w92 B Flat major

Whites did not make it because of advantages.

Africa had resource advantages, unlimited agriculture and minerals  While no other land was as desolate as Northern Europe--nothing but solid ground and trees along with lots of ice. That is all Europe had until Whites came.  So it is lack of advantages that led Europe to success. In fact I have asked myself why did Whites go to Europe in the first place? Were there not lots of resources in southern lands where the human race came from? Perhaps they were driven out? That is the only answer that makes sense to me. So whites made it in spite of adversity.
So what I predict is that now also they will succeed even they are being driven out and people seek to destroy them. They will succeed because of adversity.


Here is a nice example what Western Civilization has created:


Take your pick of pics of riots and attempts to destroy American cities to show the contrast,
For example: Take this picture for a prime example of "Black is Beautiful".

Which one do you prefer?

The sages said: one who does a kindness for whom that does not recognize it is as if they threw a stone at Markulis. If slaves have no gratitude for being freed, it would have been better not to free them.

Often you hear Christians say that slavery is inherently unjust.But such a stupid mistake can not have happened in the Middle Ages when people like Aquinas were rigorous and logical. But since the Christian world has forgotten about learning the Torah with painstaking exactitude they have fallen into a really ridiculous position and now are reaping the rewards.\
For Christians believe that a law of the Torah is wrong and unjust. In the Civil War, the North was highly committed to this even to the degree of murdering 1/2 a million Southerners based on the proposition that the North knew better. [As if murder is not also  a prohibition.]
Now this issue has nothing to do with the question if Christians are obligated to keep the Law of God. That has nothing to do with it. Rather the issue is they are saying that a law of the Torah is unjust and that they know better than God what is right and wrong.

Just for a reminder to myself and others that might have forgotten about the subject let me just mention here that there are two kinds of slaves. A Hebrew slave and a gentile slave. The verses in Exodus after the Ten Commandments refer to buying a Hebrew slave. The subject of a gentile slave comes up in other places. But in short the idea that a slave goes free after 6 years is referring to a Hebrew slave. A gentile slave never goes free unless his master frees him by receiving money [not anything the value of money, but actual silver coins. Not even dollar bills which are in the eyes of the Torah just documents שטרי הדיוט. A Hebrew slave can be freed if his master accepts either money or objects that have the value of money]--or he can write a document that frees the slave.
So I suggest to people that they should not submit. Do not let the slaves take over.
The sages said:
one who does a kindness for whom that does not recognize it is as if they threw a stone at Markulis.
If slaves have no gratitude for being freed, it would have been better not to free them. [Markulis is a predecessor to Mercury but his worship was different. The way of service was to throw stones at it.]

And if they come to attack you, I recommend to take the most drastic measures possible to protect your person, home and property. Stand your ground and never give in. Never accept their narrative as if you did something wrong. Giving in a little now will mean giving in a lot more later on.

[Also I want to recommend to people to stop looking at the news and getting upset. Rather get a shot gun and sit home and learn Torah. The reason a shot gun is important is that it is easier to hit a target with a shot gun than with any other kind of weapon.]

The South was right.

The South was right. על אלה רגזה הארץ על עבד כי ימלוך the verse [Proverbs] says that "Because of what shakes the ground? Because of a slave when he rules." So you see the problem with having a slave rule. This I saw in the last presidency, and for that reason stopped looking at the news. For when a slave rules everything is destroyed.


However I admit that keeping the Union together was important. But to wage war on the South because of an unjust reason makes no sense. It would have been better to negotiate their reentry into the Union. Or else perhaps just leave things alone. After all the USA and Canada are neighbors. Would it have made sense to go to war with Canada just because they did not want to be part of the Union?


