Is it just me and my biases, or does the author seems to have a consistently misguided view of each individual area and example described. Perhaps this could b

Is it just me and my biases, or does the author seems to have a consistently misguided view of each individual area and example described. Perhaps this could be taken as interesting from some kind of "10th man rule" perspective? Otherwise it just seems like a lot of assertions based on causality I can't quite logically wrap my head around.