The problem is that Paul Williams, in the end, contributes nothing to the debate except for continuously shilling his own books on the subject. (I've borrowed both from the library; they are almost identical in content. "Repeating one's self," to quote my English professor, "compounds the academic crime of plagirism with the aesthetic sin of extremely poor taste.")
Paul Williams is taking advantage of "The Wizard's First Rule".
People can be convinced of anything if it meets one of two criteria:
1. They want it to be true
or
2. They are afraid that it's true
I'm not addressing the truth of the topic, but rather his approach. He appears to be shilling.
The topic deserves more respect than he's given it. It's as if he's smearing it intentionally.
Your perspicacity is intact, Sir.