An inveterate leftist acquaintance of mine remarked that "the middle class must be artificially created by the government". The underlying theme of his claim was clear: it is impossible for a society to improve the quality of life for the average citizen without empowering the government to control the economy.
Ad hominems aside, this claim reveals stark ignorance of the history of the nascent stages of the modern society. Although the industrialists of the 19th century were notorious for providing factory workers with exiguous compensation and subjecting them to deplorable work conditions, the standards of living for ordinary citizens have improved.
Prior to the emergence of these opportunities, a significant portion of the population engaged in mere "subsistence farming" where a minor decline in productivity often resulted in famines that wiped out entire villages. To find evidence in support of this claim, one must look no further than the Irish Potato famine.
My interlocutor explained that the middle class must be artificially created by the government because the business elites invariably use technology to exploit the work-force. While that is true, the technology also empowers ordinary citizens to find more rewarding work.
This example is not limited to the 19th century United States and Britain, but also various nations of the developing world. For all of its affronts to human dignity, the proliferation of sweatshop labor across Southeast Asia empowers ordinary civilians to work in factories as opposed to prostitute themselves or engage in the commerce of begging.
The middle class in China and India is a phenomenon of the late 20th century. To be sure, it was not "artificially created" by the government. It is almost entirely a product of industrialization quite similar to the one that took place over a century ago in Western Europe and North America.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Collectivism and Moral Relativism
The authors of a popular persuasion book evinced the fundamental differences between the mindsets of collectivism and individualism. Individualists are often stereotyped as whimsical, flaky, self-absorbed and unlikely to stay true to their word. By contrast, collectivists are often seen as reliable, duty-oriented and dedicated to the public good.
Goldstein, Martin and Cialdini have shown that quite frequently, the exact opposite is closer to the truth. In their example, the individualist Tiger Woods exercised resolute self-discipline to compete in a major tournament despite a myriad of personal tragedies that beset him. Why did he do it? Because he made a personal commitment to the tournament and strongly believed that he should exercise self-discipline in his golfing career. Unlike the thinking of a collectivist, his moral reasoning was not motivated by social expectations, cultural mores or even obligations to society.
In his interview, Woods unabashedly disclosed that on that doleful day, he golfed only for himself. The authors explained that by their nature, individualists tend to operate based on their personal moral compass. By contrast, collectivists tend to believe that morality is determined by the expectations of their communities and individuals lack the moral prerogative to challenge it. In so doing, the collectivists have implicitly reaffirmed the key tenets of cultural relativism: that morality is determined by communities rather than inviolable and objective principles.
Although individualists can be moral subjectivists and subscribe to arbitrary and self-serving principles, most tend to believe that there is an objective justification for their stance. In other words, they are more likely to claim that they espouse their moral values because they are "right" rather than simply because they want to do so.
Individualists may be open to the possibility that they are misguided in their beliefs and that is why it is common for people of this point of view to display pluralistic tolerance for the diverging views of others. Indeed, the world's most pluralistic societies tend to be resolutely individualistic and by contrast, totalitarian societies of communism and Islamo-fascism are invariably collectivist.
Although the United States has been founded as an individualistic nation and remains as such, the Academic Community has been taking our culture in the collectivist direction. They have done so by promoting the creed of post-modernism one of the key premises of which is that people are mass-produced by their environments, they are powerless to resist such influences and true objectivity is impossible. This ideological orientation has been re-affirmed by a proliferation of "hyphenated American studies" where the curricula center on the discourse of marginalized groups such as women, LGBT, African-Americans, Asians, etc.
While they may be correct that people invariably operate with biases and are often much less objective than they think they are, it is a mistake to conclude that people lack the capacity to resist social influences. By promoting this notion, the universities undermine the type of moral resolve and consistent behaviors with moral principles that is the basis of morality itself. Individualism is the foundation of objective moral values and the true vanguard against the encroachments of collectivism upon a free society. In light of this notion, Karl Popper famously declared that an Open Society is necessarily individualistic and its principal nemeses such as Plato, Marx and Hegel were inveterate collectivists.
What lesson about persuasion did Goldstein, Martin and Cialdini wish to impart on their readers? When dealing with people from an individualistic culture, we should entice them to act ethically by pointing out that such behavior is consistent with their personal moral principles. Conversely, when interacting with collectivists, we should encourage them to act in accordance with the moral principles espoused by their communities.
