Hello,
Read again, i correct about more of my philosophy about USA problems and
more..
I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..
I think i am smart, and i think that the USA big problem
is that the political parties like the democrats and like the
republicans have not known how to manage correctly USA, and notice
how democrats are now using "tactics" such as saying that the problem is
racism against black americans or it is that we have to give rights
to the LGBT community or it is that republicans are the problem or such tactics, and the republicans in USA too are using tactics such as saying
that it is the democrats fault, so i think it is a kind irresponsability
from the two political parties, since i think that the main problem is
that USA governance of both republicans and democrats have given too
much power to the capitalists or to capitalism and this has caused
problems to or has hurt the middle and working class and the lower and
working class, since you can for example easily notice it by how they
have given too much power to capitalism by reading the following study
so that you understand much more what is happening in USA:
U.S. Commercial Technology Transfers to the
People’s Republic of China
https://nuke.fas.org/guide/china/doctrine/dmrr_chinatech.htm
And read also in my below thoughts about the problem the conservatives
that are neglecting the social side:
Read my previous thoughts:
More of my philosophy about what is the most important problem and more..
I think i am really smart, and i think that the most important
problem comes from the being too much capitalistic and neglecting
the social side, and this way of doing gives too much power to the
capitalists or to capitalism, and this is what happened in USA, since
even the conservatives or what we call the republicans, as i am saying
below, have given too much power to the capitalists or to capitalism, so
this has hurt the middle and working class and the lower and working
class, so the solution is to become like the right balance between the
being social and being capitalistic, and it is not the case of the
republican party in USA, second most important thing is to make
democracy much more meritocratic so that the governance in democracy be
a competent governance.
Read my previous thoughts so that to understand my views:
More of my philosophy about capitalism and about humanity and more..
I invite you to look at the following video so that you notice what's
the problem:
America is Morally Bankrupt | Ed Schultz | Oxford Union
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG8yIb-QEZs
So i think i am really smart and i think that conservatives of USA
and there conservative political party that we call republicans are not "social" conservatism, since i think that they are much more
capitalistic than social, so i think that they neglect the social side,
so then they can not be called social conservatives, so they have for
example been much more capitalistic than social and they have given too
much power to the capitalists , and notice how conservatives of USA call
the democrats "socialists" , and i think that it is the because of there
being too much capitalistic than social, i mean that they neglect the
social side.
So i invite you to look at the other following video so that to
understand:
Les nouveaux pauvres : quand travailler ne suffit plus | ARTE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEdr5gc4UNU
More of my philosophy about self-criticism in the CCP(Chinese Communist
Party) of China and more..
I have just talked yesterday about CCP(Chinese Communist Party) of
China, and now i invite you to look at the following interesting video
about CCP(Chinese Communist Party) of China:
Can the Chinese Communist Party Rule for Another 100 Years?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr75blwvIHo
So i have just noticed that CCP(Chinese Communist Party) is giving
a higher weight of importance to self-criticism and criticism on the
subjects of corruption and environmental degradation and on inequality
and this is why i have also just talked about the other subject of Class struggle of Communism and Marxism, so read my following thoughts about it:
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 can be genetically predisposed to being
smart or having a good memory efficiency and such genetical
characteristics, so this gives much more "chance" to those that have
this kind of genetical characteristics 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 of 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.
More of my philosophy about the process of the China system way of
governance and more..
I have just read the following:
"Theoretically, the highest body of the CCP(Chinese Communist Party) is
the National Congress, convened every fifth year."
And i have just read the following about China:
"The President and the State Council are elected by the National
People's Congress, which is made of 2981 people."
So i think that what is happening is that the people of China have to
elect the National People's Congress from 95 million members of
CCP(Chinese Communist Party), but after that the electing of the
President and the State Council (that are part of CCP) is much more meritocratic, so as you notice that China governance is using democratic mechanisms but it is i think also much more meritocratic and much more technocratic.
