The Musar movement [and in a wider context the Litvak Yeshiva] has the advantage of representing authentic Torah.

 There is reality behind the words of the books of Musar of the disciples of Israel Salanter. It is nor the words of their books, but rather there is the reality behind the words. As the Roman saying goes: "Acta non verba" (Actions, not words). When I learn or hear the Or Israel or Madragat HaAdam there is some aspect of fear of God or trust in God that enters my soul. The reason is that these people  worked themselves to come to fear of God and trust in God. 

The Musar movement [and in a wider context the Litvak Yeshiva] has the advantage of representing authentic Torah. Not just intellectually, but rather in the whole spirit of Torah that permeates the Litvak yeshiva. The rest of the religious world seems very false to me. The façade of Torah, the whole showing off is very foreign to Torah. But more so. It is like the pig that stretches out its hoofs to show that it is kosher, but hides that fact that it des not chew the cud. Or like the idol that was dug up on Mount Grizim which showed that the Samaritans were in fact serving idols. But it was hidden. 

China stealing proprietary secrets that is troublesome.

 The feat of the rover of China that landed on Mars and deployed successfully would be more impressive if the feat had been accomplished without stealing American technology. Or at least they might have mentioned their gratitude to the USA for much technology that was transferred legally to them, and also they might be upfront and say openly they hold from the Marxist doctrine that there is no such thing as copy rights or rights of a capitalistic country as to withhold their secrets from China. After all to a Marxists private property is theft by definition. But at least an acknowledgement of gratitude might make sense, Thus they hold stealing from the USA is a virtue. So why should they be embarrassed? They should be proud that they stole.

Elon Musk acknowledged his debt to Russian designs for the raptor engine. At least giving credit where credit is due.[Even though he did not seal anything. Rather it is the theft aspect of the China stealing proprietary secrets that is troublesome.

 normalization of deviance. That is something that creeps into  straight Torah that should not. That is something that hitchhikes off of real Torah. That is the reason the Gra signed his name on the famous letter of excommunication in order not to let any trace of the Sitra Achra [Dark Side] have a foothold in Torah. You might be aware of it and yet you get used to it. You get to even expect it. Then one day it comes back to bite you. That is we need vigilance to keep out the Sitra Achra in the first place 

a command to learn the wonders of God which are as much hidden in His creation [Physics]

Every time I say the ten psalms that Rav Nahman pointed out for Tikun HaBrit, I am struck by how many times it is mentioned, "Remember His wonders, his miracles and the laws of His mouth." To me this seems like a command to learn the wonders of God which are as much hidden in His creation [Physics] as there are in the revealed Torah. [This idea is mentioned in psalm 77 a few times and also in psalm 105 --also a few times.] You can see this also in the Rishonim that follow the Obligations of the Hearts and the Rambam.

I realize that Christianity is controversial. That is why I do not comment on it much. My own views are likely to be totally unlike anyone else, so why should I write just to annoy people? My views are too far from traditional Christianity to be acceptable to any Christian. And way too sympathetic towards Jesus to be acceptable to anyone that is against Christianity. 

However, it still seems right to me to mention Rav Avraham Abulafia in this regard. That is at least what he writes חותם של יום ששי the seal of the sixth day referring to the sephera of yesod. [ Also: האירו קשריו] That in addition to the Ari at the end of Sefer Breishit he says more or less the same idea.  

Rav Nahman.

 I was in the Na Nach place again today [Breslov] and they were learning a bit of the book of Rav Natan [Collection of Laws] based on the book of Rav Nahman [Collections of Rav Nahman or the LeM as I call it for short.]It is always possible to find fault and something to criticize in the writings of Rav Nahman. But instead, I try to find some way of understanding what Rav Nahman means or his disciple Rav Natan.

איזהו חכם? מי שמיישב דברי חכמים Who is wise? He who finds a way to answer for the words of the wise. [I forget where I saw this statement in the Gemara]

So without further ado let me say what the issue is. Rav Natan is basing himself on the LeM vol II perek 12. [and LeM I:9]. But he adds a bit that is not in the LeM. He says a person was created to reveal the glory of God. I was wondering about this. And after walking outside a bit, I realized that Rav Natan is basing himself on the idea of the Ari [Isaac Luria] that everything was created to reveal the traits of God. [the seven lower sepherot --including malchut which is also known as the Glory of God.] 