Goldstein, Martin and Cialdini have shown that quite frequently, the exact opposite is closer to the truth. In their example, the individualist Tiger Woods exercised resolute self-discipline to compete in a major tournament despite a myriad of personal tragedies that beset him. Why did he do it? Because he made a personal commitment to the tournament and strongly believed that he should exercise self-discipline in his golfing career. Unlike the thinking of a collectivist, his moral reasoning was not motivated by social expectations, cultural mores or even obligations to society.
In his interview, Woods unabashedly disclosed that on that doleful day, he golfed only for himself. The authors explained that by their nature, individualists tend to operate based on their personal moral compass. By contrast, collectivists tend to believe that morality is determined by the expectations of their communities and individuals lack the moral prerogative to challenge it. In so doing, the collectivists have implicitly reaffirmed the key tenets of cultural relativism: that morality is determined by communities rather than inviolable and objective principles.
Although individualists can be moral subjectivists and subscribe to arbitrary and self-serving principles, most tend to believe that there is an objective justification for their stance. In other words, they are more likely to claim that they espouse their moral values because they are "right" rather than simply because they want to do so.
Individualists may be open to the possibility that they are misguided in their beliefs and that is why it is common for people of this point of view to display pluralistic tolerance for the diverging views of others. Indeed, the world's most pluralistic societies tend to be resolutely individualistic and by contrast, totalitarian societies of communism and Islamo-fascism are invariably collectivist.
Although the United States has been founded as an individualistic nation and remains as such, the Academic Community has been taking our culture in the collectivist direction. They have done so by promoting the creed of post-modernism one of the key premises of which is that people are mass-produced by their environments, they are powerless to resist such influences and true objectivity is impossible. This ideological orientation has been re-affirmed by a proliferation of "hyphenated American studies" where the curricula center on the discourse of marginalized groups such as women, LGBT, African-Americans, Asians, etc.
While they may be correct that people invariably operate with biases and are often much less objective than they think they are, it is a mistake to conclude that people lack the capacity to resist social influences. By promoting this notion, the universities undermine the type of moral resolve and consistent behaviors with moral principles that is the basis of morality itself. Individualism is the foundation of objective moral values and the true vanguard against the encroachments of collectivism upon a free society. In light of this notion, Karl Popper famously declared that an Open Society is necessarily individualistic and its principal nemeses such as Plato, Marx and Hegel were inveterate collectivists.
What lesson about persuasion did Goldstein, Martin and Cialdini wish to impart on their readers? When dealing with people from an individualistic culture, we should entice them to act ethically by pointing out that such behavior is consistent with their personal moral principles. Conversely, when interacting with collectivists, we should encourage them to act in accordance with the moral principles espoused by their communities.
On the mentality of a politician
Reciprocity is the basis of all human relationships and because of that, most people want to earn a living in a way that benefits society. In a free-market economy, one must sell goods or services to others in order to obtain profits. Most customers are unlikely to make purchases unless they believe that doing so will benefit them. While it is true that customers often misunderstand what is in their best interest, they generally tend to purchase commodities that at the very least, appear to benefit them in the short-run.
Thus, to raise profits in a free-market economy, one must convince the consumers that the commodity they promote could be be useful even in the most superficial and short-term respects. By contrast, if one promotes goods or services through government programs that are imposed upon the entire population, he or she does not need to do that. Instead, that person must either become a politician by convincing voters that he is capable of serving their best interests or building an alliance with a member of the incumbent government.
The fundamental difference between the persuasive efforts of the entrepreneur and the politician is that the former must provide immediate evidence of how his product is useful to the consumer. By contrast, the latter must merely make it seem like it will be useful in the future. For example, President Obama promised that despite the rising health-care costs, the Patient Affordable Health-Care Act will improve the American healthcare system in the long-run. Similarly, Bush II did not need the immediate approval of the public to invade Iraq because the justification for this course of action rested on a dubious promissory note of making America safer.
Gross intellectual fraud is the basis of political discourse because politicians rarely have incentives to provide immediate evidence that their programs serve their intended purposes.
