Welfare is really enforced servitude of white to serve black

Nationalism mainly finds justification with Hegel and Howard Bloom. Autonomy of the individual finds justification with Kant. My own point of view is more based on the Law of Moses. That is I put the center of gravity not in the individual nor in the nation but in the Law. But in any case there are some very good points in the idea of stopping the destructive aspects of diversity and welfare etc.

Welfare is really enforced servitude of white to serve black. Diversity is really a way to undermine traditional American values.

The whole Bava Sali thing seems to have puttered out of steam. Still there are unique and special people within that tradition.  I was very impressed with one grandson of Bava Sali, Shimon Buso. But there might be others.The  daughter of Bava Sali, Mrs Buso married  fellow by the name David Buso and that is where the name come from. I am not much into the dynasty thing but in this case it looks valid to me.  My impression is it is worth the time and effort to get a blessing from Shimon Buso. [He is in Jerusalem on Shabat and Netivot during the week.]

The main thing I saw in the whole Bava Sali family was what you could call straight Torah. No "tikunim" or kabalistic stuff.
There are descendants of Reb Yaakov Abuchatzaira also around whom are certainly worthwhile to visit.

Besides that it is entirely possible the Bava Sali thing is still around. I was in Netivot for about  a year and went to Rav Montag's yeshiva for about an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening and it occurs to me today that that was a time that God granted to me a great deal of סייעתא דשמיא help from Heaven concerning the book on Bava Metzia. That is from pages 104 until page 112.

You have to do your own work to find out where the descendants of Bava Sali and Yaakov Abuchatzeira are because I do not know except for Shimon Buso.  

Enlightenment

The problems with the Enlightenment were noted almost as soon as it began. The solution is not clear because the weakening of faith in the Catholic Church seems to have been a major factor(or The Major Factor). Yet the Catholic Church does not seem so great today.
What the Middle Ages had that we lack is the synthesis between Faith and Reason. 




What Lithuanian yeshivas have done is to not reject the Middle Ages nor that unique approach that existed then of combining faith with reason.


Modernity has either fanatical faith without reason, or fanatical reason without faith.

In the Litvak [Lithuanian] Yeshiva world, two things stand as foundations: Rishonim [Mediaeval authorities] and Musar [books of ethics written by Mediaeval Authorities]. 

[I should admit, I have trouble understanding Rishonim. I always find it much better for myself to see what later people (Achronim) wrote about the Rishonim. This began for me right away as soon as I came to learn in yeshivat Shar Yashuv. I find, I never understand Tosphot until I look at the Maharsha, Rav Shach, or  Reb Chaim Soloveitchik's school and then look at Tosphot. Same with Musar. I found traditional books of Musar to be incomprehensible until I looked at the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter. In fact, whenever God grants to me the privilege of opening up a Gemara, usually the first thing I do is to look at the Maharsha and Maharam from Lublin before anything else.]

s42 D major newly edited   s42 in midi

Musar (Books of Ethics). Reb Israel Salanter's idea of making a movement that would concentrate of learning Books of Ethics.

The curious thing about the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter is not just that they came out with different approaches all based on Musar but that each presented their approach as The Right One. In the newer Musar approach most of the aspects that were unique to the Musar movement all got forgotten.

I can not tell what to think of this. After all Musar represents different points of view.

That is even if you go back to the original set of Medieval books some go more with the Rambam Saadia Gaon approach and others with the Ramban [Nachmanides].  Later when Kabalah got thrown in, all the more so the approaches begin to differ,
Once you get to the great Musar yeshivas, Mir, Slobadka, Navardok, Kelm, it gets even more diverse.

What seems to have happened is people settled on one basic approach that they found was workable--Musar and Gemara. And with that every individual will find in Musar what he or she needs to learn from it. That is about the best I could figure out from what I saw. This Musar and Gemara approach also makes sense to me.

Or at least it is the approach that I hope to stick with. [My own approach is more or less this: Gemara Musar, Rav Shach's Avi Ezri, Physics, Math. That is based on the more rational Rambam Saadia Gaon approach to Torah.]

In a nut shell it is hard to explain why Rav Shach's Avi Ezri is so important but basically it is the need to understand Torah beyond extra forms. One needs to get to the essence of Torah.

 But the place for Torah learning from what I can tell is  in  a Litvak yeshiva where you find the spirit of Torah. Maybe Torah VeDaat or Chaim Berlin or some authentic yeshiva. But no fakes. The fake and phony yeshivas destroy the spirit of Torah and one must run from them.

Muslims- right around the 15% mark that the violence begins

I am not thrilled with Muslims and that is that. I see them as a threat to the very survival of the human race, and perhaps all life on earth. There is, as far as I can see, nothing else to discuss. They can convert to the Law of Moses, or Christianity or anything else. Just not Islam. Period.

From what I remember in history is it is in fact right around the 15% mark that the violence begins. Up until that mark, Muslims are the most exemplary of citizens. Then at the 15% the violence begins with the teenagers and  and children that one is reluctant to blame. Then there is a later mark when they take over, and Christians and Jews are expelled and murdered or convert.

The historical pattern seems to always follow the same model. You can see this in their takeover of Christian Spain and Syria and Byzantium.

I believe in freedom of religion. Muslims can convert to any religion they please. Just not Islam.

I am not thrilled with Muslims and that is that. I see them as a threat to the very survival of the human race, and perhaps all life on earth. There is, as far as I can see, nothing else to discuss. They can convert to the Law of Moses, or Christianity or anything else. Just not Islam. Period.

From what I remember in history is it is in fact right around the 15% mark that the violence begins. Up until that mark, Muslims are the most exemplary of citizens. Then at the 15% the violence begins with the teenagers and  and children that one is reluctant to blame. Then there is a later mark when they take over, and Christians and Jews are expelled and murdered or convert.

The historical pattern seems to always follow the same model. You can see this in their takeover of Christian Spain and Syria and Byzantium.