PS: For an example of delusion, follow the bouncing 8-ball
Here.
If he only used this stuff to support his fiction, I would say it was an exercise in world-building, and call it very imaginative. But he uses it to support his position on human rights issues, a cosmological version of "blame the victim", as if it were fact.
I don't see you or Ed jumping in with all the charming epithets at your fingertips that you normally use when faced with something with which you disagree. Anomalists and liberals are equivalent when it comes to your choice of adjectives. Yet there is silence.
Why do you think that might be?
Do you agree? Or are you merely reluctant to draw attention to the, ah, eccentric world view of someone who supports your politics so often and at such great length?