Thus, to raise profits in a free-market economy, one must convince the consumers that the commodity they promote could be be useful even in the most superficial and short-term respects. By contrast, if one promotes goods or services through government programs that are imposed upon the entire population, he or she does not need to do that. Instead, that person must either become a politician by convincing voters that he is capable of serving their best interests or building an alliance with a member of the incumbent government.
The fundamental difference between the persuasive efforts of the entrepreneur and the politician is that the former must provide immediate evidence of how his product is useful to the consumer. By contrast, the latter must merely make it seem like it will be useful in the future. For example, President Obama promised that despite the rising health-care costs, the Patient Affordable Health-Care Act will improve the American healthcare system in the long-run. Similarly, Bush II did not need the immediate approval of the public to invade Iraq because the justification for this course of action rested on a dubious promissory note of making America safer.
Gross intellectual fraud is the basis of political discourse because politicians rarely have incentives to provide immediate evidence that their programs serve their intended purposes.
Why anarcho-capitalism is not sustainable
Anarcho-capitalism is the ideology that in a market-oriented community, no government should be established. However, that is unsustainable because in such an environment, private parties will establish a government of their own in the interest of maximizing their share of control and prosperity.
When that happens, the new government will be unlikely to preserve the liberties of the citizenry at all costs. Instead of setting up an anarcho-capitalist state, why not take preemptive measures against the emergence of a tyrannical government by setting up a very limited government whose sole purpose is to preserve liberties of the citizenry.
If we could have learned anything from Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, it is that in the complete absence of a sovereign, liberty in the community will be extremely difficult to preserve. As Hobbes himself put it, in the state of nature "life is nasty, brutish, solitary and short".
Anarcho-capitalism is little more than a naive attempt to preserve personal liberties by eliminating an institution that often encroaches upon individual freedoms. This course of action is fundamentally erroneous because it overlooks the vital role that governments play in preserving law and order, which is a prerequisite for a free society.
That is one of the pivotal differences between Libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism: the former postulates that the existence of a government is justified only by its ability to maximize liberty and the latter posits that there should be no government.
Friday, March 7, 2014
The truth about Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Today's callow youth blithely wear T-shirt
bearing the image of Ernesto Guevara without having the slightest clue
as to what he stood for. They call him "Che" assuming that this was his
name when that's just Argentine slang, which loosely translates to English as "dude."
When asked what was admirable about their mascot, the neophytes natter that he is a symbol of "anti-establishment" and "revolution." It is a little-known fact that in the aftermath of the U.S. orchestrated a coup in Guatemala, Guevara swore on the picture of Stalin that he would not rest until he crushed the "capitalist octopi."
Less than a decade later, the Communist Commandante urged the Soviet Union to mount a nuclear attack on the United States. It goes without saying that the likely possibility of permanent annihilation of all civilization was completely inconsequential for him.
Sentimentalized hagiographies portray this man as a martyr who abandoned his privileged life in Cuba for the global revolution against Yankee imperialism. The truth is much less inspiring: Fidel Castro deported "Che" because he compromised the fledgling communist state's alliance with the Soviet Union.
When your hero's intransigent ideology is far too extreme even for the most totalitarian state in the history of humanity, think twice before plastering his face onto a banner symbolizing your rallying cry for "social justice."
When asked what was admirable about their mascot, the neophytes natter that he is a symbol of "anti-establishment" and "revolution." It is a little-known fact that in the aftermath of the U.S. orchestrated a coup in Guatemala, Guevara swore on the picture of Stalin that he would not rest until he crushed the "capitalist octopi."
Less than a decade later, the Communist Commandante urged the Soviet Union to mount a nuclear attack on the United States. It goes without saying that the likely possibility of permanent annihilation of all civilization was completely inconsequential for him.
Sentimentalized hagiographies portray this man as a martyr who abandoned his privileged life in Cuba for the global revolution against Yankee imperialism. The truth is much less inspiring: Fidel Castro deported "Che" because he compromised the fledgling communist state's alliance with the Soviet Union.
When your hero's intransigent ideology is far too extreme even for the most totalitarian state in the history of humanity, think twice before plastering his face onto a banner symbolizing your rallying cry for "social justice."
