This is an incredibly in-depth, well-researched, and well-construed book that I’ve kept a mental model of the first time I read it about half-way before reading the conclusion back in the late 2000s to early 2010s. I didn’t want to acknowledge the conclusion of his book at the time and I’d been swept-up in a Western Triumphalist perspective immediately after high school that I just wasn’t knowledgeable enough at the time to appreciate the full scope of his work. It is probably one of the finest pieces of Political Science research and even if you disagree with him, this book is definitely worth reading for all people, but especially Political Scientists. I think both its limits and where he was proven absolutely right have shown through and through in contemporary times.

That being said, there’s a few major flaws with his work that severely weaken his major arguments: first, his analysis almost totally ignored Africa. At best, he has a few comments here and there for comparison for other countries, but just my reading of how Huntington presented his arguments about Africa made me think that his knowledge of Africa was spotty at best. I don’t know much about the continent as much as I wish I did, but just the lack of depth and Huntington’s use of various countries as comparisons for Latin America, Russia, Western Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, and so forth indicated to me that he really didn’t know much about Africa at all. He’ll go in-depth with critiques of Russia, Mexico, Turkiye, and Australia regarding their identity crises, but no such in-depth analysis is given to any African country. Second, he assumed that human rights, democratization, and democratic institutions could only be maintained by the dominance of the West but didn’t think it possible that human rights, democratization, and democratic institutions would be absorbed and championed in tandem with people’s cultural traditions and belief systems. His ignorance is demonstrated here from the brief quip he makes about how if India advances economically, then it would praise the Caste system as the reason. In reality, approximately 80 percent of Hindus reject any form of casteism in public life (discrimination in jobs, parks, socialization and making friends, and so forth) but still have a problem with accepting inter-caste marriages. Nevertheless, India’s rise in economic productivity certainly hasn’t made the people of India more amenable to old Caste bigotries; there’s been a culture of stalwart rejection of ancient Caste bigotries. Too much of his analysis conflated White European supremacy with democratic norms and values. It’s particularly ironic that he added Christianity to the mix, while having quotes referring to the Roman Republic since the Roman Republics also existed under a majority polytheistic religious society and it’s bizarre that so many Christians believed Hindu civilization couldn’t adapt democratic norms and values under the misguided belief that Hindus were majority polytheist. Your own cultural history and heritage that you claim is unique to you is of a polytheistic Roman Republic as part of it, but Hindus who are perceived as polytheistic cannot run a republic as part of its norms and values? The only way people could come-up with such self-refuting conclusions is due to a mix of Christianity and White Supremacy pervading their internal beliefs.

Other issues arise from conflating human rights with Western civilizations. The more I read to the end, the more glaring flaws began to pop-up with what felt like an oversimplification. First of all, this entire book ignored that Native Americans still largely lack the same human rights even within supposed Western societies despite his mentioning of them early in his book; how can America claim to champion rights that it still deliberately limits upon specific citizens due largely to their ethnic and religious background that have been identified as a separate political group despite the overwhelming majority of US Native Americans having long converted to Christianity and adapted democratic norms and values even within their reservations? Second, the classification of Latin America has more flaws than I thought before reading this book and how Huntington classified them as separate from being Western. The example of Mexico is of a country that has a majority European language of Spanish, overwhelmingly Christian (and probably more Christian in proportion to their population than the United States both back when Huntington made his analysis and even now), a mixed ethnic background that is predominately descended from Spain, and a republic that has had ups and downs. Why was Mexico not considered Western to Huntington? The US and Mexico don’t share a common language, have separate connections to Western Europe with different European civilizations having colonized the respective origin point of the countries, and follow a similar system of government. One might point to the checkered past of Socialism in Mexico, but Socialism is a Western European concept too. Even on the basis of White Supremacy, the Spanish were White people who colonized the country of what later became Mexico. So, why aren’t Mexicans considered a part of Western culture? Because Huntington conflated what was perceived Whiteness and success; Mexico, and most of Latin America around Huntington’s time, is not successful by most metrics, therefore it isn’t referred to as Western. Mexicans on social media also questioned this argument of his when they read it.

