Hello,


More of my philosophy about the study that reveals the Richest people are never the most talented and more..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..


I invite you to read the following interesting article:

A 40-Year Scientific Study Reveals the Richest People Are Never the Most Talented (and Why That's a Really Good Thing)Yep: The smartest, most talented people almost never reach the highest peaks of success.

Read more here:

https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/a-40-year-scientific-study-reveals-richest-people-are-never-most-talented-and-why-thats-a-really-good-thing.html

So as you have just noticed by reading the above interesting article that a 40-Year scientific study reveals the Richest people are never the most talented, but it says more precisely that intelligence, skill, and hard work will certainly get you far in
richness and success, but the most successful people are never the most talented, since an element of luck is evolved, and this element of luck is mostly seizing a "lucky" opportunity, like being at the right place at the right time, meeting the right
person, reacting to an opportunity in the right way.

More of my philosophy about capitalism and about the rich and more..

I invite you to look at the following french video that is
talking about capitalism and the rich:

Deviens riche ! | Streetphilosophy | ARTE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4I5bFIK6Go

I think i am smart, and i have just looked at the above video,
and i think that the women in the above video is not talking correctly,
since she is saying that when a person possess billions of dollars, in a world where many people struggle because they do not have much money, it is an immoral person, and she is talking like the following article,
so i invite you to read it:

It’s basically just immoral to be rich

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/its-basically-just-immoral-to-be-rich

So now i will answer this philosophical question, so i think the
defects of the above article is that he is wanting to manage money
and wealth of the rich by much more equalizing in a society, but i think that it is not the correct way, since you can understand capitalism by looking at for example the Financial sector, so you can understand more capitalism and the mechanism of
diversity that brings "resilience" and that needs a good allocation of resources in capitalism by reading my following thoughts:

The biggest benefit of finance, is to provide opportunities to people,
in the sense that in a world where there is no finance, the only way to
start a company is to be born rich or to have saved for a long time. In
a world where finance works well, the people with talent can actually
start firms and reach their dreams without waiting to either have saved
the money, or be lucky and receive it from their parents, and once you
create this opportunity, you will have the most talented people take
advantage of those opportunities, which favors growth, which favors a
good allocation of resources and, ultimately, innovation. But we have to
know what is the problem with finance, and here it is

So then you are understanding from the above that capitalism needs
a good allocation of resources, since efficiency also says that giving
much more money or making rich the talented people that want to efficiently invest in projects an ideas such as in capitalism is also an efficient allocation of resources, since also the talented people know how to efficiently distribute again and invest
again efficiently there big money and richness in other projects and good ideas, so capitalism brings this kind of efficiency, so then this means that it is not correct to say that when a person possess billions of dollars, in a world where many people
struggle because they do not have much money, it is an immoral person, since saying so is also extremism and archaism of Class Struggle, and talking about Class Struggle here is my thoughts about Class Struggle:

And today i will talk about Class struggle of Communism and Marxism,
so i will first ask a philosophical question of:

Is Class struggle "valid" and a good thing to have ?

I will say that there is not one type of Class struggle, because
we can have "levels" of Class Struggle, such as the Class Struggle of Communism and Marxism under Mao Zedong in China, and i think it is logically inferred in Marxism from the fact that there is antagonistic contradictions that are contradiction between
the Chinese communists and Chinese bourgeoisie and between the imperialist camp and the socialist camp, so we can also consider that this antagonistic contradictions also comes from the fact that we are genetically predisposed to being smart or having a
good memory efficiency etc. so this gives much more "chance" to those that have this kind of genetical predispositions to become rich
and successful, so this is why Communism and Marxism says that we have to equalize much more between people, so this is why i think it is also a kind of competition that gives this kind of Class Struggle, but i will say that the fact that we equalize
much more between people in a society is not good for "diversity" inside the society and it is not good for efficiency, since we have to have a level of diversity that brings "resilience" to the organization of a society, and even in economy we have to
have a level of diversification of economy that brings resilience, so this is why i think that the level of Class struggle that we have to have doesn't look like archaism of Communism or Marxism,
since i think we have to have some kind Social Assistance and Social Solidarity and we have to have social programs that help
the weakest members of the society or the poors of the society in a kind of way, so we have also to have a level of Class Struggle that is like a competition that ensure that those kind of rights of providing
some kind of social programs that helps the weakest members and the poors of the society are fought for in a civilized way inside such places as the congress and in Democracy. Now there is also other antagonist contradictions between the government and
the people under Democracy or the communist regime, and inside two groups or more inside a political party or within a communist Party, and i think that we have to have civilized ways and manners like by vigorous criticism and self-criticism so that to
resolve those kind of antagonist contradictions. And of course i have also just invented quickly a proverb and a poem so that to make you understand this way of doing, and here they are:

More of my philosophy about my new proverb about Democracy and more..

As you have just noticed, i have just invented a proverb about Democracy, read it below and read all my other proverbs below, and as you notice in this new proverb that i am saying:

"Since the basis of Democracy is to better and better discuss so that to bring good sageness and good soundness"

So this "better and better discuss" means that it is "inherent" to it that we have to also be well educated and that it needs Elitism, and as you are noticing in my new proverb that i am saying that Democracy needs Elitism that is existence of an elite
as a dominating element in a system or society such as congressmen and congresswomen of the USA congress. So i invite you to read my new proverb and all my following thoughts so that to understand:

Here is my new proverb:

"The basis of Democracy is not that people have to govern, since it is inferiority of Democracy, since the basis of Democracy is to better and better discuss so that to bring good sageness and good soundness, and after bringing this good sageness and good soundness, we can govern correctly with this good sageness and good
soundness, this is why Democracy needs Elitism such as the congressmen and congresswomen of the USA congress so that to bring good sageness and good soundness."

And of course you can read my just new poem below that also speaks
about the basis of Democracy:

And read my other new proverbs below that i have written quickly..

Here is my just new poem, and notice that the lightness in
my new poem means: The state of having a sufficient or considerable amount of natural light.


So here is my new poem:

---
Darkness for me is not madness

Since darkness is also a "mechanism" that brings better lightness

Darkness for me is not madness

Since better lightness is not coming just from U.S. state of Kansas

Darkness for me is not madness

Since better lightness is also coming from the USA congress

Darkness for me is not madness

Since the USA congress is also a place where to better discuss

Darkness for me is not madness

Since the better discuss is not loneliness and is not being novice

Darkness for me is not madness

Since to better discuss is also like our beautiful princess

Darkness for me is not madness

Since the better discuss brings better Sageness and better soundness
---

More of my philosophy about Freedom of Speech and about Turkey and more..

I have just looked at the following video, and i invite you to look at it:

Erdogan: 'We shouldn't confuse criticism with i...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-0TlT4hnCg


I will ask a philosophical question of:

D