People that think Marxism was meant to bring prosperity and happiness to people have never read the poetry of Marx. But the actual way the Communists Manifesto is stated it sounds as if it is meant for happiness. Marx openly acknowledges the tremendous power of capitalism to create an abundance of good. But he also claims that that is just one last stage before communism in which the middle man the owner of the factory will be eliminated and the workers will have the full share of their labor. To him the factory owner is extracting excess value from the workers. [Based on the labor Theory of Value that the value something has is a result of how much labor went into making it. But that is simply not the case. The value something has is how much you want it. Air has lots of value to me even though no one put any effort into making it.]

That is a cleaver way of getting people to imagine that they have been victimized and the best solution is to kill the rich.

But the real intent I think is contained in the poetry of Marx -that is to destroy everything.

 x20 F Minor

x20 midi  

x20 nwc

So natural law is not the same thing as according to natural desire.

 Without Aristotle or Saadia, or Aquinas mentioning it in those particular passages that deal with specific sins, I believe they are all fitting natural law with their larger system of things having a goal or purpose. So what would not be natural law would be what does not go towards that purpose of being human. [They explain that as being basically what we would say is attachment with God.]

So natural law is not the same thing as according to natural desire.

[I am mentioning this because it is the source of John Locke's "Natural rights" which is a different way of stating the Ten Commandments. That is Thou Shalt Not Steal is the same thing stated in a different way of the fact that people have a right to their own property.

peaceful protesters".

 "Mostly" peaceful protesters". The Titanic was "mostly" unsinkable. How about giving a ride to the protesters on an airplane that "mostly" flies? Or a boat that "mostly" floats?

attachment with God [Devekut] is in fact a major goal of the Torah.

I think that the essence of Torah is clear from the context. If you look at the Torah itself it has a structure like a Mozart Symphony.  It has the first climax [which is is sometimes repeated depending on the conductor]. The first climax of the Torah --that everything is leading up to is the Ten Commandments. [I might note  that the minor climax --the Ten Commandments is in fact repeated later, but not in the same way as in a Mozart symphony. Another difference is the Torah has five movements, not four.] 

Then the final climax is of course the entrance of Israel into the Land of Canaan.

Also there is fear, love and attachment with God which is the purpose of the commandments.

This is stated openly in the verses. "You should do the commandments in order to love and fear and be attached to God." (Paraphrasing) [This is stated in many verses in Deuteronomy.]

So my contention is that attachment with God [Devekut] is in fact a major goal of the Torah. The Torah itself says that the commandments themselves are meant to bring one to attachment with God.

So what do you do with many places where it is said that learning Torah is worth more than all teh other commandments put together? [The mishna from Peah that everyone says right away in the morning right after the blessing on the Torah.]

You have to say that learning Torah is the major way of coming to become attached with God but the learning it in itself is not the final goal. The goal is the attachment.

[But as Rav Nahman pointed out there can be "Ribui Or" ("too much light"). So it is hard to know clearly how to limit oneself in this regard.]

The way to understand this "devakut" I think is only through the idea of Kelley Ross [the Kant Friesian School] of non intuitive immediate knowledge. It is a type of knowledge that is not emotion, not sense perception and not reason. A kind of knowledge the type that Plato describes--.\

I am not trying to avoid the question of how to come to true Devakut. It seems that it is a combination of good midot, learning Torah and Rav Nahman's idea of speaking with God as one talks with a friend, and being in Israel.

The forbidden relations of Leviticus [18 and 20]

 The forbidden relations of Leviticus [18 and  20] are among the most serious things in the Bible. They get up there with murder and idolatry. Together they make up the list of three things one must give up his life in order not to transgress. [I.e. in such a situation where one is given a choice]. There are plenty of other forbidden relations in Deuteronomy, but they are mere prohibitions. Not laws with the death penalty attached to them.

[There are exceptions which I ought to mention. My note above was just meant to give a general idea. Some exceptions are a menstruating woman. That is there is Leviticus, but without the death penalty. ]

[Maybe if people would learn the Bible, there would not be so much confusion about these issues.]

 In spite of the fact that Rav Nahman of Uman and Breslov had amazing insights into human life and Torah I would not recommend joining any Breslov group. Rather to get to understand authentic straight Torah, there is no where are great as pretty much any Litvak yeshiva based on the path of the Gra and Rav Shach. Only within the context of authentic Torah do the insights of Rav Nahman add depth and understanding. But his path does not stand alone;-- and also when it is taken alone, it tends to open the door to negative things.