Read my previous thoughts:
More of my philosophy about the China communist party and more..
I have just read the following:
"As of 2021, the CCP has more than 95 million members, making it the
second largest political party in the world after India's Bharatiya
Janata Party."
So i think that CCP(Chinese Communist Party) also controls the National People's Congress even if they are elected by people so that to also not
be corrupted by the capitalists, and also the CCP controls the country's
armed forces, the People's Liberation Army (PLA).
Read my previous thoughts:
More of my philosophy about the for how many years each congress in
China is elected and more..
I have just found the following about China that says:
"Each congress is elected for a term of five years. A total of 2,980
deputies were elected to the 13th NPC before its first session began in
Beijing on March 5, 2018."
So i think that National People's Congress is elected for five years,
so i think that it is not bad, since it is also meritocratic.
More of my philosophy about National People's Congress in China and more..
Read my previous thoughts:
I think that the problem is the following in China:
"Elections in the People's Republic of China are based on a hierarchical electoral system, whereby local People's Congresses are directly
elected. ... The President and the State Council are elected by the
National People's Congress, which is made of 2981 people."
I think the problem in China is that we have to know for how many years National People's Congress in China are elected and for how many years
the President and the State Council are elected, and if it is too much
years, so it is not good at all.
Read more my previous thoughts:
More of my philosophy of how to efficiently fight corruption and more..
We can fight corruption using the mechanisms of democracy and using
democracy, and we can fight corruption by being a rich country,
since western countries are rich countries that have very low
corruption, also we suggest, among other things, that officials in
vulnerable and important posts receive higher instead of lower salaries
than comparable workers get in the private sector.
Read more here so that to understand:
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-causes-and-cures-of-corruption?utm_term=&utm_campaign=&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=1220154768&hsa_cam=12374283753&hsa_grp=117511853986&hsa_ad=499567080219&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=aud-1249316000837:
dsa-19959388920&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=Cj0KCQiAi9mPBhCJARIsAHchl1xO6oTAZCJmdoiYHEjz18J30qdAxxTrEV5sKPh22EMpDMxjVXo4Y80aAt79EALw_wcB
Also i have invented my new monotheistic religion so that to also
fight more efficiently corruption, also here is another mechanism that
fights corruption and it is the following:
I think i am smart, so my new architectural idea of my philosophy is the following:
An idea can be incomplete, and free incomplete ideas on internet are not
a closed systems, since we are interacting with them, so you can
complete an incomplete free idea on internet with another incomplete
free idea on internet to make the interesting or the good creativity,
and this process also humanize more the society by bringing much more compassion towards humans, since the interesting or good creativity also
comes from free ideas on internet and i say that it is the weakness of
the economist Adam Smith philosophy, since in economic Liberalism of
Adam Smith, self-interest is most of the time regulated by competition
to not lead to corruption, fraud, price-gouging, and cheating, and self-interest and competition is the engine of the properity and
happiness of nations, and Adam Smith described the opposing, but
complementary forces of self-interest and competition as the invisible
hand, it means that while producers and consumers are not acting with
the intent of serving the needs of others or society, they do, since
when you work, your goal is to earn money, but in the process you
provide a valuable good or service that benefits others and society, so
it is the basis of the following saying of Adam Smith: "Human egoism is
the engine of the properity and happiness of nations", but Adam Smith
has not seen the how to become the much more "optimal" properity and
happiness of nations using for example the free incomplete ideas on
internet that makes the good creativity that also come from
"solidarity"(and it is not egoism) of the free incomplete ideas on
internet like i am explaining above with my architectural idea of my philosophy. So here is my example of my "creativity" of how i have
completed efficiently some free software ideas on internet with my ideas
, so it is my following opensource software project called StringTree,
it was one of my first opensource software projects, so read about it
carefully and download it so that you notice how i have done it smartly:
https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/stringtree
More of my philosophy of my two modes of speaking and more..