The final chapter began in one of the most brilliant openings and ended with some of the dumbest conclusions with the idea that Japan would join China because of perceived shared culture or that India would work with asking Arab countries for help over the United States or Russia in any war against Pakistan. Both the US and Arab Spring double-deal, so the most reliable partner would probably be Russia and I honestly doubt that Iran would choose Pakistan over India unless something major of strategic importance happened. Nevertheless, the US and India are building a partnership that Washington needs to decide to stay committed to or not in the long-term, if it is serious about tackling China’s rising power. India should obviously show commitment too, but the fact is that it is the US that constantly double-deals more often than not; especially with leaving approximately $83 billion in US weapons in Afghanistan which is now popping-up in multiple Islamic terrorist campaigns from Kashmir to terror attacks in Pakistan too. The reason the US hasn’t been able to weaken the India-Russia partnership is precisely because diplomatically, they always have an implicit trust without any breaks in the agreement. The US has only ever had this type of diplomatic implicit trust with Saudi Arabia and Israel; Saudi Arabia makes sense for multiple strategic and economic reasons that maintain the primacy of the US economic system in world affairs and domestically. Yet, what strategic benefit has this relationship with Israel gotten the US at all? Huntington never mentions this relationship at all or how it will impact US foreign policy in terms of supposed core states and shared cultural values. He mentions it is the only Jewish State and that’s all. The arguments about Core States have definitely weakened with the belief that Russia would administer the parts of the Balkans and Orthodox Christian communities with the War in Ukraine and gradual process that built-up to it. The shortcomings of this book are indeed massive.

However, Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations has undoubtable prescience in four broad arguments, these four issues are his major and accurate predictions that repeatedly stand the test of time and grow more timeless with each passing year: first, the decline of Western Civilization was completely accurate to the point that it’s inarguable now. No serious academic would argue otherwise in today’s time. He even listed the causes: capitalist elites opening up borders, invasions by other people (in the US, unchecked illegal immigration is now a serious and real-life threat), and elected elites going on constant warmongering to preserve their image of strength while becoming a declining power (Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s threats on Venezuela and Nigeria). He was completely on the mark and Britain should have served as something to avoid instead of something to admire. The US has doomed itself as a result of mimicking Britain. Second, the propensity for violence and hatred in Islam that supersedes other religious faiths is absolutely true. Huntington was a hundred percent accurate, he gave several datasets to support his arguments, and no serious academic can argue against this either. The data is simply too overwhelming and there’s been too much intra-Islamic violence throughout all of modern history now. Just last week, a professional doctor committed a suicide bombing in India after explaining his support for an Islamic terrorist group and explaining his reason being that it was part of the Muslim worldview that it was right to commit mass murder. This was an accomplished professional doctor with none of the usual lies that you hear about aggrieved social problems, whose explicit reasoning was Islamic theology for his support of Islamic terrorism to kill his fellow Indian citizens. Third, in a broad sense, he predicted the rise of identity-politics as weakening democracies across the world; the major problem is the lack of respect and appreciation for how Free Speech is an act of non-violence. There certainly is a Clash of Civilizations, but in the overwhelming majority of cases… it’s only one civilization that is clashing with everyone else far more than any other contentious social issue and he called out its violent impetus in his book. Islamic civilization is failing to adapt to any host country, not just the Western ones and it’s never been a uniquely Western problem. Islamic civilization doesn’t adapt to Hindu, Chinese, Japanese, Singaporean, or any other society. This is honestly just a Muslim problem and that’s just the honest truth of it. The vast majority of Muslims across the world completely refuse to adapt to anything outside the cult of Islam and demand everything in return while perpetually acting like an aggrieved minority in order to impose a revisionist project of 7^th century Arab fundamentalism upon the entire world:

https://x.com/i/status/1968480098102681987

This Clash of Civilizations has now started in the United States, but it is only Islam and only Muslims that are the cause with ignorant White Liberals who conflate religion with race:

For those who may need more convincing for the US one:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/total-lawlessness-journalist-influencer-says-he-stalked-later-assaulted-chaotic-dearborn-protest