Friday, February 21, 2014
Rational self-interest is the true basis of morality
Adam Smith is first and foremost known as the pioneer of laissez-faire economics, a theoretical framework postulating that the public good is most expediently served in a society where all individuals pursue their rational self-interest in the market-place. Today, he is regarded as one of the world's most distinguished economists and all challenges to his credentials as an economist are dismissed as absurd. However, it is a little known fact that Smith saw himself not as an economist, but as a moral philosopher. Prior to his landmark publication "The Wealth of Nations", Smith laid down the foundations for his moral philosophy in the "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". Therein, he argued that morality is grounded not in reason, but in sentiments of sympathy towards other individuals. It is these sympathetic feelings that infuse us with the desire to treat others with dignity and humanity.
In light of the gap between one's intentions and actions, one is compelled to ask the question of whether or not one must intend to do good in order treat others well. "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." Smith offered a controversial to this question positing that people who trade for the public good rarely achieve their intended objectives. By these merits, he developed the concept of the Invisible Hand which emerged as the centerpiece of the The Wealth of Nations and the cardinal notion of free-market capitalism. It postulated that if everyone acted consistently with their rational self-interest, a society characterized by voluntary cooperation and efficiency would be created.
One may immediately object to this point by asserting that if people began acting selfishly by oppressing others in order to achieve their goals, the Hobbesian state of nature where life is "nasty, solitary, brutish and short" would ensue. As a remedy to this crisis, Hobbes prescribed the appointment of a Leviathan, or a sovereign who will impose disciplinary measures upon the violators of public order. However, the proponents of the the Invisible Hand will argue that people would not be acting in their rational self-interest by living amok, instead they'd be behaving in a manner that only appears to serve the best interests. In reality, such behavior destroys the shared environment and makes life more difficult for nearly everyone involved.
This thought experiments leaves one with the following unavoidable question: to what extent are people capable of recognizing their rational self-interest? Clearly, if their ability to do so was unlimited, there would be no need for conventional morality. If selfish behavior always led to actions consistent with one's rational self-interest, there would be no need for people to be told to behave altruistically. Because actions consistent with rational self-interest benefit everyone, there simply would be no need for anyone to be motivated by the desire to do good for others as opposed to for oneself.
Clearly, that scenario does not describe the modern social and political reality and that is why there is a need for morality. However, it is commonly presumed that conventional morality comes ahead of the morality of rational self-interest. In other words, that people rarely behave consistently with their rational self-interest and they need to be constantly disciplined by the voice of altruism. According to the modern bio-economist, Paul Zak, that is not true In the Moral Molecule, Zak affirmed Adam Smith's thesis that most of human behavior is guided by the Moral Sentiments. Far from being antithetical to the credo of the invisible hand, Moral Sentiments render the behaviors of rational self-interest possible. Precisely because most people generally want to treat others well it is possible for most people to pursue their own agendas without exploiting and undermining others in the process.
Most of the world's popular religions such as Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity extol altruism and deplore egoism. Befittingly, Buddhists regard selfish urges as the manifestations of the ego, Christians, Muslims and Practitioners of Judaism see egoism as an act of succumbing to Satanic influence. Consistently with that theme, Anton LaVey, the founder of Satanism declared declared that man's true nature is that of a carnal beast who behaves selfishly and disregards the impact of his actions upon others. In general, morality focuses on creating a peaceful social environment where people treat each other with respect and no accomplished moral philosopher takes LaVey's thesis seriously. At best, it merely feeds into the religious notion that all self-interested actions are evil by definition. That is not the case because egoism and altruism are not mutually exclusive and the fusion of the two leads to the morality of rational self-interest, the essential manifestation of human conscience that is the driving force behind the Invisible Hand. While it is true that people are naturally tend to be more egoistic than altruistic, their selfish actions are tempered by moral considerations of the well-being of others. Therefore, the conscience of rational self-interested is the basis of morality itself and not the ethic of altruism espoused by religious leaders. At best, the latter is merely a supplement for the former and that is why most people treat others decently without being constantly exhorted to do so by the moral authorities.
In light of the gap between one's intentions and actions, one is compelled to ask the question of whether or not one must intend to do good in order treat others well. "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." Smith offered a controversial to this question positing that people who trade for the public good rarely achieve their intended objectives. By these merits, he developed the concept of the Invisible Hand which emerged as the centerpiece of the The Wealth of Nations and the cardinal notion of free-market capitalism. It postulated that if everyone acted consistently with their rational self-interest, a society characterized by voluntary cooperation and efficiency would be created.
