So, I assume that many of his “killer apps” refer to elements of the Italian city-states, the Netherlands, and Great Britain, when they became rich through trade and then industrialization — although the list does look like it’s meant to describe America in its prime.

Competition (economic competition I suppose this means) is not distinctive to the West — nor is competition particularly strong in the West. It is hard to measure, but I have read that many parts of Africa have more and freer competition nowadays, and so did Medieval Europe. Some parts of the West have very little competition and very high security — few sanctions for failure.

Work ethic — yes. This was naturally selected for during the centuries of stable centralized agriculture societies (see Greg Clark’s Farewell to Alms). But the process went even further in East Asia, where the work ethic is even stronger.

Democracy. Has it been a good thing? Was the West even democratic when it was most dominant? — certainly not by present day standards. More of a highly selective male oligarchy. If the West had been democratic in late 20th century style it probably never would have done anything.

Medicine? Well this came pretty late in the West. Hygiene from the late 19th century, effective medicine probably only the mid-twentieth century.

Consumerism. Not sure what this is getting at.

Science. Thats more like it. Indeed this probably is it. Specifically scientific and technical creative genius on a massive scale. That was the key factor, in my opinion, and distinctive to the West.

Of course creative sci-tech genius required a high average general intelligence — which is not mentioned (surprise, surprise).

And of course there are now no active sci-tech geniuses at all — so that is enough by itself to put an end to Western domination, even without demographic collapse and political correctness.