Fadel Al-Rubaie is considered one of the leading thinkers in the Arab world. He wrote, and continues to write, on literature, politics, history and legend. As a result, a group of writings, stances, and the calendar gathered for him and around him, liking or otherwise. For a while, I kept myself self-conscious
His works because some of my humble interests touch some of his major preoccupations. But when I read my latest writings, I realized that reading his works might be a painstaking and frustrating experience that will raise more questions than the answers provided. It may not be so, but his last writing credible me with looting of doubts. And popular wisdom says who is lying in the small matter, lying in the great matter. Also, there are a few people, the higher the status of them, the more they are tempted to do so by permitting the sanctification of truth and violating its sanctity.
And the writing I’m talking about is entitled “America in the Soviet Moment – From Yeltsin the Drunkard to Trump the Clown: The World is in Chaos.” This article pushed me relentlessly in order to include the author, whom I do not know well, to the classification I have for a wide range of Arab thinkers called “Arab Imagineers”. This is because this group initially has a weak relationship with thought as a creative human effort, and in the news is nothing more than a group of pretenders that not only crowds the earth with a question and an answer, but also works to suppress all those who dare refer to them with the finger of accusation. Nevertheless, I must admit that the article did not surprise me or bother me, as it gave me something of satisfaction because it first demonstrated to me the safety of my misfortune in Arab imaginers, who often soar like birds on the tables of Western thought, and then return to them with the crumbs they picked up so that they would be eager to read to the reader Arabi. They do so when they can only recycle what they picked up without being able to digest, reject, refute, refute, modify, or develop it, but their capabilities are limited to falsification and distortion due to their linguistic weakness, cognitive deficits, their methodological limitations, and above all their moral deficiency. The article also provided me with the opportunity to place second-hand fantasies about a global group with a voice, reputation, impact and impact, and that is the group of American futurists that I know of some of the things that relate to a few distinguished individuals, among them, for the good fortune and misfortune of Al-Rubaie, Alvin Toffler. This is while acknowledging, once again, that it had never occurred to me that there was a face of comparison, comparison, or even opposition between American futurists and Arab imaginary. But Fadel Al-Rubaie’s article, “America in the Soviet Moment,” made it obligatory to confront this phenomenon, not only a feasible matter, but an urgent matter that cannot be avoided in the context of trying to trim false nails, cut wings of counterfeiting, and limit the arrogance of prosecution. Thirdly, the article gave me the opportunity to highlight one of the most prominent thinkers of the time.
And “America in the Soviet Moment” is a wonderful article in its linguistic form, like some fabrications of Arab imaginers, but it is horrific in its cognitive content, as most of their belongings, which they burden the Arab mind, have fallen. But before proceeding with my reading of Al-Ruba’i’s thesis, I would like to point out that fictitious people usually do not hesitate to say anything underestimating them to the recipients, and their conviction that no one is reviewing the validity of their allegations, which are misrepresented in the best manifestations of forgery in its worst cases. They do so, and they are certain that if someone finds out the falsehood of their allegations, they will not take the next step and confront them, either asceticism, preoccupation or fear of their angry reactions. But unfortunately for someone, not this time. This has always been my tendency to call this group the Arab counterfeiters because they used to hold the position of truth hostility without hesitation, and to publicly declare integrity with disobedience without shame, until this fraudulent tendency, which al-Rubaie provides here as an “honest” model for it, is of course a second and satisfactory mental state that prevails among the imagined All Arabs, whether frowned on your face from the right, or looking at you with a little bit of a left. But it is more widespread among the imaginers of the right than it is spread among the imaginers of the left, not because the leftists are more keen on the truth, or more determined to fabricate the methodology in their dealings with it, but rather because the right-wingers are more numerous than them, and also because the rule of purpose justifies the means radically rooted between the last two Almost makes counterfeiting a virtue, and honesty refers to them an insult and vice. I return to saying that I recently became inclined to call them imaginative, stressing the need for the reader not to be fooled by the repercussions of this imaginative trait so that some of the attributes of tenderness and gentleness will not be lost to them accordingly. This is because, even if they have not yet reached the ugliness and ingenuity of the ancient Assassins, they are no less dangerous than them in their conduct of the truth, in their conquest of knowledge, and in their apprehension of research requirements and study requirements. However, despite this dreadful slackness, it is necessary to salute the elite of serious thinkers who capture the embers of the truth and do not budge from their commitment to the sanctity of knowledge in one iota, but in the face of the tyranny of the bullies, they always find themselves weaker and fewer in number.
