I’ve read enough. He’s typical of someone not educated in the sciences and so he

I’ve read enough. He’s typical of someone not educated in the sciences and so he speaks in typical french philosophical prose loaded with emotion about that which is trivially simple and well known in the literature. My primary complaint is that he justifies manipulation – something near and dear to the femininity of the french heart. After that it’s his rather silly anthropology that doesn’t mirror the evidence. In short like jews and continentals he loads and frames and in doing so manipulates the reader who, by merely choosing literary philosophy rather than empirical science, is vulnerable to his inherent attempt a imposing his morals.