I did not realise people read things without the ability of context to help them. I am sure Patton read the commentaries without any knowledge of Rome at all, a

I did not realise people read things without the ability of context to help them. I am sure Patton read the commentaries without any knowledge of Rome at all, a lack of any military techne, nor the ability to critique it(pretty sure I mentioned this.) As for translators, I think you might have missed the point Patton was making about a certain type of historian. Patton recommended the autobiography as source 0. Not the only source(straw man.) Perhaps I needed to spell that out? By reading multiple sources(Dr. D'Este regarded him as one of the most well read officers in history. He was clearly dyslexic as well, and like most dyslexics, it has nothing to do with intelligence. On the contrary, it results in a phenomenal memory ability. See the British Barrister George Carman for similar traits.) Patton was able to get a gestalt. He always found the original source, particularly the mindset, to be most valuable. "The author doesn't mock capitalism or strivers" and then proceeds to list out the common bog standard anti-capitalism and strivers 'arguments'. He does not mock them. Of that you are correct. It's more of an angry tirade that is just rehashed champagne socialism. I could give you a far better critique of the current form of capitalism. The quite odious stench of libertarianism and their no rules capitalism laid the framework for where we are now. We end up with oligopoly. This leads to employees having no choice, and a toxic work environment led by the 'radical candor' mindset. See Ray Dalio(Copeland's book about this cancer is great.) Look at Andy Grove's 'constructive criticism' which infected every area of corporate America and practically destroyed it. Toxic radical candor, oligopolies, and lack of employee protection laws creates the environment we have now. Author knows nothing of these and just presents the standard tenured baizuo arguments.