Thanks again. I don't wish to drag the conversation onward with responses, though out of respect for your responses, here are are a couple of clarifications.

The most useful part of the book is probably his analysis of how liberals are formed and how they think.

My view is that this is not necessarily the most important part, but that I agree regarding many of the problems with Neoliberalism, which meant that Clinton and Obama did not appropriately challenge the GOP, and indeed helped the GOP with goals that have abused the 99%, the American Dream &c.

You see my biggest problem when I was a liberal was I thought there just wasn't enough focus on the wealth gap.

Agree 100%. (I was an Independent in 1980, but changed to Democrat in 1984, thanks to the obvious abuses of the Reagan admin, and have remained a Dem. since then.)

It seemed that people at the top were rigging the system but even then I struggled to comprehend who exactly those people were.

Agree 100%. We find those few people in the .01% when we follow the money, as much as possible.

Marx has some arguments that help to understand this but Marx got hijacked by an ethnic group that used his ideas to start revolutions against their enemies and fuck up a LOT of religious and monarchical stability in the world.

I agree.

Marx also failed as he assumed that the social sciences were like the hard sciences and that his conclusions were beyond reproach.

Yes, though this wasn't just Marx, as this has been assumed in many academic disciplines, excluding the arts, since the early-mid 19th century.

Trotsky is an import figure to study. What I find interesting about his plan is that he thought the best way to get the cashless workers paradise was to first pool (by donation or FORCE) all the money in one central bank. That should send up some red flags for anyone.

Yes - and those in power keep most of the money, as we've seen in Russia and China, who launder their money through other central banks. JF Kennedy and others wanted every dollar to match the gold and silver reserves, and I think that's the main reason he was killed (among other reasons).

JQ

Will await more info on this.

Have your read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine?

Yes - I agree it's helpful.

A History of Central Banking by Goodson

I'll have a look. You may also know that Magnora7 shares our concerns about the history of central banking, if you've seen his Youtube interviews.

Stop playing dumb. You just goaded the sub on in the previous sentence of that comment saying that, and I'm paraphrasing, 'dissidents should DO things not just whine'. That's a direct implication for us to write down 'revolutionary' actions in a book socks and now you're acting like you didn't just imply that. This is why I called you sneaky user and I think I'm again being proven right in that assessment. We know your tactics as we see them over and over so be careful with the tricks socks. Be very careful.

We certainly disagree on this. We know that there is plenty of information one can put in a book that will not put anyone at risk. Moreover, supporting the book idea is not a trick or tricky. To think that I am trying to trick DAR verges on paranoid schizophrenia, a term Redditors have used to describe Saidit in general, when responding to Magnora7's earlier notes on year-long milestones for Saidit. That's a mean comment by Redditors, but there is some evidence of paranoid schizophrenia on Saidit.

If you believe that white people do not deserve this sacred right to self defense then you are the worst type of anti white there is.

This appears to be a straw man. I have no reason to dislike white people, or to see a sacred right, or to be anti-white. All of this is rather surprising. We certainly disagree on this way of thinking.

we do it better then anyone on the planet

This may fit within a broader historical quesiton about Western European bellicosity, c. 1000 - 2000, to which there aren't reliable answers. But the key problem in your comment is 'we', but not something to unpick at the moment.

you're going to need to start valuing truth over rhetoric

This is the main reason I've responded to your points. You know that I am focusing here on facts, and truth. I write plainly, and I am not trying to persuade (the essence of rhetoric) anyone to think differently.