[continued from previous message]

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