[HOME] - [NEWS] - [MY CARTOONS] - [MY COMIC BOOK] - [MY MOVIES] - [MY PAPERS] - [HISTORICAL ESSAYS]

FRANCIS FUKUYAMA -- FAKE INTELLECTUAL, NEO-CON ILLUMINATI JEW

Frances Fukuyama is a Japanese illuminati idiot who teaches at illuminati Standford. Frances only wrote one paper in his whole life that anyone ever cared about and that was called the "End of History" in 1989. The ideas in the paper weren't even Fukuyama's, they were other peoples ideas he put his name on.

Fuk-u-yama is a mental retard like all the other Japanese with tails. He is a little monkey who wanted to pretend to be a philosopher. The ideas in the End of History were provocative at the time but now seem naive and dumb.



The argument in End of History was that history was over because we had arrived at the final form of government - Democratic Capitalism. What the "end of history" even means is questionable. It's one of those nonsensical statements that sound provocative. Of course, history will continue as long as their are people making history to write down.

Fukuyama's argument was so poorly conceived it almost immediately called itself into question. Bill Clinton's election wasn't history? NAFTA didn't change our economic system? BREXIT wasn't history? Fukuyama's arguement was disproven almost immediately after he made it. Afterwards, he's one of those one note idiots who has never done anything interesting. He didnt' write any more books, he just talked about his one stupid idea - the End of History.



I always thought of Fukuyama as a moron who wasn't doing real philosophy or even political science. He was a stupid pseudo-intellectual neo-cons would throughout as an argument for why unbridled capitalism was best. Frances gave the Neo-Con illuminati an argument they could use to stop any further progress in our society. No you can't change anything because according to Frances History is Over and we're in the best system possible right now.

Francis' arguments were peculiar at the time because they ignored the philosophical opinions of the time which argued that there was no form of perfect government and that our societies would continue to evolve. All of the postmodern philoospohy that was so popular in the 1980s and 1990s was completely at odds with Fukuyama's idea of a telos, an end to history.

Frances was reviving some old fashioned idea about a telos to hisotory. The sort of idea that hadn't been popular since the days of Hegel or Marx. Not only was he claiming that history ended in a telos, a final point, but he claimed in 1989 that we'd already reached that Telos, that final point. When I heard his argument, it was so stupid I could never take it seriously. The only people who liked Frances were the Neo-Cons who wanted a way to justify their unfair capitalist system.

Frances was always just a stooge for the Japanese illuminati. The Japanese Illuminati looked at 1989 as a great year, they owned America, they owned the world economy. For the Japs, ending history in 1989 sounded like a good idea. Of course, eveyone else looked at the whole thing as stupid and delusional. How does history end? History will end when the universe ends, not sooner.

Fukuyama claims not that events will stop occurring in the future, but rather that all that will happen in the future (even if totalitarianism returns) is that democracy will become more and more prevalent in the long term, although it may suffer "temporary" setbacks (which may, of course, last for centuries). According to Fukuyama, since the French Revolution, democracy has repeatedly proven to be a fundamentally better system (ethically, politically, economically) than any of the alternatives.

This is frankly all bullshit and meaningless. According to Frances argument, you could say that the greeks ended history with Athenican democracy then and ever since we've just had "events." Frances curriously picks the French Revolution as the period when History really ended (completely overlooking the American Revolution and thereby insulting the importance of the American Revolution). It's amazing that Frances would not use the American Revolution as his starting point of the final form of democracy. His bias towards the French Revolution, which happened decades later and was inspired by the American revolution shows how biased Frances is towards the illuminati. He wants to give the French Rothschilds something to be proud of while disparaging the greatness of America's Founding Fathers.