I wouldn't read something that turned out to be utter bullshit. He loves to keep revising himself though to stay relevant.
I argued quite strongly against it when I had to write about it. There's one or two points he makes that I'd agree with him on, but I disagreed with his view of 'the end of History' in the Hegelian sense he frames it in, his interpretation of the Cold War, his misguided thoughts regarding the days of Islamic cultural conquest being over and no longer having any 'resonance for young people in Berlin or Moscow', and the way in which he subsumes US-led, 'free-market' economics into a standardised ideal of liberal democracy.
Not had much time to do a lot of independent reading, although I've recently read an essay by Edward Herman and David Peterson which reviews Steven Pinker's book
The Better Angels Of Our Nature. Titled 'Reality Denial: Apologetics for Western-Imperial Violence', it gives a particularly cutting assessment of Pinker's view of a post-World War Two 'Long Peace'. I read Pinker's book last year and found it both fascinating and disturbing at times (parts about historical animal cruelty actually gave me nightmares), but the 'neo-Fukuyaman' perspective that Herman and Peterson argue he writes from is something I didn't initially consider. They certainly provide some compelling evidence for that to be the case, though.