What does /his/ think of Francis Fukuyama?

Neo con was a mistake

>>2547982
I consider him the worst geopolitical figure in history. His entire "The End of History" idea which spread like a disease was beyond idiotic. It was beautifully idealistic, I will give him that much. But it was not realistic, not even close.

Basic idea; Western liberalism will triumph everywhere by the 2020. Just look at his recent talks on YouTube, he has changed his theories greatly.

Samuel P. Huntington was right

>>2548093
He was, I think by this point any sane person studying geopolitics with a bit of intellectual honesty will admit that.

Even Fukuyama has started to accept some ideas of Samuel.

>>2547982
He's a wonderful strawman for undergraduate historiography exams. That makes him alright in my book

another political "scientist" with a failed prediction

>>2547982
Idiot who got proved wrong so hard he physically disappeared

I think he just wrote a typical nice idea to get fame and success but its obviously bullshit

>>2548160
Indeed. So many articles about the tumults of 2016 begin with "DAE FUKUYAMA WAS WRONG???" and it's always obvious that the author has never read any of his work

I found Origins of Political Order pretty interesting.

Much better than How Nations Fail, which, despite making some good points, had massive problems with cherry picking.

>>2548421
Should I read Origins of Political Order or 'Political order and political decay'? I know its a two parter but I'm a bit more interested in post-french revolutionary politics