Was it the inherent quality (or lack thereof of the book) of mere resistance to counter opinions and certainty that "this can't be any good since it's ideologically opposite" though?
No, I am genuinely interested on the opposing take, but as far as I remember he was just babbling some ridiculous thing over and over. It didn't make any intellectual sense, whether you're right-wing/left-wing, populist/liberal.
To be frank, I find his arguments a little flaky and hand-wavy, of the "self-help guru" variety, but there's usually some interesting perspective or tidbit there that I wouldn't have thought otherwise...
