/lit/ - Literature

>>12137715
Carroll Quigley, though it's kind of hard to call him a conservative. He's more like a historian who unapologetically loves the elite superstructure of the world. He also has a way of reducing entire cultural histories into mere paragraphs in a way that would make a modern day scholar blush.

That said, everything he wrote was dead accurate and he is definitely one of the best historians of the 20th century.

Is this worth reading, /lit/?

>>11821732
It's actually because the supposed "Jewish conspiracy" that controls global finance is actually 75% Anglo as of the dawn of the 20th century, thanks to people like Alfred Milner and Cecil Rhodes.

>>11741356
These are all basic bitch books. Any actual /pol/ list worth its salt would have pic related.

Thoughts on this?

>>9487345

D I S C U S S

>This thread

This is why we can never discuss anything on /lit/.

One person who read the book (OP) tries to discuss it, then a person who vaguely read the wiki article or parrot squawks what his professor said comes in the thread with the ulterior motive of being contrarian regardless of the direction of discussion, prompting other people who vaguely know little about the book to spout bullshit, which then devolves into attacking each other on the basis of semantics.

This is why this place is shit.

I read the book, and it seems to me nobody else has (or if they did, they really didn't understand it).

If you've ever read Quigleys Tragedy and Hope, you can draw a lot of parallels to plato's republic. In Tradgedy and Hope, Quigley attempts to explain the life cycles of civilizations, with many theories that seem to echo Socrates/Plato.

You guys probably wouldn't know anything about that because you guys are a bunch of nincompoops unworthy of associating with or discussing anything. I remember why I don't come here anymore.

>>3753469