SPEAK THE TRUTH! And Redeem This World From Hell

[cyclops]

Sam Harris

Sam is a smart dude. He seems to have high emotional intelligence as well and is a great listener. It's not surprising that he would easily expose Peterson's BS.

 

[Kartoffel]

I don't find anything great about Peterson. He is a somewhat logical guy with a decent vocabulary who uses his platform to speak out against obvious ridiculousness such as forced use of gender pronouns, some other transgender issues, new age entitlement, SJW's and intersectionality among other things. That's cool but nothing special there, low hanging fruit.

In particular he has found an interesting, although some what convoluted and inconsistent way of attempting to justify Christianity and its "psychological truth" and evolutionary necessity, however in my opinion it is rife with intellectual dishonesty and opportunistic behaviour on his behalf. He puts out consistent youtube videos on the "truth" of Christianity and how important it is to human psychology, in what to me is an obvious attempt to finesse a demographic that love throwing money in support of any prominent intellectual in bat for Christianity in an age where atheism and science logically reign supreme. He is doing extremely well out of these Christian supporters on Patreon and other platforms of donation. Not that there is anything wrong with that but I believe it is a business venture for him rather than the genuine discourse and pursuit of the truth, which brings his intellectual honesty into question. For anyone interested I encourage you to watch his two debates with Sam Harris on the topic :


and


Sam rips him to shreds IMO and Jordan attempts to duck, dodge and weave through anything that could potentially upset his Christian supporters or that jeopodises his stance on Christianity. His debating tactics are rife with intellectual dishonesty, particularly when he is painfully attempting to explain his particular definition of truth.

Thanks. He seems to be an intelligent guy and asked really nice questions. Given the title of this thread it's funny to see that Peterson can't even provide a logical definition of truth in this interview. It becomes apparent how much his obsession with Christianity has compromised his thinking on even very basic concenpts like reality and truth.

 

[Tarmander]

I don't find anything great about Peterson. He is a somewhat logical guy with a decent vocabulary who uses his platform to speak out against obvious ridiculousness such as forced use of gender pronouns, some other transgender issues, new age entitlement, SJW's and intersectionality among other things. That's cool but nothing special there, low hanging fruit.

In particular he has found an interesting, although some what convoluted and inconsistent way of attempting to justify Christianity and its "psychological truth" and evolutionary necessity, however in my opinion it is rife with intellectual dishonesty and opportunistic behaviour on his behalf. He puts out consistent youtube videos on the "truth" of Christianity and how important it is to human psychology, in what to me is an obvious attempt to finesse a demographic that love throwing money in support of any prominent intellectual in bat for Christianity in an age where atheism and science logically reign supreme. He is doing extremely well out of these Christian supporters on Patreon and other platforms of donation. Not that there is anything wrong with that but I believe it is a business venture for him rather than the genuine discourse and pursuit of the truth, which brings his intellectual honesty into question. For anyone interested I encourage you to watch his two debates with Sam Harris on the topic :


and


Sam rips him to shreds IMO and Jordan attempts to duck, dodge and weave through anything that could potentially upset his Christian supporters or that jeopodises his stance on Christianity. His debating tactics are rife with intellectual dishonesty, particularly when he is painfully attempting to explain his particular definition of truth.

I actually find his definition of truth kind of interesting. It is like he added in evolutionary biology, or maybe some type of "fitness" into the definition. Meaning in a sense, the Noah story is "true" because saving for the flood is fit. Something like that. What is Sam's definition of truth? I have not listened to him much, was turned off by the no free will thing.

 

[EndAllDisease]

The anger I'm seeing towards Peterson in this thread by some people is absolutely appalling. It's no exaggeration when I say the man is a hero and will be remembered forever as one. It's as if those angered by him are treating him like an ideology rather than a human being. What he says doesn't matter nearly as much as WHAT HE DOES.

While you angry keyboard warriors are attacking Peterson from behind the comfort of your computer screen, he's out there attending government hearings and preventing legislation from being passed that would make it law that every single Canadian must speak using certain language. While you're at home, too afraid to stand up and speak publically about your own ideas, he's out there speaking at universities with the world on his shoulders and getting attacked by angry mobs of people trying to silence him yet not surrendering.