To demonstrate the validity of my claims about the danger and danger of Arab imaginers, I return to Fadel Al-Rubaie and his article “America in the Soviet Moment” in which he goes into what is not known about Toffler and his books. I found it funny and weeping that Al-Rubaie says in the confident, confident language: “In 1987 the American futurist Alvin Toffler published three books that are the most famous of his books (Third Wave, World Maps, and Power Distribution). In the first book he foretold Toefler collapsed with the Soviet Union in a few
years, and this was amazingly achieved. After a few years after the book was published, the giant with clay feet fell. I am certain that the worst people will not dare to “imagine” the possibility that a writer in the Al-Ruba’i shrine has committed more than five Factual errors in the context of only three lines that are the essence of his article. But this is not something that exceeds the audacity of the authentic Arab imaginary who is not afraid to assassinate the truth a blameless blame, until it became a common, rather expected, and even acceptable thing, that the Arab imaginative can go into something that he does not know without lying an eyelid or stumbling him with a tongue.
In order not to be accused of making statements on his minds, I offer my observation of the five errors that I claim that Al-Rubaie have committed, without fear or shame, first: Alvin Toffler was not published (and I hope that the reader will not be alarmed by Alvin’s writing in this way, as Al-Rubaie himself returns to write it as well after he started writing it as Alvin) i.e. a book in the year 1987. Secondly: Tofler did not publish his famous author, “The Third Wave” in that year, but published it in 1980. Third: Tofler did not publish in 1987 or in any other year a book called “Maps of the World” Fourth: Tofler did not write a book called Power Distribution that al-Rubaie translated as “distribution / fragmentation of power”, meaning that the two books mentioned are completely fictional titles that were created by the imagination of the great imagined Fadel Al-Rubaie. And for some benefit, the other two books that can be added to form a trilogy With “The Third Wave” are the “Future Shock” published by TOEFLER in 1970 and the “Power Shift” that he published in 1990. And I hope that Al-Rubaie, or anyone else, does not think that the last book is the book that he imagined under the name ” Power Distribu Taxation between the two addresses. Moreover, the book, Power Shift, whose entire title is read as “The Transfer of Power: Knowledge, Richness and Violence at the Edge of the Twenty-first Century,” is not about the fragmentation of power, but rather about the transfer of power as influence from political levels to levels of daily life in stores, hospitals, banks, businesses, television, and telephones. And personal life. But al-Rubaie, who has no knowledge of this, is not satisfied with humility and contentment with silence. Rather, he goes ahead with two books that only exist in his imagination.
In the same context, I say that it is possible to disagree about translating a book’s name, and when this happens we return to its name in its original language. For example, two people can talk about William Faulkner’s famous novel Sound and Fury, one of them refers to it as “noise and anger”, while the other refers to it as “noise and anger”, but neither of them can refer to it as Noise and Anger, that is, Our reference in this regard remains always the source language, and never the target language. Fifthly, Toffler did not write a book called Third Wave, but wrote The Third Wave, which translates as “the third wave.” The correct translation of the book invented by al-Rubaie is a “third wave”, not a “third wave.” If a questioner asks if the definition tool makes a difference in distinguishing between books, the answer is yes. The most visible witness here is the Invisible Man and The Invisible Man, so when someone talks about the Invisible Man, the discreet reader realizes that this person is talking about Ralph Ellison’s “hidden man” novel. He will also realize that when that person or others refer to The Invisible Man, it means HG Wells’ The Invisible Man.
When Al-Rubaie refers to Third Wave, it will become clear to us (it becomes clear to me, at least) that he translates into English, not from it, as one would expect from someone who writes about Alvin Toffler. And writing “distribute – fragmenting authority” in this way indicates (at least once again to me, me) that it is translated into English from a third language other than Arabic. Because I am a very skeptical person, I found myself asking myself, Is it possible that the translation is from the Romanian language? And this is just an implicit guess that al-Rubaie would have preferred us that the “martyr president” Nikolai Ceausescu “asked to translate the Toffler book and then distributed himself ten copies only to members of the Political Bureau of the Romanian Communist Party …” And there is no disturbance here to Ceausescu in committing this act that It is inconsistent with the principle of print democracy. “The martyr president,” as al-Rubaie told us, “was terrified of what was going on in the world, and I realize that this prophecy is not just a prophecy.” But I don’t know where the “martyr president” found that prophecy, which of course is the “collapse of the Soviet Union”, unless the translation he requested is very poor.
