>>24778443
Funny, the July/August edition of foreign affairs ran an article about the problem of succession following Xi, only for it to be followed up within a few weeks by Xi having a "hot mic" talk with Putin in front of all the other revisionist powers leaders about biotech life extension. Xi might have the intentions of being around a lot long than any world leader before, I don't think the West is quite ready for such a development.
4chan Search
2 results for "e5bcc02d43fc92cc0af855bbbf9bb019"
>>24714648
Take the final paragraph of his introduction to The End of History (apologies if greentext gets fucked up):
>This books seeks to address these questions. They arise naturally once we ask whether there is such a thing as progress, and whether we can construct a coherent and directional Universal History of mankind. Totalitarianisms of the Right and Left have kept us too busy to consider the latter question seriously for the better part of this century. But the fading of these totalitarian isms, as the century comes to an end, invites us to raise this old question one more time.
His entire work is based upon the assumption that totalitarianism has been vanquished and left in the dust bin of history. Despite this, China's continued existence under the CCP and its economic rise has made Fukuyama step back and remark that it might destroy the prospect of liberalism being the paradigm at the end of history:
https://www.asiaglobalinstitute.hku.hk/news-post/china%E2%80%99s-authoritarian-way-can-rival-liberal-democracy-if-it-doesn%E2%80%99t-tear-itself-apart--says-end-of-history-author
What irks me most of all in his treatment of the idea of directional history is the notion that it needs to be "progressive," a notion going all the way back to Francis Bacon. This presumes a normative idealism that really doesn't make sense and is being tacked unto the idea that history might have an order-direction to it. If you place modern human history within the larger context of cosmic history, the notion that such a process will bend to such idealism is really rather childish, foolish, and reeks of credulity, and the fact he wrote Posthumanism back in 2001 in response to critics that wagered history cannot end until technological advancement ends (which Strauss argued across several articles/books well over a decade+ before Fukuyama first wrote his thesis) really sends home the ridiculousness that liberalism is to be the paradigm-ideology at the end of history. All liberalism has provided is endless consumeris, corruption, and gay butt sex admist the backdrop of technological advancement. Fukuyama himself acknowledges the "transhumanism" (a misnomer/myth if anything) or posthumanism is the real danger at play here, so I really don't see why he still clings onto liberalism considering everything.
Take the final paragraph of his introduction to The End of History (apologies if greentext gets fucked up):
>This books seeks to address these questions. They arise naturally once we ask whether there is such a thing as progress, and whether we can construct a coherent and directional Universal History of mankind. Totalitarianisms of the Right and Left have kept us too busy to consider the latter question seriously for the better part of this century. But the fading of these totalitarian isms, as the century comes to an end, invites us to raise this old question one more time.
His entire work is based upon the assumption that totalitarianism has been vanquished and left in the dust bin of history. Despite this, China's continued existence under the CCP and its economic rise has made Fukuyama step back and remark that it might destroy the prospect of liberalism being the paradigm at the end of history:
https://www.asiaglobalinstitute.hku.hk/news-post/china%E2%80%99s-authoritarian-way-can-rival-liberal-democracy-if-it-doesn%E2%80%99t-tear-itself-apart--says-end-of-history-author
What irks me most of all in his treatment of the idea of directional history is the notion that it needs to be "progressive," a notion going all the way back to Francis Bacon. This presumes a normative idealism that really doesn't make sense and is being tacked unto the idea that history might have an order-direction to it. If you place modern human history within the larger context of cosmic history, the notion that such a process will bend to such idealism is really rather childish, foolish, and reeks of credulity, and the fact he wrote Posthumanism back in 2001 in response to critics that wagered history cannot end until technological advancement ends (which Strauss argued across several articles/books well over a decade+ before Fukuyama first wrote his thesis) really sends home the ridiculousness that liberalism is to be the paradigm-ideology at the end of history. All liberalism has provided is endless consumeris, corruption, and gay butt sex admist the backdrop of technological advancement. Fukuyama himself acknowledges the "transhumanism" (a misnomer/myth if anything) or posthumanism is the real danger at play here, so I really don't see why he still clings onto liberalism considering everything.