You have to notice that i am speaking in two modes, and it is
that i am speaking as a wise type of man and as a philosopher,
and i am also speaking as a prophet from God, and i have just posted
about my new monotheistic religion, so i invite you to read my following thoughts as a wise type of person and as a philosopher:
More of my philosophy of how to unite people of the world or of a
country and more..
I think i am really smart, so i will ask a philosophical question of:
How can we unite the people of a country or people of the world ?
So i think i am really smart, and i will say that the being the
correctly united in a country, can be a kind of being united , but it is
not the fully being united in a country, and it can also come from
powerful intellectual mechanisms that plays the role of engines, i mean
take for example "self-confidence", so it also permits you to have like
the what we call the "will to live" like was talking about it the
philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, so i think that even self-confidence is
a powerful mechanism and an engine that permits to unite people, since
it is a powerful engine that must be "guided" by the "goal" of
philosophy, and the goal of philosophy is happiness , but happiness is
not just the today happiness , but it is also the tomorrow and the
future happiness, so if you want to be happiness tomorrow or in the
future, you have to be responsability, so the goal of philosophy that is
to become happiness becomes the goal that has to be responsability that
comes from the wanting to be happiness, so then the knowing about this
fact is also a mechanism that unite people in a kind of way, but not
fully, also the other mechanism that is so important, is the fact that
you have to be "hope" about the tomorrow or the future, since it is like
a positive energy that pushes you forward, since a negative energy is
not so efficient, so here again you notice that i am a philosopher that
is not in accordance with the following saying of the philosopher
Friedrich Nietzsche:
"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the
torments of man"
So i am not in accordance with the above saying about Hope of the
philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, since as i have just said that Hope ,
like hope about our exponential progress that is so fast, can be a
positive energy that pushes you forward. And so that to understand more
my thoughts, i invite you to read my following thoughts of my philosophy
of how you become self-confidence and how you become this positive
energy and positive energy of hope:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/RNxOWBpkHkM
And read my previous thoughts:
More of my philosophy about unity and about democracy and more..
I think i am really smart and i have just looked at the following
video of the Arab Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toZA3gMBsrQ
And i think i am really smart and i am discovering a smart pattern
with my fluid intelligence in the above video, and this smart pattern
is that Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein was talking
about unity of arabs, and he was saying that arabs must be united, but
being this kind of unity in a country is a defect, and it is the basis
of dictatorship and it is the inefficient way of doing,
since you have to understand that Democracy is not about being united
or being united, it is about plurality or diversity of thoughts or
political views and about a kind of diversity that bring efficiency,
and here is an Arab proverb in the following video that shows from where
comes the defect of the arab countries or such countries that are
lacking Democracy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNOpK4KoIIQ&t=372s
So notice that the arab proverb in the above video says:
"A house divided can not stand"
But i think that this arab proverb can also be read symbolically and i
think that it also means that a country must be united, but i think that
it is the big defect of the arab countries and such countries that lack Democracy or democratic mechanisms that bring the necessary quality or perfection. So i invite you to read my following thoughts about
Democracy so that you understand my thoughts:
More of my philosophy about IQ and about the laws and about humanity and
more..
I will answer the following problem from a white supremacist website and
it is like a problem in a form of a smart IQ test that i have to answer,
so here is how i am answering it smartly:
I have just read the following article from a white supremacist website
called National Vanguard:
Why Capitalism Fails
https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/07/why-capitalism-fails/
And it is saying the following about why capitalism fails:
"Capitalism permits inheritance, the command transfer of private
property to a designated new owner upon the death of the previous owner.
And therein is the flaw: inherited wealth isn’t earned by its owner,
yet it leads to a class segregation of men that has nothing to do with
how much wealth they have earned; i.e., nothing to do with how much or
how well or how significantly they have worked."
