Sharkfin - I actually tend to agree with that part of Fukuyama's analysis. We certainly need to assert "positive liberal values", such as tolerance, inclusiveness, freedom of speech and religion, nonviolence, participatory democracy, sustainability etc.

It was Boaz who radically misinterpreted Fukuyama by seizing upon a single sentence out of context, when Fukuyama was arguing that contemporary jihadism among disaffected Muslims in Western societies is a product of identity politics, rather than emanating from their adherence to Islam.

Our resident tubthumper (and his fundy fellow travellers) persistently and repetitively assert in this forum that problems arising from Muslim immigration stem from the fundamental tenets of Islam, and thus allow no possibility of resolution of differences (or, indeed, of integration). This is diametrically opposed to what Fukuyama is actually saying - at least these days.

This is, of course, the problem with citing authors out of context without having a clue about their overall thesis. Unfortunately, it is a tactic that is all too often deployed in forums such as this, usually by people with limited education or world experience, who stridently espouse dogmatic, divisive and hateful ideas.

Pot, meet kettle. Please admire its ebony pigmentation, Boaz.

>>If you wish to bash my Islam bashing, please restrict it to the threads where I am actually doing that<<

(That would in itself be an interesting sentence to deconstruct, along the lines of "so, you admit that..." But that would be a cheap shot.)

The irony is that of all the posters on this forum, the one person you can rely upon to take a perfectly simple discussion on education, health, hooliganism or whatever, and turn it into a lecture on the virtues of a Christian life, is Boaz_David.

But no matter.

>>I chose that sentence from Fukuyama because it said what I've been feeling for so long and expressed it in a very succinct way. I've not read the rest of the work."

If you have not read the rest of Fukuyama's work, or even just the one piece from which you selected the quote, how can you possibly pick one sentence and believe that it means what you want it to mean?

Let's go back to it for a moment.

"Modern Liberal societies have weak collective identities. Postmodern elites, especially in Europe, feel that they have evolved beyond identities defined by religion and nation."

My question is "weak, compared with whom?"

I would then ask "ok, given that comparison, which society would you prefer to be part of?"

I'd be fascinated to hear your contribution to that, by the way. Both parts, not just the first.

"But if our societies cannot assert positive liberal values, they may be challenged by migrants who are more sure of who they are"

Is Fukuyama saying that the migrants will supply the necessary "positive liberal values"? Or is he suggesting that "positive liberal values" are a sufficient defence against being "challenged by migrants". If you didn't read the article, you are unlikely to be able to supply the answer.

Words are really fun things to play with, Boaz. But at some point you have to ask "what is the meaning of this?", rather than "hey, that sounds really neat".

BD Fukuyama is a neocon. That's his context. It's also why he's so amusing - he can't see the connection between neo-conservatism in practice and the loss of social cohesion.

Fukuyama and neo-conservatism should both be on wiki if you're interested.

Tossing around concepts like left-wing postmodern European intellectual elites as if it's an insult is just part of the latest (but getting stale fast) political correctness. According to this fad anybody who can read above Cat in the Hat level is a trouble-making, intellectual, latte-sipping, Australia-loathing snob. Tommyrot.

These are the same elites who keep trying to point out how important stuff like the Australian film and music industries are for our national identity, and keep getting shouted down because they're apparently elites. Remember Picnic at Hanging Rock anybody? The stunning footage of the Australian landscape in Crocodile Dundee? Anybody want to get stuck into the latte-sipping, left-wing, postmodern, intellectual snob film industry for making that kind of stuff?

We carry on about how many Academy awards we got this year, how fab our sporting achievements are, how clever we were to come up with gene shears and winged keels as if every last one of us personally contributed. Fact is, our elites got us those prizes while the rest of us sat around complaining about taxpayer money being wasted on elites. One of the most famous philosophers in the world is an Australian. Do we care?

We also have the biggest rock in the world. We all need to go stand around it and take a good look at it and ourselves. It's one of those things that makes you realise just how stupid all this bickering about us and them really is. To borrow from Crocodile Dundee, it's like a bunch of fleas standing around arguing about who owns the dog.

Pericles, CJ.. please note carefully.. I chose the quote which I saw in another post submitted by someone in the Is Multiculturalism really mushy' thread.

Its not really a difficult sound bite to digest. It's amazingly clear, and I'm not being like the mad hatter making it mean what I want it to mean apart from it's obvious intended meaning.

1/ West Lacks strong Collective identity. (this is where we are at)

Ok.. Pericles asks 'compared to what'... I'd say any society which clearly has a strong idea about itself and direction in life. You can see it by simply observing.
Ask a Greek "what does it mean to be Greek"? and I'm pretty sure you will get a very confident and elaborate answer. Ask an Aussie, and we might get "meat pies and aussie rules".

2/ Post modern Elites. (this is how we arrived there)

His reference to this, fits in perfectly with the first assertion 'weak collective identity' because post modernism is all about 'individual truth'.. "it works for me" kind of thing.. or.. an individual perception of a particular event. So.. this kind of thinking contributes very much to a weak sense of 'collective' idenity, as it's every man for himself.

3/ Migrants with a strong self of identity.

(This is what can cause problems given the above 2 points.)

I'm incredulous that you Pericles are in such a rut about Islam/Christianity that you cannot see this thread for what it is. Exploring the Statement of Fukuyama, as its clear meaning applies to Western society in a g e n e r a l sense.

It matters not a scrap what other things he has said, as HE is not my reference point here.. his chosen statement IS. He has captured our current condition in a nutshell.

Chainy.. its much more than fleas discussing dogs. Its our cultural future.

C J Morgan

Full credit to the cultural elites who make wonderful Australian Movies and win academy awards I have no quarrel with their artistic abilities and some of the wonderful contributions they make to our society but there are some who as Fukyama(sorry if name is wrong cant check it from this screen) points out,” who think they have evolved to a higher level beyond identities defined by nation.” That means at its end interpretation that they think that mankind has evolved to the stage where they are capable of being multitribal or multiracial as a nation and not monotribal or monoracial as a nation.

It’s the old utopian idea of all the tribes around the world holding hands while they sing about love and peace. It doesn’t occur to them that man is not evolved to this stage and is not capable at the biological survival level of doing this.

If these multitribal societies fail to be tolerant, inclusive and non violent (assert strong liberal values) then we will be doomed to ethnic(tribal violence) and demands for separate states. It only needs one big tribe to start something like this to plunge the country into violence like we saw with the IRA and in Chechyna.

“It is important to remember, however, that at many periods in history Muslim societies have been more tolerant than their Christian counterparts.”

Yes but -Only when all non-Muslims have been obedient little dhimmis

A dhimmi status is similar to a turkeys status in the farm yard:
He holds to his subordinate position & knows that at any time, at the masters whim, he may get the chop.