One may immediately object to this point by asserting that if people began acting selfishly by oppressing others in order to achieve their goals, the Hobbesian state of nature where life is "nasty, solitary, brutish and short" would ensue. As a remedy to this crisis, Hobbes prescribed the appointment of a Leviathan, or a sovereign who will impose disciplinary measures upon the violators of public order. However, the proponents of the the Invisible Hand will argue that people would not be acting in their rational self-interest by living amok, instead they'd be behaving in a manner that only appears to serve the best interests. In reality, such behavior destroys the shared environment and makes life more difficult for nearly everyone involved.
This thought experiments leaves one with the following unavoidable question: to what extent are people capable of recognizing their rational self-interest? Clearly, if their ability to do so was unlimited, there would be no need for conventional morality. If selfish behavior always led to actions consistent with one's rational self-interest, there would be no need for people to be told to behave altruistically. Because actions consistent with rational self-interest benefit everyone, there simply would be no need for anyone to be motivated by the desire to do good for others as opposed to for oneself.
Clearly, that scenario does not describe the modern social and political reality and that is why there is a need for morality. However, it is commonly presumed that conventional morality comes ahead of the morality of rational self-interest. In other words, that people rarely behave consistently with their rational self-interest and they need to be constantly disciplined by the voice of altruism. According to the modern bio-economist, Paul Zak, that is not true In the Moral Molecule, Zak affirmed Adam Smith's thesis that most of human behavior is guided by the Moral Sentiments. Far from being antithetical to the credo of the invisible hand, Moral Sentiments render the behaviors of rational self-interest possible. Precisely because most people generally want to treat others well it is possible for most people to pursue their own agendas without exploiting and undermining others in the process.
Most of the world's popular religions such as Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity extol altruism and deplore egoism. Befittingly, Buddhists regard selfish urges as the manifestations of the ego, Christians, Muslims and Practitioners of Judaism see egoism as an act of succumbing to Satanic influence. Consistently with that theme, Anton LaVey, the founder of Satanism declared declared that man's true nature is that of a carnal beast who behaves selfishly and disregards the impact of his actions upon others. In general, morality focuses on creating a peaceful social environment where people treat each other with respect and no accomplished moral philosopher takes LaVey's thesis seriously. At best, it merely feeds into the religious notion that all self-interested actions are evil by definition. That is not the case because egoism and altruism are not mutually exclusive and the fusion of the two leads to the morality of rational self-interest, the essential manifestation of human conscience that is the driving force behind the Invisible Hand. While it is true that people are naturally tend to be more egoistic than altruistic, their selfish actions are tempered by moral considerations of the well-being of others. Therefore, the conscience of rational self-interested is the basis of morality itself and not the ethic of altruism espoused by religious leaders. At best, the latter is merely a supplement for the former and that is why most people treat others decently without being constantly exhorted to do so by the moral authorities.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Megalomania in the American clergy
This morning, I turned on the TV and it was set to a channel that I did
not recognize. At the center of the stage, a charismatic speaker was
entertaining a large audience who were fully captivated by his message.
Their responses shifted from wild applause to unrestrained laughter and I
initially presumed that the speaker must have been a comedian.
As he continued to talk about God, it seemed that he was merely be facetious and poking satire at the religious fundamentalists. To the best of my recollections, his story could be summarized along the following lines.
"My wife and I were driving at night on an empty interstate in Texas and she urged me to slow down or else I'd get a ticket. I retorted that there was nobody on the roads at this hour, so there was no danger in driving fast and there would be no policeman to discipline us. Then suddenly, I saw lights flashing behind us and I pulled over. As the cop approached our car, my wife anxiously began looking through the glove compartment to find our proof of insurance and registration. The already vexed officer was becoming increasingly impatient, but suddenly God's grace shone through! My wife found our first wedding ring in the glove compartment that she couldn't find for three years! And suddenly, the police officer recognized me and asked me if I was that famous pastor he saw on TV. I responded with a nod and he inquired if I'd save him a spot at my next sermon and he left immediately when I told him that I'd save him the whole section!"
Wild applause erupted in the audience and the lecturer seized the moment to provide his own interpretation of this event. "You see, God works in mysterious ways!" He elaborated as the audience cheered enthusiastically. "Everything in your life is strategically ordained and if it wasn't for that police officer, we would have never found that ring. If I wasn't God's servant with a large following at my Church, he would not have let us off with a warning".
