So clearly Jesus was what you would call Caucasian.

I do not recall which book off hand, but I recall reading in some book of ancient history that the peoples around the Mediterranean sea were white and blue eyes. Specially the Greeks.
[I do not recall if it was Herodotus or Thucydides's Peloponnese War. Or maybe some general history written by some Romans. It was so long ago I do not recall where I saw this.] In the Mishna it says openly that Israel are not dark nor albino, but medium. I.e probably along the lines of what your see in Iranians today. [I also don't recall where in the Mishna. Maybe it was in Nedarim.] And that makes sense, since after all Israel did originally come from Iraq [Mesopotamia]. So clearly Jesus was what you would call Caucasian.
[In the movie Alexander the Great you see the ancient Greeks shown as white Caucasian. Thought that is no proof, still it in fact is exactly what was recorded in ancient history. But my reading of ancient history was a long time ago. So where I saw this could have been almost any ancient source.]
[Besides this there are plenty of murals that show Romans as white. And in the Egyptian pyramids all the pictures there showing the ancient Egyptians show them as being white. Later invasions changed things, but that is how people are the Mediterranean Sea looked then.

So I see this loose alliance of the Litvak yeshivas

Ever since learning about the war between Sparta and Athens I have been aware of the importance of alliances. [Sparta only conquered Athens between it had the rest of the Greek city states on its side.]
In any case, because of this I tend to look at Lithuanian yeshivas in a positive light, even though I would prefer if they would be going more by the Gra.
I mean, clearly the top is Ponovitch, with Brisk a close second. But all the Litvak yeshivas are very good as much as they are going with the straight Torah approach if the Gra.
So I see this loose alliance of the Litvak yeshivas as great thing as being the one and only source of accurate information as to what the Torah actually holds and says.
[My own approach, is simply is to try to learn Physics Math and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach as much as possible. I never managed to last very long in the amazing world of straight, unadulterated Torah of the Litvak yeshivas. But for the short time I was there, I got a taste of the "Real Thing" which was nice. More than nice. Awesome you could say.]

The white race is hell bent on suicide,

The white race is hell bent on suicide, and woe to anyone that stands in their way. The worst sin, of course, is to have white children. The least a white person can do is to have mulatto children. Even better is not to have children at all,-- in order not to perpetuate the sin of beauty and grace. [Ah, who can fail to see the glories of mud? Oh muses, give to me the gift of song of the glories of mud. Oh wondrous mud. Beautiful mud. Mud,O mud, beautiful beyond compare! Who can extol the wonders of mud. Mush with mud, and mud with mush, the breakfast cereal of champions.

With John Locke and the American Constitution there is a basic principle that all men are created equal. . People are born with different DNA. And the humans have never been equal and never will be.

 With John Locke and the American Constitution there is a basic principle that all men are created equal. . People are born with different DNA. And the humans have never been equal and never will be.
The way to resolve this conflict is the original idea of equality in the French Revolution is that people should be equal under the law. That is there should not be one set of law that applies to one class and a different-set that applies to a different class. But not that all people are born with equal talents or traits.

But if the French Revolution contributed any original idea of good idea that already was not contained in the American Constitution is hard to know. To me it seems all based on Rousseau which is really half baked place to start from. [The General Will as opposed to objective morality and objective rights of individuals.]

Leonard Nelson wanted to have a new beginning of the Socratic approach. But that would be hard to duplicate. Especially because of so many levels and sub levels in the Socratic dialogues.

The main question about Socrates is how did he know what line of questioning would lead the person he was addressing to the exact opposite conclusion what he started out with?

How can you learn a method that seems to depend on intuition?

However on the other hand Hegel thought that any concept, if one thinks deeply enough about it has to lead to some opposite place from where it starts out from until by force it is lead to a higher level. And then that same process starts again until one reaches Absolute Spirit.
So perhaps it was more than intuition of Socrates but an ability to probe into the facts.

Police Lives Matter.

What seems to be the problem with the religious world? (*Besides the fact that they are all crazy.)

What seems to be the problem with the religious world? (*Besides the fact that they are all crazy.) The answer seems to be staring me in the face, though I could not see it for a long time. It is a Midrash that brings the statement of R. Meir about learning Torah for its own sake brings one to great things? They ask "But how can that be? For R Yohanan said, 'One ought to learn Torah even not for its own sake because by that one will come to learn Torah for its own sake.' And the Midrash answers (that question of the contradiction between R. Yochanan and R Meir) that R Meir was saying like R Akiva that one who learns Torah not for its own sake, it is better of he had never been born. (I.e. the Gemara concludes that this is an argument between Tenaim, not between R Yochana and Amora and R Meir. That is an argument between an amora of the Gemara and a tana of the mishna is not possible.])
Now if there had been any distinctions between kinds of  "not for its own sake," then that would have been the obvious answer. So clearly the sages did not see any distinctions. Whether it so for money or whatever the reasons maybe, it is all the same to them. To R Yohanan it is OK and to R Meir and R Akiva it is not.
So of the law is like R Meir and R Akiva, that would seem to explain the issue.
The custom is to make differences between types of "not for its own sake" in order to excuse the custom of extortion of the state to make the state pay for yeshivas. That seems to be a problem