You might look in the writings of Rav Moshe Chaim Lutzato to see this expanded a bit.

[This brings up another issue that I might mention. A fellow I know in who also hands out in Breslov Isaac also found it hard to see what is going on in the books of Rav Nahman. So I explained to him that Rav Nahman is assumed a knowledge of Gemara and Musar and the Ari in what he writes. But he also wants his idea to bring good advice to those that do not follow his ideas. But he is not trying to explain the basic structure of Torah ethics.--the big picture. To get the big picture one has to learn Musar.\

"Native Americans" had wiped out the first civilization in Ohio. [Look up the Hopewell civilization.]

 Careful analysis of the burial mounds in Ohio show the  Indians that were there when encountered by the first European American were not "native Americans." They had wiped out the first groups of homo sapiens that had an extensive civilization on in Ohio. [Look up the Hopewell civilization.]  In any case, I think a deep study of the history of Ohio helps to get a more balanced picture of the American Indians than the overly romanticized versions. This goes back to the basic problem of all news reporting and all history.  History is the art of getting people to become outraged at sad events. They way this is done is not by only by lies, but by reporting half the truth. [And sometimes by lies.]

People playing loose and fast with truth in fact gave me motivation to spend more time on Math and Physics.  If I am going to spend time on study, I would rather that it be something I can depend on its veracity. [I also will try to learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach because even in subject like Torah, there is an objective right an wrong. This is because morality is objective. The best defense of this idea you can see in Michel Huemer on why he does not follow Ayn Rand. [And that bit of writing by Huemer is  a masterpiece.] But the idea of objective morality is well defended also in Hegel, and in the Kant Friesian school of Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross.]

Here is a proof of objective morality by Huemer (Reason, Objectivity, and Goodness): 

(1) There are moral propositions.(2) So they are each either true or false. (by law of excluded middle) (3) And it's not that they're all false. Surely it is true, rather than false, that Josef Stalin's activities were bad. (Although some communists would disagree, we needn't take their view seriously, and moreover, even they would admit some moral judgement, such as, "Stalin was good.")(4) So some moral judgements correspond to reality. (from 2,3, and the correspondence theory of truth).(5) So moral values are part of reality. (which is objectivism)

[Huemer gives also a larger sort of defense that you have to paste together. That is: There are universals. Moral principles are universals as applied to ethics. How do you know universals exist? Here is a proof by Huemer:  ."..yellow is a universal. It is something that lemons, the sun, and school buses, among other things, all have in common. Yellow is 'abstract' in the sense that it is not a particular object with a particular location; you will not bump into yellow, just sitting there by itself, on the street. Nevertheless, yellow certainly exists. Here is an argument for that:

1.	The following statement is true:      (Y) Yellow is a color.
2.	The truth of (Y) requires that yellow exist.
3.	Therefore, yellow exists. Some philosophers (the 'nominalists') say that the only thing multiple particulars have in common is that we apply the same word or idea to them.(54) Here is an argument against that: 4. Yellow is a color, and lemons have it. 5. No word or idea is a color, nor do lemons 'have' words or ideas. 6. Therefore, yellow is not a word or an idea.

I should add that moral principles are what Kant calls Synthetic a priori. They can not be derived by the five senses. That is Hume's law he can not derive an "ought" from an "is". But not all knowledge is derived by the five senses; The idea that we can is "Empiricism--roughly, the idea that all 'informative' knowledge, or knowledge of the mind-independent, language-independent world, must derive from sense perception". Here, is a better-known counter-example to empiricism. {Laurence BonJour } Nothing can be both entirely red and entirely green. How do I know that? Note that the question is not how I came upon the concepts 'red' and 'green', nor how I came to understand this proposition. The question is why, having understood it, I am justified in affirming it, rather than denying it or withholding judgment.