchett. For the last three years, he had been head of the Department of Philosophy at the Patrick Henry University.

Lillian Rearden approached, her jewels glittering under the lights.

The expression on her face was held to the soft hint of a smile, set and faintly suggested, like the waves of her hair.

"It is this insistence of man upon meaning that makes him so difficult," said Dr. Pritchett. "Once he realizes that he is of no importance whatever in the vast scheme of the universe, that no possible significance can be attached to his activities, that it does not matter whether he lives or dies, he will become much more . . . tractable."

He shrugged and reached for another canape", A businessman said uneasily, "What I asked you about, Professor, was what you thought about the Equalization of Opportunity Bill."

"Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."

"But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"

"Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid."

"But it stands to reason that if-"

"Reason, my dear fellow, is the most naive of all superstitions. That, at least, has been generally conceded in our age,"
"But I don't quite understand how we can-"

"You suffer from the popular delusion of believing that things can be understood. You do not grasp the fact that the universe is a solid contradiction."

"A contradiction of what?" asked the matron.

"Of itself."

"How . . . how's that?"

"My dear madam, the duty of thinkers is not to explain, but to demonstrate that nothing can be explained."

"Yes, of course . . . only . , ,"

"The purpose of philosophy is not to seek knowledge, but to prove that knowledge is impossible to man."

"But when we prove it," asked the young woman, "what's going to be left?"

"Instinct," said Dr. Pritchett reverently.

edit on 4-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

In all honesty, no this is the first time i have heard of him/her.