There's some interesting ideas here. The suggestion that the Enlightenment may have erased several millenia of human wisdom is interesting - it's reminiscent of coming across a piece of legacy code, erasing it, and starting over. After you work out all the edge cases, your "clean" code starts to have a lot of the same stuff as the code you erased.

I also found the criticisms of economics interesting. Other than micro-economics laws like supply, demand, division of labor and others, I've never read an economic theory that didn't have some hand-wavy aspect to it. The suggestion that the entire field has served more to dehumanize us than add to our general understanding of scarce resource distribution is a valid point to raise. Though I felt like Adam Smith was the wrong person to place the blame on, if blame need be placed. If they're suggesting that the field hasn't advanced our understanding much past the basics, then why blame the person who best crystalized the basics?

There's clearly some controversial stuff in here that's meant to be controversial, but if you can look past that, there's some unique ideas.