I get a bit uptight when he uses history to prove his points, because a lot of the time he seems to like to be think he's authorititive when really his use of the past as evidence is often shaky at best.
And I also have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that he is rationalising a lot of the modern world with mythology he has learnt out of a 19th century book, because let's face it most direct links to the Pagan past are gone, so a lot of the philosophies, beliefs and practices of the true Pagan ancestors - not the hippy re-eneactors - are purely conjecture.
I don't see why, as romantic as they are, the Norse mythologies are any more relevant or believable in the modern world, I prefer if anything just to take a physical view of things, the perfection of nature as a natural phenomenon, the history of human existence through time, it is far more interesting and relevant to me than explaining it away with fairy tales learnt from history books, as inspiring as these can be.