When Rav Nahman talks about Torah scholars that are demons (note 1) it is not possible to say that he means this as an allegory or just some way of putting them down. The reason is that you can see that he believed quite literally in the existence of demons. [As you can see in his 13 stories.] So he must be talking about possession.

The idea is  that as people grow older they change. So are they the whole time exactly the same person,-? Or is it that at some point they have changed so much, that they are no longer the same person? When a caterpillar changes into a butterfly, is it really the same thing? Or has it changed so much, that the very essence of the being has changed?

So is is possible that  Rav Nahman is saying about many Torah scholars that they have changed so much so from their human essence that they actually become תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים [Torah scholars that are demons.]

[I am pretty sure that most people can tell this type. It is no secret.]

This I must add does not refer to Litvak sages who are simply trying to learn and keep Torah. The difference is easy to tell since in the Litvak world there is no scamming or falsifying what the Torah says or means. 

(note 1) Lem I:12, LeM I:28 

 x28 mp3 file  

x28 midi  

x28 nwc [noteworthy composer file]

 It really ought to go without saying, but still I think it is worthwhile to mention that the ideas in Rav Nahman's LeM come within a certain context. Thus without a basic background in Gemara and Musar, things that he says often are taken out of context. Thus it is easy to see how when people get involved in the teachings of Rav Nahman, sometimes things go a bit onto some tangent which does not seem to be anywhere near the original intensions of Rav Nahman. 

So what I am thinking is that if one has merited to be in a straight Litvak yeshiva where the context and meaning of Torah is crystal clear then he ought to stay there. And learn the ideas and books of Rav Nahman as an addition to Musar. And if there is no Litvak yeshiva nearby, then to make one.

So what is straight Torah? That is not so easy to explain but more or less it is the kind of attitude that I saw in the Mir in NY which could be summed up as follows: "We have no opinions except what the Gemara says." It more or less is the idea that opinions expressed in the Gemara or Rishonim count as legitimate Torah, Anything that does not fit within that context is out of bounds.

Rav Nahman from Breslov did not hold from learning philosophy.

 Rav Nahman from Breslov did not hold from learning philosophy. That even includes the Guide and the Ibn Ezra or even other books of great sages of Israel. Rav Nahman held they were are all not very good since it is best to depend on faith, and go with simple faith. Thus when I became aware of the opinion of some geonim and rishonim about the importance of Physics and Metaphysics, I choose to go into Physics. Metaphysics might be worthwhile in my opinion, but that fact that Rav Nahman was against leaning it influenced my decision to look into it as an area of interest, but not to study it in an intense way.

[I mean that philosophy is more than just any old area or interest but still  I take it that Rav Nahman was probably right that it seems impossible to get it right. Dr Kelley Ross's web site on the Kant/Fries approach was certainly helpful for me to clear up some major issues and questions but I still think that Rav Nahman was right that philosophy is best avoided,

One reason to learn a bit of philosophy is what Steven Weinberg said--the main advantage of government for most of human history was to save one from other governments. Not to provide benefits. Same with philosophy. The main advantage of philosophy is to save one from other philosophies.

And that applies to people that imagine that they are immune because they do not learn philosophy at all. That simply makes them susceptible to half baked ideas that sound good at first with their poison hidden. 

 Psychology is pseudo science. How do you know? Because there is no conceivable observation that could refute it. [It is not falsifiable.] Therefore the entire thing is poisonous imaginations of sick minds. Verified by other sick minds. The whole thing is a farce.

Another fact about psychology  is that the targets keep moving according to the fashion of the times.

That is one observation. But there are many indications that the whole thing is a horrible scam based on the fact that people love to talk about sex and it is a way get them to pay money to do so,

 Heisenberg I believe tried to sabotage the Nazi effort to make an atom bomb. The proof is two fold. One is that in 1939 he was specifically asked to write a paper on the question if a chain reaction with Uranium is feasible, and if so how much Uranium would be needed. His entire paper side swiped the question, and dealt only with the question of using uranium as an energy source. But that is just one half of the issue. Later after the war he was interred with other physicists, and when they heard about the success of the USA is creating a atom bomb, they wondered how much uranium was needed. Heisenberg did not know, but set off to making the calculations. Then in a short time he came up with the right answer. That shows that five years before that when he was asked that exact question by Nazis, he did not even bother making the calculations at all, but on purpose sidelined the entire question. 

[But the Nazis did  have a few other secret bases where they were working on the same idea.]

Civil War. Truth always rises to the surface, no matter how long it takes.

The riots makes me wonder about the Civil War. I mean to say that the whole abolition thing seems a bit off because slavery is in the Torah. There are Jewish slaves and gentile slaves. So the question whether slavery is just or not seems settled. But I can also see the point of Abraham Lincoln in wanting to keep the Union together.   

Jewish Slaves go free after six years. Gentile slaves go free only with money, a document, or injury. כסף שטר או ראשי אברים.

This would settle once and for all the question about the Civil War. It was wrong. And modern events prove it. Truth always rises to the surface, no matter how long it takes.