To those who completely neglect these facts and don't appreciate Peterson for fighting the only real war that exists in this world, you are an absolute disgrace.

Senate Hearings on Bill C-16 - Freedom of Speech on Trial


McMaster University Meltdown - Peterson Stands His Ground

 

[LUH 3417]

First of all, your definition of socialism is too narrow. There are many different interpretations of socialism. For instance, Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist. You're afraid that he would have turned the U.S. into a new Societ Union, had he been elected president? The difference between certain ideas of socialism and social democratic ideas are small in many regards, and the term socialism encompasses a hundret different social and economic theories. There is no one definition of socialism. The problem is that the term socialism is used synonymously with totalitarian Stalinism in the U.S.. Not many people outside the U.S. would label the U.S.S.R. a socialist country. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship, just as Nazi Germany.

Let's stick with your narrow definition for the moment - let's say that socialism is that the means of production are socialized but the real power then goes to the state. You and many others here claim that this is the ultimate goal of "the ruling class". Please provide some concrete, specific evidence for this claim. Because frankly, it sounds absolutely ridiculous. Show me some proof that the Koch brothers' and their buddies' secret plan is to have their big buisnesses taken over by an omnipotent, socialist government one day.
Starting in the 1970s the U.S. have gone through several decades of privatization and financial and economic deregulation. The tax code has become less progressive, redistributive measures have been taken back, funding for education and social upward mobility has been cut, and regulations for corporations have been severly reduced. The state has never had less controll over the market than it has now. It has moved away from a sort of Keynesian approach under FDR to a deregulated, neo-liberal, pro-big buisness economy. If the state finally wants to achieve total control over everything, why do they privatize everything?
I can't see the secret plan to transform the U.S. economy into a socialist collective. Rather, the U.S. is moving towards fascism similar to that of Nazi Germany. The state is expanding only in the areas of "defense", militarization, and surveillance. Control isn't excercised throught the communization or nationalization of the economy, but through total control via the military and police. The NSA, CIA, and militarized police aren't much different from the Gestapo. Fascists know that you can't controll and steer the economy, and U.S. corporations would never allow any such tendencies.
´

What do you mean by fascists know they can't steer the economy? Weren't fascists obsessed with occultism and image making?

 

[LUH 3417]

Jordan fought a law that had no scientific backing, or rational, and won. he's a hero for standing up in a world that often cripples you if you even try to question laws put in place to prop minority ideologies up. Canada has some crazy laws coming into place, and we need more respected intellects like Jordan to level the playing field. Canada passed a law last year that requires parents to acknowledge their childs chosen gender. if not, it could be seen as a form of child abuse, and the child can be taken away. I doubt it's happened, but the fact that it's a law is scary. the next obvious step already being talked about is that a child will be allowed to make a decision for hormonal therapy without parents consent which I believe has already been portrayed in a vice hbo doc. i guess 8 year olds are great at making life decisions. this will eventually lead to parents just being the birthers of a child, and the crown will have full consent to dictate all decisions for the child. it's a slippery slope that we're already halfway down.



in the white washed version of history, the greeks started politics. in the real histoy, the egyptians had already been there & done that. The greeks pretty much just copied the egyptians on many aspects of life. The white man history does not want to admit that the birth of its ideologies came from an african nation. Not to mention that woman & men were equal in egyptian culture, so a guy like Peterson would be irrelevant. it was the greek philosophers who created the men are superior, and woman are only good for birthing children narrative. the religions that followed boosted that proclamation up , and it's stood the test of time. we're now feeling the effects of this correction, and we can thank the greek intellects for that.

I think ancient Egypt was more centered around rituals of birth and reproduction than Ancient Greece. Egypt was still built on slavery though. What do you make of that?

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

It's a decent argument. There's a certain level of social trust that deters anti-social behavior, and this doesn't translate as well to larger areas.

Communism is the best social system but it only works in small clans and villages. Communism starts to fall apart the second you're supposed to work for someone who's face you've never seen.

Words have such power.

I wonder if the words 'Communism' and 'community' share the same root?

If so, does that mean communism is a form of governance meant to function on a communal level ?