I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many
scalable algorithms, and i will answer with my fluid intelligence: I
think the above article is not taking into account the risk factor and
and the smartness factor, so there have to be mechanisms, that are like engines, that "encourage" to or/and "make" a part of the people work by
taking risks or great risks and by doing there best (so that to become
rich) or/and that "encourage" to or/and "make" the smartest to give
there best with there smartness (so that to become rich), so i think capitalism has those mechanisms in form of rewards by allowing to become
"rich" and in form of rewards by allowing inheritance, the command
transfer of private property to a designated new owner upon the death of
the previous owner: Since it "encourages" to or/and "makes" a part of
the people work by taking risks and by doing there best (so that to
become rich) or/and it encourages to or/and makes the smartest give
there best with there smartness (so that to become rich). And notice
that i am also defining taking a "risk" as working "hard".
More of my philosophy of what is the Western values and more..
I will invite you to look at the following video about what
is the Western values:
"Western Values" Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DUT4aCkeRA
I think i am smart, and i will answer the question of
what is the Western values:
I think that Western values are:
1- Western human rights
2- Democracy
3- Freedom of expression
4- Freedom of worship
5- Secular government
But i think i am smart and i will say that human rights and freedom of expression or speech are not "definitive" rights, since they can change,
since as i have just said, that Western countries have wanted to avoid
the radical form, where we have to re-engineer the human condition by
the centralized planning and large-scale social engineering as in old
communist China or USSR(United Socialist Soviet Republic), since i think
this way of doing has not worked so efficiently, so i think that western countries have given to there people human rights and freedom of
expression or speech as Liberty, but i think they are not definitive
rights, since i think that Western countries are proceeding by rational
reforms into society and then to undertake evidence-based assessments,
so then they are also monitoring those western rights to see if they are working correctly or not, so if they are not working correctly , so they
can change them. And here is what i have just said about Freedom of Speech:
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:
Do we have to have a full freedom of speech ?
So as you are noticing in the above video that the american jounalist
is saying to president Erdogan of Turkey that he has to respect freedom
of speech in his country since it is the requirement for Turkey to be
accepted as a member of European Union, so i think that this journalist
is not thinking correctly, since Freedom of speech has also to be contextualized, since Freedom of speech in Turkey is much more difficult
since you have to know that Turkey is living in an unstable region where
there is many wars and too much violence, so then being Freedom of
speech in Turkey can for example engender violence inside Turkey,
this is why we have to contextualize and be objective, and look for
example at USA, you have just noticed that in USA Freedom of speech of
Donald Trump have caused too much violence against the USA congress, so
this is why i think that we have to analyse it like i am analysing it
and say that we can not always have Freedom of speech, this is why i
think that there can be constraints in reality that make us be not
Freedom of speech, so it depends on the context, so then i think that
the requirements of European Union that asks Turkey to be Freedom of
speech so that to be accepted as a member of European Union is not a
realistic and objective way of doing.
Also you have to read carefully my philosophy about Class Struggle so
that to notice from where i am logically inferring that we require
a kind of of Social Assistance and Social Solidarity and that 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, here it is:
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 can be genetically predisposed to being
smart or having a good memory efficiency and such genetical
characteristics, so this gives much more "chance" to those that have
this kind of genetical characteristics 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 of 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 about Democracy here is what i have just said:
More of my philosophy about the ideological fight between communist
China and the West..
I think i am really smart, and i say that in the ideological fight
between communist China and the West, it is that the West has to
make this not so mature Democracy in the West, as in USA, into a much
more mature Democracy by for example making the governance much more meritocratic, since i think that Donald Trump governance was a bad move
that hurt a lot Democracy, since Donald Trump was not enough educated
and was not enough experienced , so he has made big mistakes that have
brought big problems to Democracy, and of course the West has to offer a
good education to people, and i think that we have not to be too
pessimistic about capitalism as not being enough meritocratic, since as
i just said, that in capitalism, intelligence, skill, and hard work will certainly get you far in richness and success, read it below so that to understand my views.
And here is my thoughts of my philosophy about Democracy:
And we can say the following:
The classical notion of decentralization does not necessarily imply
democracy, and an organization may be decentralized without being based
on democratic principles.
