The writer believes some very strange things.

I'm not sure how he squares all his assessments about who has what motivations...

For instance, he thinks that the food people all have the same motivation - but some people say that on each side, people have commercial motivations rather than 'feed the world' motivations.

Then there are vaccine people - don't we all want better health and safety for everyone? Or are there people on both sides of that debate that are interested in their own health at the expense of the community? Or even more, people with financial motivations on both side of the debate?

Even the evolution debate could be framed as a shared motivation - we all want to know the truth about our purpose and meaning in life. How universal and noble a motivation, how strange he couldn't build on that to write in his book... or does he think that the two groups are motivated by their own strains of selfish impulses, rationalizations of their own immoral behavior or inadequate performance, exclusionary social mechanisms, or financial interests?

Really, this author gets less and less interesting the more he writes. Too bad.