Would be strange if they went and applied to a whole society or nation.

Wouldn't that be more aptly termed socialism or nationalism?

Or perhaps....national socialism?

One wonders about such things.

Aren't there any cultures anywhere at any time that existed outside the master slave dynamic? The only ones I can think of don't have any conception of private property.

Antlantis and other pre deluvian cultures.

i still think it's very important the Elysian mysteries were specifically about land cultivation and not just reproduction.

They were about how we are spirits imprisoned in the flesh as punsihment for a crime

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

I actually find his definition of truth kind of interesting. It is like he added in evolutionary biology, or maybe some type of "fitness" into the definition. Meaning in a sense, the Noah story is "true" because saving for the flood is fit. Something like that. What is Sam's definition of truth? I have not listened to him much, was turned off by the no free will thing.

The noah story is true because the world was flooded 5,000 years ago

 

[Kartoffel]

What do you mean by fascists know they can't steer the economy? Weren't fascists obsessed with occultism and image making?

I mean they know that you can't centrally direct an economy and optimize it by eliminating free markets. One central idea of communism is that the state can controll and plan the economy so that it always produces exactely whats needed by people. If we weren't limited by our own faculties and the complexity of economic systems, central guidance would be a good idea, but history has shown us that it is not a good idea.
That's why fascists like the Nazis did not nationalize the economy and left it alone.

 

[Tarmander]

Communism is the best social system

lol why should I take anything you say seriously after this.

The noah story is true because the world was flooded 5,000 years ago

 

[mt_dreams]

No need to be fan boys here. Both Sam & Jordan are smart dudes who are full of themselves. When you're that smart I guess you get a pass. There was no right and wrong in their debate. It was theoretical, and choosing a victor turns the conversation into a point match. both these guys desire being right which is why it was such a difficult listen. if anybody wants a truly epic debate on the subject, i suggest revisiting the dinesh / hutchinson debates ... peterson & harris though smart, don't debate this topic nearly as well.

I think ancient Egypt was more centered around rituals of birth and reproduction than Ancient Greece. Egypt was still built on slavery though. What do you make of that?

Yeah slavery in africa, europe & the middle east was quite rampant. Pretty much all civilizations to the present were build in some way by slavery, including greece. What people don't realize is in those ancient civilizations almost 3 quarters of the population would be some sort of slave. it's an unfortunate depressing reality of our history. If you look at the true history, greece just copied egypt in terms of mythology, politics, social structure, inventions, etc. egypt was the civilization that every region wanted to emulate.

The noah story is true because the world was flooded 5,000 years ago

correct, it's a story. doesn't mean a flood didn't happen. to much of a coincidence that all regions of the world have a flood story. not to mention the date that plato gives for the flooding of atlantis corresponds to the end of the last ice age when a theoretical flood looks to have taken place. we should not become foolish with our assumptions, we know so little.

 

[LUH 3417]

Communism is the best social system but it only works in small clans and villages. Communism starts to fall apart the second you're supposed to work for someone who's face you've never seen.

Words have such power.

I wonder if the words 'Communism' and 'community' share the same root?

If so, does that mean communism is a form of governance meant to function on a communal level ?

Would be strange if they went and applied to a whole society or nation.

Wouldn't that be more aptly termed socialism or nationalism?

Or perhaps....national socialism?

One wonders about such things.




Antlantis and other pre deluvian cultures.



They were about how we are spirits imprisoned in the flesh as punsihment for a crime

I think they
were about how flesh is spirit and in experiencing such profundity the person became free from imprisonment, if even for a day.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

I think they
were about how flesh is spirit and in experiencing such profundity the person became free from imprisonment, if even for a day.

Thats a hot take but unfortunately they already made clear what they were about.

The ancients were very spiritual and saw life as a stop gap between heaven and hell. I see the current reinterpretation of ancient mysteries as a way secularize and distort their message.

According to them; Human existence is the final stop for your soul and if you don't purify yourself and reach for god you will lose connection with the higher universe and be stuck reincarnating as an earthly beast for ever and ever amen.

The Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries, by Thomas Taylor

"since in the Phædo he venerates...the assertion delivered in the arcane discourses, that men are placed in the body as in a prison, secured by a guard...
the dramatic spectacles of the Lesser Mysteries were designed by the ancient theologists...to signify occultly the condition of the unpurified soul invested with an earthly body, and enveloped in a material and physical nature...to signify that such a soul in the present life might be said to die, as far as it is possible for a soul to die, and that on the dissolution of the present body, while in this state of impurity, it would experience a death still more permanent and profound...it is universally agreed, that all the ancient theological poets and philosophers...occultly intimating that the death of the soul was nothing more than a profound union with the ruinous bonds of the body.

Indeed, if these wise men believed in a future state of retribution, and at the same time considered a connection with the body as death of the soul, it necessarily follows, that the soul’s punishment and existence hereafter are nothing more than a continuation of its state at present, and a transmigration, as it were, from sleep to sleep, and from dream to dream....the obscure and profound Heracleitus, speaking of souls unembodied: “We live their death, and we die their life.”

Plato, too, it is well known, considered the body as the sepulchre of the soul, and in the Cratylus concurs with the doctrine of Orpheus, that the soul is punished through its union with body. This was likewise the opinion of the celebrated Pythagorean, Philolaus, as is evident from the following remarkable passage in the Doric dialect, "The ancient theologists and priests also testify that the soul is united with the body as if for the sake of punishment; and so is buried in body as in a sepulchre.” And, lastly, Pythagoras himself confirms the above sentiments, when he beautifully observes, “that whatever we see when awake is death; and when asleep, a dream.”

 

[LUH 3417]

Thats a hot take but unfortunately they already made clear what they were about.

The ancients were very spiritual and saw life as a stop gap between heaven and hell. I see the current reinterpretation of ancient mysteries as a way secularize and distort their message.

According to them; Human existence is the final stop for your soul and if you don't purify yourself and reach for god you will lose connection with the higher universe and be stuck reincarnating as an earthly beast for ever and ever amen.

The Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries, by Thomas Taylor

"since in the Phædo he venerates...the assertion delivered in the arcane discourses, that men are placed in the body as in a prison, secured by a guard...
the dramatic spectacles of the Lesser Mysteries were designed by the ancient theologists...to signify occultly the condition of the unpurified soul invested with an earthly body, and enveloped in a material and physical nature...to signify that such a soul in the present life might be said to die, as far as it is possible for a soul to die, and that on the dissolution of the present body, while in this state of impurity, it would experience a death still more permanent and profound...it is universally agreed, that all the ancient theological poets and philosophers...occultly intimating that the death of the soul was nothing more than a profound union with the ruinous bonds of the body.

Indeed, if these wise men believed in a future state of retribution, and at the same time considered a connection with the body as death of the soul, it necessarily follows, that the soul’s punishment and existence hereafter are nothing more than a continuation of its state at present, and a transmigration, as it were, from sleep to sleep, and from dream to dream....the obscure and profound Heracleitus, speaking of souls unembodied: “We live their death, and we die their life.”

Plato, too, it is well known, considered the body as the sepulchre of the soul, and in the Cratylus concurs with the doctrine of Orpheus, that the soul is punished through its union with body. This was likewise the opinion of the celebrated Pythagorean, Philolaus, as is evident from the following remarkable passage in the Doric dialect, "The ancient theologists and priests also testify that the soul is united with the body as if for the sake of punishment; and so is buried in body as in a sepulchre.” And, lastly, Pythagoras himself confirms the above sentiments, when he beautifully observes, “that whatever we see when awake is death; and when asleep, a dream.”

I don't know. I once had a dream where I was ascending and descending dirt in the figure of a female form and I would appear and disappear within this psychedelic sort of tunnel. I think since women are vessels for another human life they may understand the union of flesh and spirit in their own being differently than men do (as a prison rather than as a vehicle for change).

 

[x-ray peat]

First of all, your definition of socialism is too narrow. There are many different interpretations of socialism. For instance, Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist. You're afraid that he would have turned the U.S. into a new Societ Union, had he been elected president? The difference between certain ideas of socialism and social democratic ideas are small in many regards, and the term socialism encompasses a hundret different social and economic theories. There is no one definition of socialism. The problem is that the term socialism is used synonymously with totalitarian Stalinism in the U.S.. Not many people outside the U.S. would label the U.S.S.R. a socialist country. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship, just as Nazi Germany.

