How relevant is this book in the modern world?

>>9617495
It isn't. The only thing relevant now is how many likes you got on your most recent instagram picture. The truth sucks right?

>>9617495
Puts me in mind of George Steiner's The Death of Tragedy- which IS still relevant. And relevant to this board.

>>9617495
Quite, considering some of the claims within were from a few years ago.

>I mean, it's not like certain entities really exist, pulling strings from behind curtains, right?
>...right?

I s'pose it's not the brightest thing to post or admit knowing on a public forum that has been logging data and known/frequented by intelligence agencies for a bit over a decade, most of which being known for reporting to certain entities.

Then again, the technology to control human emotions through the pulses of a television or monitor screen -- remotely through the internet, no less -- has been around for a few years already, so what could surprise anyone these days.
>Being SWAT'd, but even that's relatively expected once you go too far in any direction.

>>9617495
Give me a quick rundown of it

>>9617495
I'll give you an honest review.

A lot of it is outdated, especially the chapters concerning the USSR. Quigley quite clearly overestimated the prowess of the Soviets, but it's quite natural considering that knowledge of how fragile the soviet system was wasn't widespread in the 1960s. He doesn't name the Jew, barely mentions Israel. His analysis stops in the early 1960s, just before the world wide cultural revolution.

He indulges in quite a bit of "big history theory", in the sense that he tries to describe civilizations as evolving in quite abstract cycles, which I'm not sure is entirely correct. The first part of the book is especially concerned with this theory and makes the book off-putting.

There are no citations for any of the claims in the book. This is especially bewildering considering that a big chunk of the book are economic analyses, and Quigley doesn't cite any sources for the numbers he seemingly pulls out of thin air. And of course, there are the numerous conspiracies he advances.

Apart from that, for a history book the prose is among the finest I've ever read. The picture Quigley paints of the 20th century is, despite (or actually thanks to) the conspiracy theories he advances, one of the most coherent and logical pictures you could paint, and helps to explain some confusing historical events, especially the events between ww1 and ww2. The chapter on the development of the nuclear bomb is some of the best prose written in the English language.

Tldr: would highly recommend. But keep in mind that none of it is sourced.

>>9618864
Whoa, really good post. I usually bitch and moan in these threads but this is one of the most useful things I've come across here. Big props.

>>9618864
any other history books you'd rec?