My cerebellum loves your thesis. Alas, my cerebrum has been in nitpicking mode in the half hour or so since I first read it.

Memories surface, and cry out to say you are close but without cigar. I have memories of Dollar General ads on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, and of "conservatives" defending junk food and mass produced American beer. I have memories of cheese eating Progressives who favored craft beers, classical music, and expensive wines. NPR was left leaning even when it still had class.

High Church Protestantism is associated with modern liberalism and faggotry. Hardcore right wing Protestants often sing repetitive Maranatha "music" chants in buildings whose beauty is surpassed by the local Best Buy.

Memories surface of Ayn Rand -- Ms. Enlightenment on Meth -- condemning Medieval art with its scary gargoyles and extolling the bodybuilder art of ancient Greece.

Memories surface of Enlightenment movements reviving the classical styles of the ancients. Pre Brutalist Washington D.C. comes to mind.

Memories surface of early free market thinkers being in favor of meritocracy over inherited privilege. My pineal gland groks a similar pattern today, with the "Left" being a coalition of billionaires, inheritors of old money, banksters, and Hollywood woketards, while the "Right" is a coalition of truckers, tradesmen, and geniuses who cannot get a job in academia.

There there are memories of reading Douglass Hyde's "Dedication and Leadership." Communists were able to infiltrate and control many organizations because they were willing to put in higher quality work because they had an ulterior motive.


In conclusion, I'd say you are onto something very important. An additional political dimension at the very least. But your ultimate conclusion is not quite on the mark. Some refinement is in order.

Expand full comment

Ever since I was a young lad in the 90s I was always irked by "discrimination" being a dirty word.

I didn't realize it at the time, but the stage was being set to demonize "discrimination" in any forms; that is, to "notice"

Expand full comment

The left doesn’t believe in equality. If they did there would be no affirmative action, no racial quotas, and no support for socialism. They believe in equity, racial preferences and force.

Expand full comment

How come it took me so long to discover you?

Expand full comment

should you distinguish between equality in negative rights vs equality in outcome -- a product of an individual's quality? Certainly those two things are not mutually exclusive. You can have equal (negative) rights along with very unequal, quality-differentiated people.

Expand full comment

Excellent points Kulak. I would like to point out though what I am sure you are already cognizant of, but the "all men are created equal" of the American Founders is still arguable, and should be argued well, from the right. That argument being that the Founders were English gentlemen, and they wrote that phrase with the very specific understanding that they were asserting their natural, God-given rights as English gentlemen to self-govern. It was an "equality" of the "quality," an aristocratic gentry entrenching a republican governing instrument for their children and children's children. Now, of course, we all know how that has played out unfortunately, and how quickly the Constitution of 1791 was usurped (1861). . . However, the principle still stands regardless that the Constitution of 1791 was a right-wing instrument. Yes, it was more liberal than outright monarchy, but it still was borne from an explicit contemplation of essentially total rule by an honorable class of gentlemen aristocrats, with a rung on the ladder for the industrious/bright/self-made man to rise up to the table.

Expand full comment

The left says equality ad nasueum and somehow always seem to end up in charge of dividing the pie

All animals are equal, some are equaller though

A recession may be the ultimate solution to the DEI scolds

Expand full comment

Excellent and I want to say obvious only it’s not or it wouldn’t need to be said.

OT: Is it just me or is something wrong with the Twitter algorithm that makes your great threads show up repeatedly in the timeline? I like what you write but I’m not sure I need to see it three times while briefly scrolling down. Don’t want to tell it not to show your stuff so I assume there’s nothing to be done.

Expand full comment

>a radical protestant metaphysical claim about the equal nature of the human soul, which has never been directly observed

This is not Protestant doctrine; it is Patristic Catholic-Orthodox Christian doctrine rooted in Platonism, that the Reformation failed to shed away, unlike image worship, dead men worship and the like.

From the moment you declare that "the soul" is the image and glory of God, and not Man, the biological human male [Genesis 1:27, 1 Corinthians 11:7], you get leftism.

From the moment you declare that the identity of a man is not in his material body, his genes, his blood, but "the soul, his divine spark" you can ascribe infinite value to any human being (after all, it is eternal and divine!), whereas if man is a meat machine, simply animated via the Breath of Life (Ruach in Hebrew and Pneuma in Greek), appraisal is easy, just like with any other machine. What can it do, how much does it cost, what is his shelf-life?

Look at the Rabbinics and the mental double backflips they have to do to compatibilize their Soul Doctrine with their own ethnic supremacism, by claiming that there are animal souls and divine souls, and only their guys have that second soul. IIRC, the Mormons have something similar.

Get rid of metaphysics, get rid of the Soul Doctrine, go full Sola Scriptura, pure exegesis, zero mysticism, zero scholasticism, and the philosophical foundations of leftism (egalitarianism) will vanish.

But no one in any church has the balls to do that, because there's too much grift in letting people feel like they're unique and special and have free will.

Expand full comment

Somebody who knows what they are talking about.


Expand full comment

What's a good book to read to get an intellectual history of "equality"? Is it really a Western idea, or is it something that was a undercurrent in many civilizations but managed to get the upper hand in the western one only?

Expand full comment