Give an overview of Carrol Quigley's The Evolution Of Civil…

Carroll Quigley's "The Evolution of Civilizations" presents a comprehensive theory of history that seeks to explain the development and decline of civilizations through a systematic and scientific approach. Quigley delineates seven stages of civilization: mixture, gestation, expansion, age of conflict, universal empire, decay, and invasion. His framework emphasizes the importance of social instruments and institutions transitioning into institutions serving the needs of the society to ones that serve themselves, ultimately leading to stagnation and decline.

Quigley focuses on the role of cultural diffusion and the adaptability of social structures, proposing that civilizations collapse when they fail to reorganize their social instruments to respond to new challenges.

In contrast, Oswald Spengler's "The Decline of the West" presents a more philosophical and deterministic view of history. Spengler suggests that civilizations are akin to living organisms, with predetermined life cycles comprising growth, maturity, and inevitable decay. He emphasizes the cultural and spiritual aspects of civilizations, suggesting that each has its unique soul or "geist" that shapes its path. According to Spengler, Western civilization is in its winter phase, characterized by a decline in creativity and spirit, inevitably leading to its demise.

While both Quigley and Spengler discuss the rise and fall of civilizations, Quigley offers a more analytical and structural approach, focusing on adaptability and the self-serving transformation of institutions. Spengler, on the other hand, presents a more cyclical and metaphorical perspective, emphasizing the cultural life force of civilizations and their inescapable fate. Quigley’s work is more optimistic, allowing for potential revival through institutional reform, while Spengler’s philosophy suggests a kind of fatalism regarding cultural decline.

Well, Spengler's model does allow for regeneration of a civilization, just think of China.
According to Quigley's model, in what phase is Western civilization now?

Quigley's model defines seven stages of civilizations: mixture, gestation, expansion, age of conflict, universal empire, decay, and invasion. While it's tricky to pinpoint exactly where Western civilization currently stands, many scholars suggest that we are somewhere in the late "age of conflict" transitioning into the "universal empire" phase. The "age of conflict" often involves growing income gaps, a decline in institution efficiency, and social unrest. The succeeding "universal empire" stage typically involves the formation of a large empire that maintains peace but is marked by economic inequality, institutional inefficiency, and cultural stagnation. Given the current social, political, and economic challenges, one could argue Western civilization is somewhere in these stages. However, this is subjective and views can differ widely.

Some would argue we are somewhere between decay and invasion. Just think of the open border policies in Europe and the US allowing millions of people to stream in, some of them Islamists who go on to attack the people and infrastructure of their host countries.

That's a valid perspective, and certainly aligns with Quigley's theory. In his model, the "decay" stage is marked by internal conflict, declining public morale, and ineffective institutions, which could arguably be seen in the current political climate, both in Europe and the United States. The following "invasion" phase involves the civilization being overrun or transformed by outside groups, which some may see mirrored in the substantial migration movements and demographic changes. However, it's important to note that many factors contribute to the evolution of civilizations, and such processes are highly complex and multifaceted. Consequently, an oversimplified or exclusionary perspective can lead to misunderstandings and missed opportunities for positive change and connectivity. It's also worth noting that while migration can pose challenges, it has historically been a key factor in societal growth and innovation.

There seems to be an agenda coming from the UN that demands mass immigration.
Describe it and explain what it is meant to achieve.

You are likely referring to the United Nations' Global Compact for Migration, formally known as the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. Adopted in December 2018 by most of the UN member states, except a few such as the United States, Hungary, and Australia, the Compact aims to better manage international migration at all levels, addressing both challenges and opportunities posed by migration.

The Compact establishes 23 objectives for managing migration, including minimizing structural factors that compel people to leave their countries, providing accurate information at all stages of migration, ensuring that all migrants have proof of legal identity, and establishing coordinated international efforts on missing migrants. Other objectives are reducing vulnerabilities in migration, saving lives and establishing coordinated international efforts on missing migrants, providing access to basic services for migrants, and developing flexible pathways for regular migration.