Let's stick with your narrow definition for the moment - let's say that socialism is that the means of production are socialized but the real power then goes to the state. You and many others here claim that this is the ultimate goal of "the ruling class". Please provide some concrete, specific evidence for this claim. Because frankly, it sounds absolutely ridiculous. Show me some proof that the Koch brothers' and their buddies' secret plan is to have their big buisnesses taken over by an omnipotent, socialist government one day.
Starting in the 1970s the U.S. have gone through several decades of privatization and financial and economic deregulation. The tax code has become less progressive, redistributive measures have been taken back, funding for education and social upward mobility has been cut, and regulations for corporations have been severly reduced. The state has never had less controll over the market than it has now. It has moved away from a sort of Keynesian approach under FDR to a deregulated, neo-liberal, pro-big buisness economy. If the state finally wants to achieve total control over everything, why do they privatize everything?
I can't see the secret plan to transform the U.S. economy into a socialist collective. Rather, the U.S. is moving towards fascism similar to that of Nazi Germany. The state is expanding only in the areas of "defense", militarization, and surveillance. Control isn't excercised throught the communization or nationalization of the economy, but through total control via the military and police. The NSA, CIA, and militarized police aren't much different from the Gestapo. Fascists know that you can't controll and steer the economy, and U.S. corporations would never allow any such tendencies.
´

I am using the dictionary definition of Socialism.

Definition of SOCIALISM

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

What you are describing are capitalist countries that have large safety nets. They are not Socialist. Ironically most of the Scandinavian countries are moving farther and farther away from social democracies to embrace free market capitalism more and more.

Whether the future is Socialist or Fascist doesn't really matter as they are actually very similar in practice. In Fascism the elite still publicly own their companies subject to the control of the government where as in Socialism this ownership is hidden behind the screen of government. In both systems the economy is still centrally controlled and the government is Totalitarian. To think you can have a truly Socialist country without a Dictatorship to enforce it is to completely deny the history of the last century where it has been tried over and over.

As for evidence of a planned collectivist future, whether it’s called Socialism or Fascism, I could only provide a starting point for you to do further research. The evidence is so voluminous that it can take years to go through, and a single forum post won’t convince you of anything. With that said, a good starting point would be the Reece Commission of the US Senate. It exposed the fact that the major US private foundations, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford under the directive of the President were all working toward bringing the country to a Socialist future under oligarchic control. The findings were savaged in the press and quickly forgotten but the work continues to this day.

In the Dodd report to the Reece Committee on Foundations, he gave a definition of the word "subversive", saying that the term referred to "Any action having as its purpose the alteration of either the principle or the form of the United States Government by other than constitutional means." He then argued that the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Endowment were using funds excessively on projects at Columbia, Harvard, Chicago University and the University of California, in order to enable oligarchical collectivism.

United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations - Wikipedia


Here is the 16 page summary

http://brynmawrcollections.org/traces/archive/files/552952f585af5ef916a246c55fcb7a76.pdf

and an interview with the main researcher Norman Dodd

 

[DaveFoster]

Communism is the best social system but it only works in small clans and villages. Communism starts to fall apart the second you're supposed to work for someone who's face you've never seen.

Words have such power.

I wonder if the words 'Communism' and 'community' share the same root?

If so, does that mean communism is a form of governance meant to function on a communal level ?

Would be strange if they went and applied to a whole society or nation.

Wouldn't that be more aptly termed socialism or nationalism?

Or perhaps....national socialism?

One wonders about such things.




Antlantis and other pre deluvian cultures.



They were about how we are spirits imprisoned in the flesh as punsihment for a crime

Certainly national socialism's more successful than Communism, or rather more economically viable.

 

[LUH 3417]

I am using the dictionary definition of Socialism.

Definition of SOCIALISM


What you are describing are capitalist countries that have large safety nets. They are not Socialist. Ironically most of the Scandinavian countries are moving farther and farther away from social democracies to embrace free market capitalism more and more.