The protests spiraled due to stopping a Quran burning protest… in the United States of America: https://www.foxnews.com/us/anti-islam-protesters-muslims-clash-dearborn-michigan-after-man-attempts-burn-quran

The fourth accurate prediction was Islam seeking a Core State, Huntington’s prescience of the next decade after his passing cannot be ignored. Under President Obama, we were literally having a coalition of civilizations formed to war against a terrorist organization called the Islamic State that sought to create a global Islamic empire. Huntington was completely right about Islamic civilizations seeking to create a unified Core State. His prediction was absolutely on the mark. ISIS has currently shattered into various independent networks that have a horizontal form of leadership, so that it is more difficult for countries like the US and India to effectively destroy them. Yet, this shattering was only after the coalition defeated them. As of now, these terrorist networks can often unify in surprise attacks and have been taking territories in Africa such as in the Sahel. President Biden’s assistance to Al-Shaara’s group means the US has relegated to pitting various Islamic terrorist groups against each other and even assisting former Al Qaeda members despite the fact it’ll probably harm US national interests in the long-term. Nevertheless, Huntington predicted the US and broader West getting into a quagmire of conflicts with the Islamic countries prior to 9/11/2001 when he published it in 1996 and that prediction was completely accurate and true. Thus, his book was too easily and readily dismissed. The Islamic revisionist political project is not going away and most politicians and academics across the world are refusing to take it seriously because of the social taboo of criticizing religion.

His book was wrongly dismissed, likely because evidence-based reasoning with historical backing that counters the dominant narrative of the One Percent seems like a pesky nuisance when it comes to the One Percent’s interest in increasing their respective company’s global market share in foreign countries. Thus, the One Percent and their Muppets who believed in Neoliberalism (which includes Western Universalism) saw fit to categorically downplay or ignore when Huntington was just thoroughly correct in his assessments based upon hard evidence. However, an equally important reason why he was too readily dismissed was that Huntington was too simplistic about other cultures and the ending was him championing his own White Christian-centric view of democracy and confusing Whiteness with democratic norms and values. The reduction of human rights in Britain has absolutely nothing to do with Dharmic cultures and it has mostly to do with Great Britain having lied to the world about ever having been equal to a democratic republic of any kind. That is primarily a weakness of Western culture and not a strength at all. Countries like Britain proclaim democratic norms and values that aren’t even legal or institutional fact in their country and that is precisely why Islamism is having an easier time there. The idea of Asia’s present and future being Western Europe’s past has given way to the opposite: Britain is grappling with Pakistani Muslim rape gangs, yet doesn’t understand their criticisms of barbaric practices like Sati in Hinduism only increased in response to the very same Muslim rape gangs under centuries of Islamic imperialism in India. They never learned anything and refuse to see the evidence for what it is. I fear the US will fall the same way, the more they continue this absolutely insane and extremist obsession with White European Christian heritage; it’ll simply make Islamism stronger than ever. The only real counter is to criticize Islam and to open all religions to honest and truthful criticisms, so they stop harming innocent people.

All that said, the worst weakness of this book, apart from just the implicit conflation of White European with “success” while ignoring Mexico was also colonized by a Western European country, is that he was way too extreme about cultural differences leading to violence. He failed to account for human rights completely as a contentious and serious difference between similar civilizations. Why would Japan feel more akin to China than to the United States, when Japan still refuses to accept accountability for the Nanjing Massacre and its human experiments on Chinese people during World War II? I actually adore most aspects of Japanese culture, but I would never give a pass to any human rights abuses including ones on our perceived US “enemies” like China over an event they’re completely justified in being upset about. Japan hasn’t demanded reparations for the two nuclear bombs that the US dropped because the US never lied about it and while US schools downplayed the horrifying consequences, we didn’t pretend they never existed. However, the worst and most simplistic of his flaws in his analysis was that the conflation with democracy and Whiteness prevented him from viewing distinct democratic cultures as perfectly willing to work together and respect each other’s cultural differences. It’s only Islamic civilization that doesn’t do this. Everyone else can genuinely get along, if they try with honesty and sincerity. The US as a civilization is proof that this is achievable, despite racial and gender issues more recently attempting to shut down discussions; if there is respect for Free Speech and Free Expression by all sides, then it should work out fine with achievable and peaceful goals being met.