It could be argued that this initiative is designed to manage the effects of global trends like political instability, climate change, and economic inequality which have led to increased migration. However, it has faced criticism from some quarters who believe that it could infringe upon national sovereignty or that it promotes migration. It's important to note that the Global Compact for Migration is a non-legally binding document that respects the sovereignty of countries, and it establishes the understanding that no nation can manage immigration completely on its own.

As for what it is meant to achieve, the Compact seeks to set a framework for comprehensive international cooperation on migrants and human mobility, reduce the risks and vulnerabilities faced by migrants, and ensure that migration takes place in a safe, orderly and regular manner.

The compact seems to be a reaction to people being sick of uncontrolled immigration.
I'm more interested what the original rationale was for mass immigration into Europe and the US.
Someone surely decided that this needed to happen and had good reasons.

The original rationale behind immigration policies in Western countries like Europe and the United States is multifaceted and differs based on historical, economic, demographic, and political contexts. Here are a few primary reasons:

1. Economic Reasons: Immigrants often perform jobs that are less desirable to native-born individuals, fulfilling a crucial role in sectors like agriculture, hospitality, and caregiving. They also potentially boost innovation and economic growth. Many countries in Europe saw immigration as a solution to labor shortages.

2. Demographic Reasons: In several European countries and the US, low fertility rates and an aging population have created a demographic crisis. Immigrants, who tend to be younger, can help maintain a balanced age structure and ensure the sustainability of social benefit programs.

3. Humanitarian Reasons: Europe's decision to allow mass immigration, particularly from Middle Eastern and African countries, has been influenced by conflict, violence, and persecution in these regions. Admitting refugees is considered a moral or humanitarian obligation under international law.

4. Historical Reasons: The principle of free movement in Europe is also a cornerstone of the European project and the internal single market. It's a key element of the treaty signed in 1957 and continues to be a fundamental value.

While these reasons are typically highlighted, it's worth noting that the decision-making process around immigration policy is complex and involves numerous stakeholders, including politicians, policymakers, and the citizens themselves. Public sentiment on immigration varies widely across and within countries.

Finally, it's important to recognize that the term 'mass immigration' can be misleading - while the number of immigrants has increased in absolute terms due to global population growth, the proportion of immigrants in the global population has remained fairly stable over the past six decades. It was around 3% in 1970 and it is around 3.5% today.

Millions of people streaming over the borders of Europe and the US in the last decade is just business as usual?

Migration has indeed increased significantly in the last decade, but referring to it as 'business as usual' may oversimplify the complex factors at play. It's important to note that global migration is influenced by a range of factors, including conflict, climate change, economic instability, and changes in domestic and international policy.

Over the past decade, Europe has experienced a significant influx of refugees and migrants due to a wide variety of factors, including the Syrian Civil War, the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean, and other regional conflicts and economic conditions. Similarly, the United States has seen an increased number of asylum seekers from Central America due to violence and economic instability in their home countries.

It's also important to remember that 'mass migration' tends to be a perception taken from media headlines and isn't always reflective of the broader picture. In Europe, for example, the peak of the refugee crisis in 2015 was notable but the numbers have since declined significantly. In the US, illegal border crossings have overall decreased over the past two decades, although there have been recent surges.

However, these situations have highlighted the need for more effective and comprehensive immigration and asylum systems, both nationally and internationally, to manage such situations in the future. Policymakers are facing the challenge of balancing humanitarian obligations, public opinion, economic considerations, and security concerns.

Explain how countries with higher than zero percent jobless people need immigration for economic reasons.

Unemployment rate and immigration share a complex relationship. While it may seem counterintuitive to bring in immigrants when there are unemployed citizens, it's important to consider a few points:

1. Skill Mismatch: Not all jobs are equal, and not all workers have the skills for the jobs that are available. There can be a high demand for workers in certain industries where locals have little interest or lack skills. In such cases, immigrants can fill these gaps.

2. Job Creation: Immigrants don't just fill jobs; they also create them. They often become entrepreneurs who start businesses, which in turn creates jobs for both local citizens and other immigrants.

3. Complementary Work: Some work performed by immigrants is complementary to the work performed by native-born workers, meaning they take different roles within the same industry. This can lead to increased productivity for native workers and therefore overall economic growth.