On a parallel level, if the reader reconsiders the dates of the publication of Tufler’s books, he will notice that the time difference between his three major books is not less than ten years, so he was writing, and not three books in one year – as the Rabiei imagines – and as some Arab imaginers overflowing with counterfeiting do. An overflow of a loose catchall to create works that add nothing to knowledge. It goes without saying that there is often a close link between the content of any book and its title, and it may be useful to pause a little when naming the book “The Shock of the Future,” which its author talks about, saying: “A person has limited biological energy to absorb change. When that energy is confused, it finds itself in shock the future”. But when Al-Rubaie says, “In the maps of the world, he (Tofler) predicted a Europe other than the one we know, the western Europe that we know will disappear.” He adds to the confusion of fabrication a mishandling of misunderstanding. Al-Rabea’i here not only misunderstands Tufler’s vision, but contradicts it completely. In “Power Transfer,” Tufler says that ideological animosities will recede, and that geography will have little effect. The spatial dimension will recede in the interest of the temporal dimension, and that new visions will form not as a struggle between East and West, or between North and South, but between “rapid” And “slow.” This and many others deny the false claim of world maps.
Although there are many things in the Al-Rubaie article that frustrate me, I do not want to stop there all or long. For this reason, I will be satisfied with touching some, such as Yeltsin, “alcoholic”, while admitting that the characteristic aroused my wonder before I liked it, and without my passage of the word “drunkard”, I would have thought that Al-Rubaie does not mock Yeltsin’s behavior, but rather he is mocking the ethereal color of his skin, just as some people intent on the pink color of skin. The clown “Trump. And I thought I would not be interested in knowing who came with the alcoholic and the clown “to do the required of them (which is) to dismantle the old country with its dilapidated building and its cracked walls”, until al-Rubaie revealed to us the secret: it is the machine! Putin said it “in a passing joke,” as al-Rubaie says, who does not hesitate to say it in complete seriousness: “Yes, there is (a machine) that orders the president to be a drunkard or a clown, but the condition that he performs, it does not matter what his body is, a drunk that is or a clown, To choose whatever he wants. ” The call that al-Rubaie makes here to the reader is not only to ignore the vision of Tufler, but also to ignore the visions of all those who wrote an agreement and a difference from the movement of history and his philosophy starting with Herodotus who says “Among all the human tragedies, the most bitter is that you know a lot, and that you have no control over any Something, ”passing by Ibn Khaldun, who says,“ History on its face is no more than news, but it has in its interior a look and an inquiry. ”Hegel who says“ We learn from history that we do not learn from it, ”and Marx who says“ The ideas of the ruling class in every era are Ruling ideas, in the sense that the class that controls the material capabilities of every society is at the same time the intellectual power that controls it, ”and Toynbee, who claims that“ civilizations die by suicide, not killing, ”and Huntington who says,“ The West took control of the world not because of the superiority His thoughts, values, or beliefs, but rather because of his superiority in the use of organized violence. “And ending with Fukuyama, who claims that history ended with the victory of Western liberal democracy. But here is our spring thinker, which brings us an amazing contribution in which the Android MS5 emulates the Alex Brownas film of the same name, in which he tells about the machine that orders the president, regardless of his form, to be executed.
I am also inclined to engage in a fiqh controversy over the extension of the character of martyrdom to hardened communists in the post-communist era. That is why I will suffice to accept the testimony of al-Rubaie on the “martyr” Slobodan Milosevic, who was saved by death from the conviction of war crimes. Likewise, the “martyr president” Shaushescu who is “unjustly described as a murderous criminal”, who attained the testimony of the death squad being shot at leaning against a toilet wall on a winter day in January 1989 and Elena Shaushescu, his wife and deputy prime minister, shouted at the soldiers: “O sons of dogs, I raised you as a mother. ” And she was honest, because they were the puppies who brought them up for twenty-four years in which she and her husband Romania ruled an absolute ruling that succeeded at the end of which she allowed Al-Rubaie what he boasted about. “Bucharest was officially declaring that it is a country (without external debt), i.e. zero debts.” And what a zero, and what a price for it (as stated in the indictment against him published by Monitorul Oficial the day after his execution) 60 thousand victims, and imposing oppression for a quarter of a whole nation, destroying cities and buildings, damaging the national economy, and trying to escape from the country to exploit what Over one billion dollars deposited in foreign banks. Although a part of me appreciates the fulfillment of former tyrants by those who have blessed softly to live in the lost paradise of socialism, I do not find it easy for a person to turn a blind eye to the horrors of securitat in the era of Ceausescu, or about the humanity that Milosevic allowed to fill in with dust and blood in the cities and hamlets of Bosnia Croatia and Kosovo. In this context, and whatever man tries, he will not be able to ignore the Srebrenica massacre, which claimed the lives of more than eight thousand men and boys Bosniak, as they are called Muslims there. And the witness here, a horrific witness screaming that if the great Soviet Union had two feet of mud, it seemed
that some Communists had hearts of stone. It is not surprising, therefore, that they did not break their fast after their late discovery of something called human rights.
