Well, props for linking to the actual paper (more than the OP did). Though just as with the other thread on here with a long academic paper in it, I find I'm hampered by lacking the time and energy to wade through the damn thing. Which is related to the point, that this is what academics do, it's how they keep their publication records up and keep their jobs but I really struggle to see it as all that important in most cases, and certainly not enough to justify the OP's absurd persecution complex. A tremendous amount of what appears in journals, even in 'hard science' subjects, is so much inconsequential noise.
(Academic friend defined their job as 'digging things up from one part of the library in order to bury them again in another part')
There does seem to be a lot of historical background in that paper - it appears it's making claims that it attempts to support via argument and evidence. Whether the evidence is convincing I can't say because I just don't care enough about to do the work needed to try and decide. Maybe I'll get back to it one day. I doubt it's any worse than the guff that evolutionary psychologists or those who study IQ, or, indeed, economics, come out with, and is likely to have far less real-world influence.