I could not refrain from laughing and the comedian appeared to be an outstanding job ridiculing televangelists with delusions of grandeur. After all, I thought, how could this guy possible be serious!? There is no way any reasonable person can honestly believe that God "strategically ordained" the circumstances of his life to turn him into a popular preacher so police officers do not give him tickets. Even by the standards of public figures such as movie stars and politicians, it takes a megalomaniac of stupendous proportions to even entertain so preposterous of a notion that God purposefully put a police officer on the streets of rural Texas JUST SO he can find the ring that he lost three years ago.
To my astonishment, the speaker then promoted his book "Fearless" which he promoted with even fiercer missionary zeal than his faith. Despite his cheery demeanor and the wild applause from the audience, it turned out that the speaker was not a comedian but a popular pastor, John Fischer.
The hubris of televangelists knows no boundaries and their self-centered thinking habits never cease to confound me. The famous Oxford Psychologist Kevin Dutton cited several studies showing that similarly to politicians lawyers and CEOs, psychopaths and narcissists are quite common among the religious leaders. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself!
Never-mind that our most popular televangelists live in mansions, drive luxury sedans and preach in opulent Churches when thousands of people live in poverty just miles away from where they preach. Forget about the allegations that Paul Robertson was involved in the smuggling racket of the Congolese blood diamonds .
Just try listening to the messages of these self-centered demagogues and judge their character on that basis. Keep an open-mind and see if in all honesty, you can see these individuals as anything but raging megalomaniacs.
As he continued to talk about God, it seemed that he was merely be facetious and poking satire at the religious fundamentalists. To the best of my recollections, his story could be summarized along the following lines.
"My wife and I were driving at night on an empty interstate in Texas and she urged me to slow down or else I'd get a ticket. I retorted that there was nobody on the roads at this hour, so there was no danger in driving fast and there would be no policeman to discipline us. Then suddenly, I saw lights flashing behind us and I pulled over. As the cop approached our car, my wife anxiously began looking through the glove compartment to find our proof of insurance and registration. The already vexed officer was becoming increasingly impatient, but suddenly God's grace shone through! My wife found our first wedding ring in the glove compartment that she couldn't find for three years! And suddenly, the police officer recognized me and asked me if I was that famous pastor he saw on TV. I responded with a nod and he inquired if I'd save him a spot at my next sermon and he left immediately when I told him that I'd save him the whole section!"
Wild applause erupted in the audience and the lecturer seized the moment to provide his own interpretation of this event. "You see, God works in mysterious ways!" He elaborated as the audience cheered enthusiastically. "Everything in your life is strategically ordained and if it wasn't for that police officer, we would have never found that ring. If I wasn't God's servant with a large following at my Church, he would not have let us off with a warning".
I could not refrain from laughing and the comedian appeared to be an outstanding job ridiculing televangelists with delusions of grandeur. After all, I thought, how could this guy possible be serious!? There is no way any reasonable person can honestly believe that God "strategically ordained" the circumstances of his life to turn him into a popular preacher so police officers do not give him tickets. Even by the standards of public figures such as movie stars and politicians, it takes a megalomaniac of stupendous proportions to even entertain so preposterous of a notion that God purposefully put a police officer on the streets of rural Texas JUST SO he can find the ring that he lost three years ago.
To my astonishment, the speaker then promoted his book "Fearless" which he promoted with even fiercer missionary zeal than his faith. Despite his cheery demeanor and the wild applause from the audience, it turned out that the speaker was not a comedian but a popular pastor, John Fischer.
The hubris of televangelists knows no boundaries and their self-centered thinking habits never cease to confound me. The famous Oxford Psychologist Kevin Dutton cited several studies showing that similarly to politicians lawyers and CEOs, psychopaths and narcissists are quite common among the religious leaders. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself!
Never-mind that our most popular televangelists live in mansions, drive luxury sedans and preach in opulent Churches when thousands of people live in poverty just miles away from where they preach. Forget about the allegations that Paul Robertson was involved in the smuggling racket of the Congolese blood diamonds .
Just try listening to the messages of these self-centered demagogues and judge their character on that basis. Keep an open-mind and see if in all honesty, you can see these individuals as anything but raging megalomaniacs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)