I also have no intention of a short pause at the puppet, according to al-Rubaie, Mikhail Gorbachev, noting in it only what he was known to be influenced by Toffler’s writings, as were many politicians such as Hugo Chavez, Indira Gandhi and Zi Ziang, as well as the richest of the world’s rich, the Mexican communications giant from Lebanese origins, Carlos Slim. Nor do I want to delve into the dialectical relationship between liquidity and solidity despite my fascination with the old man’s saying: “All solid things dissolve in the air.”
But the question I do not want to avoid is: Did Tofler really and explicitly predict the collapse of the Soviet Union within a few years of the publication of his book “The Third Wave”? The unambiguous and unambiguous answer is no … Tuferl did not “predict” it. This is despite the fact that he writes:
“If … a series of uprisings suddenly exploded in Eastern Europe, Moscow might well face open secessionist or autonomous revolts in many parts of its republics.”
“If a series of uprisings suddenly explodes in eastern Europe, Moscow may also face open secessionist or independent revolutions in many parts of its republics.” My intention is to provide Toffler’s words in English not only to confirm that he did not explicitly mention the crash, but mainly to shed some light on his style of moving away from assertion, as he begins his sentence “with” and introduces it using “lost”. In all of his writings, Toffler disassociates himself from being a forecaster. To be fair to al-Rubaie, I would say that most of those who wrote the Tooffer reading of the future used the predict verb, ie predict or speculate, but Tofler did not, and the verb that he was often using was postulate. He also often says, found, known and looked at as he talks about assumptions for the future. Moreover, the statement that Moscow may also face independence or separatist tendencies in some of its republics does not necessarily mean the collapse of the Soviet Union, as Moscow has been known for an exceptional persuasive force that was experimented with overwhelming success in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Yes, the Berlin Wall collapsed after nine Years after the publication of “The Third Wave”, and two years later the Soviet Union collapsed. That is, after eleven years. Although I am not interested in the meaning of “a few” – from three to nine – I am interested in confirming that Töffler did not “prophesy.” A reservation on “foretells here is not a semantic issue, but rather a methodological issue. In this framework, it is useful to pay attention to what Toffler says about” predictors of future events and to incorporate this practice of fraud:
“I don’t believe anybody knows the future, and anybody who claims to is a fraud”
“I don’t think anyone knows the future, and everyone who claims this is a liar.” In another context, he says: “There is no serious future to deal with speculation, as this is left to readers of fortune on television and watchers of horoscopes in the newspapers.”
In his writings, some of which bore the name of his wife Heidi, Tofler has made many assumptions such as the Internet, genetic engineering, the collapse of the nuclear family, marriage between two individuals of the same sex, late parenting, and extra information (the gap between the amount of information and tools that we have To absorb it). Moreover, many of his assumptions did not crystallize into a tangible and living reality, among them the collapse of universities, the erosion of cities, the establishment of population settlements under the sea, and paper clothing. These assumptions were when Tuferr had possibilities based on monitoring, research and analysis, that he might be right in it and might make mistakes, and not as Al Rubaie claims, “It is only a revelation.”
For this and others, Alvin Toffler is considered one of the great futurists, individuals who spanned times and places, and we find representatives for them in Jules Verne, HG Wells, Walt Disney and others. That is why it is not correct to say that he “joined” the futurists’ team as if they were an organized group. It is also incorrect to say that he was of Trotskyist origin, as if Esteban Volkov, who returned from his school in the afternoon of the twenty-first of August 1940 to find his famous grandfather – Leon Trotsky – was a blood-thirsty bitch after he was betrayed by one of Stalin’s tenants in New Mexico. In addition, Toffler was not a worker in the traditional way, as he chose to be so for a few years with his wife for the purpose of study and experimentation. Accidentally, I say that Tövler is of Polish-Jewish origin, and Trotskyite inclinations have not been known about him, justifying what al-Rubaie says. But these may be involuntary illusions that sometimes come with the tyranny of the professive tendency of the imagined, so that such allegations can be forgiven. But the one who cannot be forgiven or tolerated is Mudayyan al-Rubaie in his direction, echoing again and again the maps of the world .. Maps of the world .. Maps of the world .. Because this is a myth talk that does not exist and is not justified. Note that there is a novel by Jane Hamilton called “A Map of the World” but it has nothing to do with the ideology of dismantling countries.