The essential flaw in China is the lack of people's confidence in Communism and totalitarian structures of government. That is to say, it is not external measures or lack of power and genius on the part of China that is the Achilles heel. Rather the very fact that Communism is not believable to the average man. Tell to the average guy that whatever he owns is theft and exploitation. Most will not believe that.

This was the reason for the fall of the USSR. Not from external pressure, but from simple lack of confidence in a 19th century variation of some obscure economic theory. '

[Das Capital by Marx would sit in book stores in the USSR for years collecting thick layers of dust.]

Robert E Lee

 I think the best way to understand the Civil War is by the principle of separation of powers of Montesquieu. I mean to say that even though this principle is used in understanding of the separate branches of government (Executive Judicial, Legislative), I think the exact same principle applies to why the founding fathers gave only limited powers to the Federal government and all other powers were reserved for the States.

So they saw the States as essentially in the same sort of category as a separate branch of government that had all other powers that were not specifically given to the Congress or the other branches of Federal government.

So the question was  if the Federal government was given in the Constitution the power to prevent a state from leaving the Union. Since it would be hard to make such a case, Robert E Lee concluded that the South was right.

[I have heard other arguments but they do not seem to carry much weight. especially once the South a]saw that the North was violating the Supreme Court's ruling about runaway slaves, it was clear the north was actively violating the Constitution.]

Heisenberg when he really wanted to know, he could easily work out the value.

Heisenberg.  There was a very influential thesis by Paul Rose that Heisenberg tried to help the Nazis get the A Bomb. I mentioned before that I think that clearly he did the opposite. This paper by Carl Meyer shows in detail what I have thought for a long time--that Heisenberg easily could work out how much U235 was needed, and yet always over estimated it in conversations to show that it was impossible for the Germans to get that much. [Han complained to him that his estimates varied from 50 kilos to 2 tons.] Albert Speer specifically asked Heisenberg about it and came away saying the Heisenberg convinced him that it was impossible.[Besides all this, it ought to be noted that the paper by Paul Rose has a flawed analysis of how to get to the critical mass. It was not written by an expert in atomic fission.] 

Besides that, in his 1939 paper, he ignored the actual question that was asked to him "If it is possible to make a bomb out of Uranium?" Instead, he spent the entire paper discussing making a nuclear reactor to create energy. [He did mention twice the idea of explosives in his 41 page paper- with no approximations, nor math. He just said pure U-235 would be needed for that.]

But at Farm Hall, when asked how much was needed? He gave a lecture on Aug 14 1945 and came up with the 6.2 square centimeters value. I.e. when he really wanted to know, he could easily work out the value. When he did not want to know, and wanted to discourage others, he came up with fanatic amounts that were impossible to get.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/02/08/heisenberg-in-copenhagen-an-exchange/

 

 Happily the Covid hoax is is getting exposed in Australia and I hope the rest of the Western world will soon follow. Of course the purpose was never to save people from a case of a mild flu, but rather to get them to take the vaccine in order to lower the white  population.\

However if people had taken the advice of Rav Nahman who warned about the medical profession they might have been saved from the hoax. Also  my mother told me many times, never to take any drug that has not been on the market for at least fifty years.

 Even though I feel the herem of the Gra is still valid, I think that if you see the actual language of the doc shows that Rav Nahman was not included.  But I can still see some of the flaws in Breslov. Rav Nachman is one thing and Breslov is something else. In fact you can see in almost any Breslov group, group traits which are shared traits among all Brelov, whether new comers or Breslov of several generations.

And it just not work well with being in the context of the straight Torah approach of the Gra. 

Imean that within the context of a litvak yeshiva and Musar, the advice and ideas of Rav Nahman ae vary valuable. But when people take him by himself and the rest of Torah as a footnote, then it seems to have some problems.

The point that is important to see is that there is a basic set of values of Torah --good midot as defined by Torah itself, learning Torah, fear of God which come into reality in the Litvak yeshiva. You might find some great advice in Rav Nahman about other issues, but this basic set of values tends to be lackinh anywhere except in the context of the those that follow the Gra