He’s your classic bullsit artist. He’ll talk circles without actually saying anything meaningful, and when you attempt to engage him he says that you’re “misunderstanding” or “misrepresenting” his words, never clarifying what he actually meant to say. Watch any video of this guy having a debate with somebody else and you’ll see that he’s constantly using this dishonest tactic.
Another classic con artist’s trick that he employs is making his audience feel smarter by leading them. Look at this excerpt from his book:
Procedural knowledge, generated in the course of heroic behavior, is not organized and integrated within the group and the individual as a consequence of simple accumulation. Procedure “a,” appropriate in situation one, and procedure “b,” appropriate in situation two, may clash in mutual violent opposition in situation three. Under such circumstances intrapsychic or interpersonal conflict necessarily emerges. When such antagonism arises, moral revaluation becomes necessary. As a consequence of such revaluation, behavioral options are brutally rank-ordered, or, less frequently, entire moral systems are devastated, reorganized and replaced. This organization and reorganization occurs as a consequence of “war,” in its concrete, abstract, intrapsychic, and interpersonal variants. In the most basic case, an individual is rendered subject to an intolerable conflict, as a consequence of the perceived (affective) incompatibility of two or more apprehended outcomes of a given behavioral procedure. In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired (or avoidance of what is feared) in the future. Permanent satisfactory resolution of such conflict (between temptation and “moral purity,” for example) requires the construction of an abstract moral system, powerful enough to allow what an occurrence signifies for the future to govern reaction to what it signifies now. Even that construction, however, is necessarily incomplete when considered only as an “intrapsychic” phenomena. The individual, once capable of coherently integrating competing motivational demands in the private sphere, nonetheless remains destined for conflict with the other, in the course of the inevitable transformations of personal experience. This means that the person who has come to terms with him- or herself—at least in principle—is still subject to the affective dysregulation inevitably produced by interpersonal interaction. It is also the case that such subjugation is actually indicative of insufficient “intrapsychic” organization, as many basic “needs” can only be satisfied through the cooperation of others.
An honest man doesn’t use so many words to say so little. What you see here is something that’s designed to make a stupid reader feel smart when he skims over it and nods his head in blind agreement, no doubt before he hops on to the internet so that he can actually decipher this maze of 10 cent words and unecessary redundancies.
Like I said, it’s a pretty classic con. His people eat this shit up.