I think the most unpredictable flaw that happened to this critique of his was the rise of “in-real-life Streamers” who commit crimes in foreign countries. Gone are the days in which a country would automatically back-up a fellow citizen who was accused of something in a foreign country; now, we have “irl streamers” seeking popularity who actively and openly record themselves committing crimes deliberately for fame and attention. One of the most salient examples is US-Japan relations between our and their common citizens. Gone are the days where Americans would be suspicious of Japan for accusations of criminal behavior on the part of Americans, and now Americans feel a deep sense of cultural shame, humiliation, and often pray that the next embarrassing incident that makes international news isn’t committed by an American visiting Japan. In what was previously an unambiguous rallying point, the US public now sees the hard evidence repeatedly of arrogant, stupid American teens harassing Japanese women, committing sexual violence on Japanese women, stealing luggage from Japanese airports because of the low security, or physically destroying Japanese places of worship and graves to get more views and subscribers for their social media platform. In incidents where Americans are accused of disobeying police in other East Asian countries, there’s videos of American women physically assaulting police, spitting on their faces, or American men throwing a fit and robbing places just to get thumbs up from young American children in the millions who find humor from such content. Samuel P. Huntington could never have predicted this and he ignored that hard evidence of misdeeds can change even the minds of tens of millions of people. The hard evidence is what won out against the idea of any shared cultural identity and the entire embarrassing affair of IRL streamers is proof.

The Russia-Ukraine and now the growing rift between the US and Israel speaks volumes on the weakness of his ideas about Core States and civilizational unity. Similar government structures, cultures, religious backgrounds, and language have now shown the opposite effect of loathing each other. The fixation on a White European Christian identity is just as harmful as gender and other racial identity politics. Outside of Islam, we’re seeing a mutual respect for distinct cultures, identities, languages, and ethnic backgrounds, but why is that? The US public – including US conservatives – have shown a quick agreeableness to claims such as Japan should remain a distinct Japanese culture, South Korea should be allowed to maintain its distinct culture, and so on. The truth was that most people don’t want to hyperactively impose their cultural norms on others for the sake of conquest; they just want mutual respect and appreciate the distinction of differing cultures. Americans enjoy seeing different perspectives and the portions of society that believed that we should only enjoy the Western European perspective slowly withered when we gained a better appreciation for other cultures. Public consciousness is also against stereotyping ever since progressive politics and Wokeism became prevalent, but it has gone in the opposite extreme when it comes to Islamic civilizations without an honest assessment on their cultural and civilizational limitations. Compare what Japanese culture and Islamic culture do for Americans: Japanese culture usually gives us safe cars, great electronic products like the best video games and game consoles, the best and most intellectual and fun cartoon shows with Anime, and Japanese mangaka are some of the best story writers in modern times with many already revered by young Americans for their amazing storytelling. Islamic culture tries to guilt us over Israel’s actions, demands nobody criticize their 7^th Century Arab fundamentalist belief system, and threatens murder, rape, torture, and shows a complete inability to live in a functioning modern society without perpetually trying to harm the human rights of everyone they perceive as an “enemy” in their ooga-booga-allahu-akbar 7^th century mindset that feels entitled to enter other civilizations with the sole purpose of regressing them all politically, economically, and culturally into 7^th century Arab fundamentalist standards for their version of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ because an illiterate pedophile warlord from the 7^th century said so.

https://x.com/i/status/1982364828288307681

Overall, the strengths are as impressive as the weaknesses in his analysis. He spent much of the book critiquing the foolishness of Western Universalism at the starting-half, and then paraded his own implicitly racial version in his conclusion without any awareness of the contradiction. His critiques were broadly on the mark, but his specific views of how it would devolve were too negative and he was not being realistic about East Asia. The worst flaw in his analysis was the simplistic and uncritical idea that Whiteness was synonymous with democracy and human rights. I’d rate it a 3.5 / 5 after finishing it.