But i ask a smart question of:
Can we say that an organization based on democratic principles may be centralized ?
Here is my answer:
But we can notice that even though decentralization doesn't necessarily
imply Democracy, Democracy is a "kind" of decentralization, and this
kind of decentralization brings efficiency because we can notice that
Democracy needs requirements such as competitive elections and free
press, and i think that Democracy is more efficient than Dictatorship at fighting corruption(and corruption can mean lack of efficiency), read my following thoughts about Democracy and more to understand:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/Nudyb_4QCRU
More political philosophy about Democracy and parliamentary Democracy..
Wich is better, Democracy or parliamentary Democracy ?
When you are smart you will notice that parliamentary Democracy is
better since Democracy means that the people "govern", but this way of
doing brings desorder, since people doesn't mean that it is Elites that
govern, so this is why i think that it is inherent to parliamentary
democracy that it is the Elites that govern and guide people, since also
we can logically prove it by saying the following:
From where people get a correct judgment in Democracy ?
So you are noticing that to be able to be good judgment in Democracy,
you have to be correct "Elitism" that guides people, and you have to be Meritocracy to be able to be the necessary quality or perfection, but
then you are noticing that to be able to be Meritocracy there must be a
reward for the merit, by for example rewarding by giving more money.
But since i am smart i will ask another important philosophical
question, and it is the following:
Does parliamentary democracy has requirements, and wich requirements it has:
From my above logical proof we can say that the first requirement of parliamentary democracy is: it is the Elites that must govern and guide
people, and from the first requirement we can logically infer that the
Elites must be competent, so we can logically infer the since they have
to be competent so then we can say the the second requirement of
parliamentary democracy that it must be meritocratic, and the third
requirement of parliamentary democracy is also an important requirement
and it is that we have to have a constitution that says that
parliamentary democracy has to have law enforcement agencies like the
USA FBI and military as necessary basic requirements for a country, and
a country can become a more global world like European union or such.
More political philosophy about the mechanisms of Democracy..
I think that we have to be smart, since i have just written the
following about China and Russia of year 2010 and 2012:
----
More about China and Russia and other such countries education system..
I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many
scalable algorithms, read the following:
“Corruption is pervasive in every part of Chinese society, and education
is no exception,” Mr. Li said.
A Chinese Education, for a Price
Read more here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/asia/in-china-schools-a-culture-of-bribery-spreads.html
I think we can not be confident with the Chinese education system, and i
don't think it is meritocratic !
It is the same problem in Russia, read the following to notice it:
Mark Levin, a professor at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow who
has studied the issue, said corruption in universities took place not
only during the entrance examinations but also those at the end of
semesters. Levin said some students preferred to pay money to pass
examinations and obtain a diploma.
RUSSIA: Rising corruption threatens universities
Read more here:
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20100514205552600#:~:text=According%20to%20necessarily%20rough%20estimates,in%202009%20totalled%20%241%20billion.&text=But%2C%20despite%20the%20country's%20increased,much%20the%20salaries%20actually%
20are.
----
And also i have just posted about the today China after the
anti-corruption compaign in China, read the following:
---
I invite you to read the following interesting article:
China’s Anti-Corruption Campaign and the Challenges of Political Meritocracy
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/05/chinas-anti-corruption-campaign-and-the-challenges-of-political-meritocracy/
---
So as you are noticing from my above writing that corruption can corrupt
the education system and when education system is corrupt then the
Meritocratic system is corrupt and this is dangerous. So even after the anti-corruption compaign in China , i think that Dictatorship of China
is not so efficient at fighting corruption, because Democracy is much
better at fighting corruption by competitive elections and free press,
read my following thoughts to understand more:
From where people get a correct judgment in Democracy ?
So you are noticing that to be able to be good judgment in Democracy,
you have to be correct "Elitism" that guides people, and you have to be Meritocracy to be able to be the necessary quality or pe