Envy is perhaps the main driving motivation behind far-left ideology, the envy of persons or institutions which have obtained social status and political power by merit or inheritance. They possess a desire for other people’s wealth coupled with a lust for power. Far leftists consider the only thing resembling justice on this Earth is having themselves in power, not through fair elections, but by deception or violence. Besides envy, another driving motivation behind a far-left ideology is a love of carnage and chaos for its own sake. This can be seen with Karl Marx openly advocating in various letters that, once the Marxists are at the helm, they not only are obliged to reenact Robespierre’s Reign of Terror, but also make it even more of a bloodbath, as well as Michel Foucault openly advocating that the left when taking power should be a violent, dictatorial, and bloody power to its enemies, and even advocate for September Massacres-style “popular justice” (i.e., lynchings), as well as General Trudeau and Commander Louis Grignon both, advocated during the Vendee massacre that “everyone they met was to be immediately killed, even if they were Republicans”.
Democracy and the popular consensus is not part of far-left ideology (barring Mobocracy and mob rule). Among Democratic Socialists, for example, the core value is said to be, to develop a consensus among themselves how to govern society. However, this principle is subject to change with the next historical whim or crisis.
A simple definition of envy is “to want what belongs to someone else.” A more thorough description of envy is “a resentful, dissatisfied longing for another’s possessions, position, fortune, achievements, or success.” The Bible says envy is an act of the flesh, the result of human sin: “The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19–21; see also Romans 1:29; 1 Peter 2:1–2).
In a shockingly bizarre turn of events in the Jeffrey Epstein saga, New York Times columnist James B. Stewart published an article on Monday claiming that Jeffrey Epstein told him he was helping Elon Musk find a new chairman for Tesla almost one year ago to the day.
The Times column then hastily noted that both Elon Musk and Tesla “vehemently deny” these claims. A spokesperson for Elon Musk told CNBC:
“It is incorrect to say that Epstein ever advised Elon on anything.”
Stewart, however, says that he contacted Epstein, to begin within August 2018 because he had “heard a rumor that he was advising Tesla’s embattled chief executive, Elon Musk, who was in trouble after announcing on Twitter that he had lined up the funding to take Tesla private.”
“I’d heard that Mr. Epstein was compiling a list of candidates at Mr. Musk’s behest — and that Mr. Epstein had an email from Mr. Musk authorizing the search for a new chairman.”
We’d be interested in knowing where Stewart heard that rumor, to begin with. Musk and Ghislaine Maxwell, 2014
But regardless, when the columnist met Epstein in 2018, he pushed him on the purported e-mail, only to be told it was from “someone close” to Musk, and not Musk himself:
When I pressed him on the purported email from Mr. Musk, he said the email wasn’t from Mr. Musk himself, but from someone very close to him. He wouldn’t say who that person was. I asked him if that person would talk to me, and he said he’d ask. He later said the person declined; I doubt he asked.
The columnist makes his own assessment of the situation, claiming that he believes Epstein was exaggerating or simply making up his story about Musk in order to embellish his role in the Tesla situation to enhance his own importance and gain attention.
But that doesn’t gel with the fact that the columnist himself says that Epstein wanted to do the interview on the background.
When I contacted Mr. Epstein, he readily agreed to an interview. The caveat was that the conversation would be “on background,” which meant I could use the information as long as I didn’t attribute it directly to him. (I consider that condition to have lapsed with his death.)
Along those same lines, Epstein supposedly avoided specifics about his work with Tesla because he claimed to Stewart that he was “radioactive”:
Mr. Epstein avoided specifics about his work for Tesla. He told me that he had good reason to be cryptic: Once it became public that he was advising the company, he’d have to stop doing so, because he was “radioactive.” He predicted that everyone at Tesla would deny talking to him or being his friend.
Epstein also said that he had “spoken to the Saudis about possibly investing in Tesla, but he wouldn’t provide any specifics or names.” The column notes that Epstein pointed out a photo of him and Mohammed bin Salman to the writer when he arrived at his home for the interview.
Epstein also told the columnist that he knew a great deal about rich, famous and powerful people, with “some of it potentially damaging or embarrassing, including details about their supposed sexual proclivities and recreational drug use.”
Epstein also said he had “witnessed prominent tech figures taking drugs and arranging for sex (Mr. Epstein stressed that he never drank or used drugs of any kind).”
So now, we can’t help but ask:
1. Why would Epstein want to do the story on background if its sole purpose was to “enhance his own importance?”
2. Why would Epstein be mum about the details if he wanted to “gain attention?”
3. Why wouldn’t Epstein have reached out to a reporter, instead of waiting for a reporter to reach out to him, to break the story?
Regardless, if there are emails out there between “someone close” to Musk and Epstein, a connection between the two may become impossible to disprove. In the meantime, we’ll keep our eyes open for Hillary Clinton’s “server people” performing “tech support” at Elon Musk’s home or Tesla’s headquarters. Source
Jesus chastised religious leaders in the first century for not knowing the time of His arrival. Will we make the same mistake today? Christ stated how His second coming would be preceded by global events signifying the end of our age. We may not know the day or the hour, but we can know the season!
“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions.” (Joel 2:28.)
Education is useless without the bible (Daniel Webster)
“Courage is as “fear that has said its prayers.”
John Wesley who said that what we tolerate in our generation, will be embraced by the next. Wesley is 100% correct! We are living in sick times.
Usually, the Lord doth no great thing for or against his people, without giving warning of it before it comes.
They perverted justice among themselves (v. 7): “You turn judgment to wormwood, that is, you make your administrations of justice bitter and nauseous, and highly displeasing both to God and man.’’ That fruit has become a weed, a weed in the garden; as nothing is more venerable, nothing more valuable, than justice duly administered, so nothing is more hurtful, nothing more abominable, than designedly doing wrong under color and pretense of doing right. Corruptio optimi est pessima —The best, when corrupted, becomes the worst.
It is impossible to find anyone in the Bible who was a power for God who did not have enemies and was not hated.
The number of Orphans aging out of Child Protective Custody has grown at an alarming rate. The 127 Faith Foundation receives many requests each week to house them at our ranch. Our prayer is that the good people of our country will step up to the challenge and offer financial support for "the least among us." We need your help! StevieRay Hansen, Founder, The 127 Faith Foundation