History respects strength. The notions of man’s rights, human rights, morality, and national sovereignty are the rationalizations of philosophers—history does not respect such notions. “Survival of the fittest”: the phrase which Herbert Spencer had coined in 1864, after reading Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, is not effective in explaining biological evolution. But it is effective in explaining the movement of history. The strong civilizations survive. The weak ones perish.
No two contests between civilizations are alike. In every age a new type of strength counts. In the Ancient Age and the Middle Ages, it was primarily the ferocity of the warriors that determined the victor. Religion was often used for motivating the people to unite and fight the enemy. In the Modern Age, the Age of Imperialism, it was the ferocity of the warriors, and the technological, strategic, and diplomatic skills that they possessed, that determined the victor. Ideology was used by the modernists after the nineteenth century to motivate the warriors.
After 1990, the world entered the digital age—in this age another kind of strength is required to win the civilizational wars. Though the digital age is all about technology, it will not be won by the side with better technology. This is because digital technologies are having a massive sociological and cultural impact. They are corroding the inner strengths of the societies by fostering alienation, sedentary lifestyle, low birth rate, political correctness, and a rejection of traditional values. In the civilizational conflicts of our age, having better digital technology is a liability.
The high technology nations have become “unfit”. Their culture is lost, their economy is collapsing, they have become incapable of using their military to win decisive victories during wars, and their population is alienated, divided, and lethargic. They are ripe for conquest. Many of these nations have already been conquered, wholly or partially, and the rest are likely to fall soon.