I agree it is an idealist work that borders on anarchist thinking. But, parts are spot on.
I would not say it is so much anarchist as it is a revelation that our language has been corrupted and coopted for nefarious purposes. At one time we could speak about a "social contract" without concerns for duplicity. That is no longer true and the "social contract" is now a "deed of enslavement". Many of the authors examples did have a different interpretation at one time.