DNF at 50%. The content is fine and I don’t think he’s wrong about things necessarily but the lack of explanation of how the author came to some of these conclusions really annoyed me. It felt almost irresponsible. I’m happy to explore even extreme ideas theoretically or potentially accept them as a belief but when someone is introducing a borderline radical new idea, I want to know how or why they came to whatever conclusion they did. There is none of that in this book, at least the first half. Gave me the ick.