Whether the future is Socialist or Fascist doesn't really matter as they are actually very similar in practice. In Fascism the elite still publicly own their companies subject to the control of the government where as in Socialism this ownership is hidden behind the screen of government. In both systems the economy is still centrally controlled and the government is Totalitarian. To think you can have a truly Socialist country without a Dictatorship to enforce it is to completely deny the history of the last century where it has been tried over and over.

As for evidence of a planned collectivist future, whether it’s called Socialism or Fascism, I could only provide a starting point for you to do further research. The evidence is so voluminous that it can take years to go through, and a single forum post won’t convince you of anything. With that said, a good starting point would be the Reece Commission of the US Senate. It exposed the fact that the major US private foundations, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford under the directive of the President were all working toward bringing the country to a Socialist future under oligarchic control. The findings were savaged in the press and quickly forgotten but the work continues to this day.

United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations - Wikipedia


Here is the 16 page summary

http://brynmawrcollections.org/traces/archive/files/552952f585af5ef916a246c55fcb7a76.pdf

and an interview with the main researcher Norman Dodd

Much of USA "libertarianism" is based on Nazi "the bankers and Rockefellers are really Jewish controlled closet socialists" (as if that would be a bad thing!) diotic and patently absurd big lie (and we should only be so lucky that the top capitalist would somehow mysteriously be liberal socialists...)

 

[x-ray peat]

Much of USA "libertarianism" is based on Nazi "the bankers and Rockefellers are really Jewish controlled closet socialists" (as if that would be a bad thing!) diotic and patently absurd big lie (and we should only be so lucky that the top capitalist would somehow mysteriously be liberal socialists...)

They are anything but "liberal." The future Socialist Dictatorship will not be anything like what you have been taught in school by the useful idiots currently running the show. At the top there is no difference between the people behind the Fascists and the people behind the Socialists. It is what is called a Hegelian Dialectic; society is divided into two camps, forced to fight, to then create a new reality that is a combination of the two. When you control both sides you cant lose. That is what seems to be missing in most peoples understanding. The west funded both Stalin and Hitler as documented by Stanford Historian Anthony Sutton. They continue to fund all sides.

You are right though about the big lie and the blaming of the Jews for everything. What you leave out is that the left also blame the Jews and sees them as the power behind Capitalism. The Goldman Sachs bugagboo for the left is just as powerful a lie as the George Soros bugaboo for the right. Jews are purposely given prominent positions in each camp to enforce that belief and have been forced to play this unfortunate role for close to 2,000 years. Go to any campus today and its the left that is leading the BDS movement and the delegitimization of Israel. Why are they so silent on the mass human rights violations throughout the Middle East or in Tibet or in China etc?

 

[x-ray peat]

Jordan Peterson about to be on Tucker Carlson/Fox News. Will post interview later if you missed it

 

[EndAllDisease]

You are right though about the big lie and the blaming of the Jews for everything.

Henry Ford wrote a book called The International Jew - The World's Foremost Problem, which can be found here:
https://ia802707.us.archive.org/16/items/TheInternationalJew_655/TheInternationalJew.pdf

Here's a quote from it:
“(...)the question of the Jews has come to the fore, but like other questions which lend themselves to prejudice, efforts will be made to hush it up as impolitic for open discussion. If, however, experience has taught us anything it is that questions thus suppressed will sooner or later break out in undesirable and unprofitable forms.”
- Henry Ford, The International Jew - The World's Foremost Problem

And of course, it certainly doesn't mean it's true because he wrote the book, but since we cannot know for sure it's important to remain open to the possibility.

Interestingly, somebody wrote to my inbox the other day on this subject:
"Everyone says it's the Illuminati, Bilderbergers, communists, New World Order, elite, Israel, Zionists, deep state, etc. All those really mean, "It's the Jews who worship Lucifer." But if you say who is doing the evil, the ADL will attack you. Judaism follows the Talmud. The Talmud says it is okay for a Jew to kidnap, enslave, rape, sodomize, torture, kill, lie to, cheat, break a contract with, etc. a non-Jew. Not all Jews follow the Talmud, and not all Jews push for a New World Order. So it is not their race, but their religious and political agenda that is a problem. Jews worship Lucifer. The god of the Talmud is Lucifer."