I’m more and more convinced lately that classical liberalism can be blamed on elevating spergy technocrats like Bentham and Hobbes to positions of influence beyond their ability or sense of responsibility during the Enlightenment. Promoting intellectual monks who were previously most suitable to serve as walking reference books would produce a crude, immature New Nobility in the same way that industrialization produced the crude, immature Nouveau Riche. Neither class of new aristocracy would have been comfortable navigating paradoxical interdependencies to balance unarticulated concerns, which is the primary job function of a stationary bandit. This theory makes a lot of sense if we assume the little ice age was a brief, unusual period during which neanderthal genetics were actually favored on the level of individual selection, thus conferring status.
There are two important questions that any theory about modern industrial civilization must answer in order to be taken seriously: (1) Why did it arise when and where it did? (2) Why did it not only survive but continue to advance during the last two centuries? The authors answer the first question by adopting Gregory Clark’s “survival of the richest” theory, which states that in pre-industrial societies, or at least in pre-industrial England, wealthy people had on average more surviving children than the poor (Clark & Hamilton, 2006). Assuming at least slightly “meritocratic” conditions in pre-industrial societies, this theory predicts rising frequencies of those genetic traits (favoring, for example, intelligence and foresight, but possibly materialism and selfishness) that lead to the acquisition of wealth. The theory is plausible, and there is some initial evidence showing that this or a similar genetic process did take place in Europe during the last two or three millennia before the Industrial Revolution (Woodley of Menie et al., 2017).
While Jewish spergs (e.g. Marx) and white melonhead polymaths (e.g. Goethe, J.S. Mill) may have extended the original ideas to their logical conclusions I believe the early thinkers breaking new ideological ground would have been white neanderthals. (But then, it can be very difficult to disambiguate these groups to begin with—one of the reasons I suspect a family resemblance is the heat maps of neanderthal admixture showing concentrations in melonhead redoubts like Beijing, of all places.)
The tendencies to reductionism, systemizing, and agnostic materialism which are common to Enlightenment philosophizing are familiar to autism spotters. The latter, particularly, is merely a more intelligent version of flat earth epistemology. “I only believe what I can personally verify because all these people are too full of shit to bother sifting through their words for truth.” Flat earthism and agnosticism alike may well be described as applied autism (whereas atheism proper seems to require unresolved anger issues from bad experiences with authority in early development).
This theory dovetails with my other theory that the Enlightenment can be blamed on coffee, because caffeine abuse among Europeans is predicted by neanderthal admixture. And, to be quite honest with you fam, I just can’t imagine any other hominid inventing things as autistic as libertarianism, utilitarianism, and social contract theory. It pains me to admit this one a great deal more than the others, but I suspect our people may be responsible for Calvinism too.