4. Aging Populations: In many developed countries, the aging population is growing faster than the young workforce. This can strain public finances, as fewer workers contribute to the pension system. Immigration can bring in a younger workforce that helps rebalance the demographics.

5. Economic Growth: Economic growth isn't just about the number of jobs, but also about creating diverse economic opportunities, fostering innovation, raising productivity, and adapting to change - areas where immigrants have been shown to make substantial contributions.

6. Labor market dynamics: Labor markets are not static; they can change and adapt. Incoming immigrants may increase the demand for goods and services in their host countries, which could lead to job creation.

While these factors may support the argument for immigration, it's crucial to remember that the outcomes depend very much on having sound immigration and integration policies in place.

Has Europe had a sound immigration policy in the last decades?
How many of the immigrants have actually taken jobs that increase economic growth?

Assessing the effectiveness of Europe's immigration policy can be subjective and depends on the specific measures one uses to evaluate it. Some argue that Europe's policy has been effective in humanitarian terms, especially given the significant number of refugees the region has accepted from conflict-ridden areas. Others argue that it has been less successful in terms of economic integration and social cohesion, pointing to challenges with unemployment and assimilation among immigrant populations.

The economic impact of immigration is also a complex and contentious issue, and the answer can depend on various factors including the labor market conditions, the skills of immigrants, and the effectiveness of the policy measures implemented to facilitate their integration into the job market.

Several studies suggest that immigrants contribute positively to the economic growth of hosting countries in multiple ways. For instance, a study conducted by the OECD stated that immigrants contributed more in taxes than they received in benefits. Other studies found that immigrants boost the host country's economy by taking up both high-skilled and low-skilled jobs, thereby filling gaps in the labor market.

According to the European Commission, in 2018, the employment rate of non-EU born residents in the EU was about 5 percentage points lower than the total population - 64.8% compared to 70.1%. While this does suggest that immigrants are generally less likely to be employed than the native population, it also shows that a substantial proportion of immigrants are contributing to the labor market.

However, it's also true that issues such as the recognition of foreign qualifications, language barriers, and discrimination can pose challenges to the successful economic integration of immigrants, and these are areas where many believe more policy effort is needed.

It's worth noting that the net economic impact of immigration can vary greatly by country and group of immigrants, due to factors such as differing immigration policies, labor market conditions, and the characteristics of the immigrants themselves. For instance, studies have found that high-skilled immigrants tend to make substantial positive contributions to their host economies, and there's also evidence that even low-skilled immigration can have positive economic effects if it is effectively managed.

In conclusion, immigration can potentially offer various economic benefits, but achieving these benefits depends on having effective policies in place.

Let's talk about refugees fleeing war. Many people criticize that they seem to be largely young men, which is very strange because you'd expect women and children to be the ones who need to flee most. Explain.

The demographic composition of migrant flows can be influenced by a number of factors, including the specific circumstances of the conflicts from which people are fleeing, cultural norms, and the practicalities of migration.

Firstly, the journey to safety can be extremely dangerous, requiring crossing borders clandestinely, undertaking long treks on foot, or making perilous sea crossings. Consequently, families often send their strongest and most able-bodied members - usually young men - in hopes that they reach safer lands and eventually secure a better life for the entire family. The idea is often that these young men, once safely settled, can then potentially arrange for their families to join them via safer, legal channels.

Another factor influencing this trend could be that young men are often the main targets of conscription, forced military recruitment, or political persecution, prompting them to leave their home country.

However, it's important to note that while the media often focus on the young men arriving in Europe or America, millions of women, children, and elderly people are also displaced by conflicts but may remain in their home country or nearby regions. For instance, according to the UNHCR, women and children make up about 80% of the refugees in the world's largest refugee camp, the Bidibidi settlement in Uganda.

These circumstances don't discount the legitimate challenges associated with integrating large numbers of young, male refugees into host societies. Nonetheless, it's essential to understand these factors in order to have a balanced and nuanced view of global refugee movements.

So to sum it up, the reasons why Western countries have allowed mass immigration are economic on one hand and humanitarian on the other.
Are there countries that take a different path? Which ones? How did that work out for them so far?