Hello,



More of my philosophy of is democracy the dictatorship of the majority and more of my thoughts..

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


So i will ask a philosophical question of:

Is Democracy the dictatorship of the majority ?


So as you notice that it is not simplistic thinking ! so now
you are understanding that even Democracy is not so sophisticated,
so then it needs other mechanisms since Democracy is the dictatorship of the majority, so this is why i am smart and i am finding other mechanisms such as in economy by saying the following by talking about how to close the race equity gap:

I think i am smart, and what we have to do is to invest in gender parity
since if the labour force participation rate of women were equal to the labour force participation rate of men, the US economy would be 8.7% larger than it is today, the French economy would be 17% larger and the Japanese economy would be 14% larger, and
we have to close the race equity gap so that to also higher economic growth, since for example by closing this racial equity gap, the United States gross domestic product (GDP) could see a continuous 0.5% increase a year over the next few decades,
resulting in $8 trillion in growth by 2050. Also we have to invest much more in artificial intelligence, as i am explaining below, so that to higher much more productivity and so that to enhance much more the living conditions of people, and about
decarbonizing the planet, i have talked about it in my other posts, and about unequal distribution of income and opportunities, you can also read my following thoughts in the following web link about capitalism so that to understand more:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/cf3Wa4z8Xmc

More of my philosophy about the spirit of president Putin..

I think i am really smart, and i think that you have to look
smartly at president Putin, since i think that president Putin knows
about philosophy, so i think that i am a philosopher that knows
about president Putin, since i say that the spirit of president Putin
is like the spirit of both a kind of conservatism and nationalism,
so it is as if i ask a question like the following:

Does egoism and big money has to be the main engine that constructs a society or the world?

So Putin is not like egoism, since he thinks like a nationalist
and like a kind of conservatism, so what interests him is for
example how to be "trust" that is a kind of positive energy that builds Russia, so he is not just thinking egoism and big money as the main engine, and i think that he is like thinking trust as the main engine since egoism is too destructive, so i say
that we can not build Russia with egoism and with big money, since there must be some kind of human values that do this job, so what kind of human values that do this job ? so i think that it is human values that make us trust between us, so when you are
smart you will notice that those human values are also in a form of sincere compassion towards the lower class and such, since i think that it permits to bring a kind of positive energy that brings order to the society. So now you are understanding the
way of thinking of president Putin, so i will give you another example of what has to be those human values:

More of my philosophy of am i an egoistic person or not and more..

I think i am smart, so the smart question is the following:

How do you know that i am an egoistic person or not ?

So i am not egoistic, since it is like the philosopher and economist Adam Smith ideas, so can we simply say like the philosopher and economist Adam Smith that human egoism is the engine of the properity and happiness of nations ?

So it is a really smart question that have just answered by discovering patterns with my fluid intelligence by saying the following:

Also here is my new architectural idea of my philosophy:

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, since you are understanding that in my economic model i am showing that you have to be like a well balance
between competition and cooperation or collaboration(with even solidarity like i am saying above) so that to be the "optimal" properity and happiness of nations. 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 about president Putin..

I have just looked at all the following video
of the speech of president Putin about Ukraine
and about NATO etc.:

Discours de Poutine en entier non censuré et non coupé.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWe8YcjFxpY


And i think i am smart, and i have understood president
Putin, so i think that president Putin is a Russian nationalist
that is interpreting NATO(The North Atlantic Treaty Organization) as
a tool that wants to hurt Russia and attack Russia, but i think that it is not truth, since NATO just wants to protect the freedom of Ukraine and not to attack Russia and this freedom of Ukraine is interpreted by NATO as being like the values of western
countries that are:

1- Western human rights
2- Democracy
3- Freedom of expression
4- Freedom of worship
5- Secular government

Also president Putin wants to protect the Russians that live
in Ukraine since he says that those Russians were attacked
by the government of Ukraine and by extremist groups in Ukraine,
also president Putin says that he doesn't want the be the decadent morality of USA in Russia, and he is then refusing this kind of morality of Liberalism, so he is like both a kind of conservatism and nationalism.

And here is 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.




Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)