Besides that you can wonder if any slaves are actually free? The Federal government was never endowed with power to  take private property at random. The Congress can tax but simply to declare a persons property to no longer belong to him is not among the powers given to the Federal Government. (Nor does an amendment to free them apply when the South was forced to agree. Being forced to agree is not the same thing as agreeing.) Slaves can be set free by a document signed by the owner or by money or by injury of limb. But other than that they remain slaves.
And I want to add that the whole idea of slavery being inherently wrong seems false since now blacks are enslaving whites. [So clearly they do not think slavery is wrong.]] Not just making whites work for blacks by means of the welfare state, but now literally trying to enslave the whites. So the whole idea of slavery being wrong is not an sincere argument. Of course I think this was their intention all along as they told me openly many years ago.
Of course if whites submit, then they deserve what they get. Rather it makes more sense to resist. Do not submit under any circumstances whatsoever.

[I would think that there ought to be laws that people can protect their property. What is after all the point of the second amendment of not for that very reason. Not to grant a right, but rather to recognize a natural right a person has to property their person and property?

An idol that broke apart by itself, and the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication

In tractate Avoda Zara 41b there is an argument between R Yochanan and Reish Lakish about an idol that broke apart by itself. [I.e. by an earthquake or some other cause outside of just this: that its own worshipers or other idolaters broke it.]
Reish Lakish says its is OK. [That it its pieces are no longer considered to be part of an idol which is forbidden to receive benefit from].
On this the gemara asks from this Mishna: R. Yose said a Israeli who finds an idol grinds it into pieces or throws it into the sea. The sages disagreed and asked if just grinding is enough some can find the dust and use it. and we know that is not good from the verse לא ידבק בידך מאומה מן החרם ["..so that nothing from the herem will stick with you."] that says one can not derive any benefit from an idol.


For this reason it seems to me that the religious world that worships people ought to be avoided. It is not enough not to worship idols but also to derive no benefit from them. This would explain the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication [herem] since the laws of excommunication in fact entail this exact point.
The fact that this universally ignored does not make it invalid. Laws of the Torah are objective morality--that means not dependent on what people think or do.

The general approach of the Gra was no matter what the troubles are the answer is always just one thing: to learn Torah. This I would have to agree with even though I would expand the definition of learning Torah to include Physics and Metaphysics. That is well defined in the Guide for the Perplexed as referring to these subjects of the ancient Greeks. [Also on the first page of the Obligations of the Heart.] Metaphysics is not mysticism.

So the minimum would be to get through the two Talmuds, and the basic Physics up to String Theory. Metaphysics though I have a hard time to figure out what ought to be included. I am thinking besides Aristotle's books to include Kant and Leonard Nelson.

The religious world is a kind of Dark Side

The major problem I see in the religious world is a kind of Dark Side (Sitra Achra) aspect that seems to have settled on it and leaves its odor on everything. To some degree I thought I could avoid that by learning straight Torah in two great yeshivas the Mir in NY and Shar Yashuv.

But that turned out not to be as effective as I had thought. The reason is the verse in psalms סביב רשעים יתהלכון [round about go the wicked]. That is the Sitra Achra.

So as one tries to come to straight pure Torah as is learned in the Mir or Ponovitch, or any of the great Litvak yeshivas, there is this problem that holiness is surrounded by the Dark Side. And even if you manage to get inside the straight Torah world, the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) has anyway made its nest there.

What one might do is simply to get the essentials and go through them as best he can on his own. That would be the two Talmuds (with Tosphot and Maharsha on one, and the two side commentaries on the Yerushalmi]. [Or just even straight with no commentary at all in order to at least get through material at least once.] Then Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and Rav Haim of Brisk's Hidushei HaRambam. Those two books give one  a basic idea of how to get into the depths of the Talmud.

[I have mentioned before this that Rav Nahman of Breslov noted the problem with Torah scholars that are demons in the LeM I:12 and I:28. He hints to this also in LeM I:8. However the point here is bit different. He I am saying that as a result of Torah scholars that are demons the whole religious world is infected. So the cure is not simple. Normally one would go to  a straight Litvak Yeshiva based on the Gra in order to learn authentic Torah, not Torah of the Sitra Achra (Dark Side.) However it is nowadays hard to avoid the Sitra Achra even there.]