dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.¹

It has since become culturally imperative for Americans to interact without regard to one another’s ethnos or race — thus pressing a characteristic inclination of America’s founding population to its ultimate conclusion. Failure to deport oneself in confirmation of this proposition is now un-American.

While race and ethnos, in and of themselves, foreclose nothing in the way of individual achievement or interpersonal regard, human nature will not validate America’s defining proposition in respect to comparisons between large groups of given ethnicities. So far as history shows, economic specialization (being the corollary of efficiency) has always been aligned to a culture’s ethnic variation, irrespective of inter-ethnic tolerance. Civility in a capitalist nation depends on toleration of unequal outcomes for its economic specialties. It then follows that an ethnically diverse capitalist nation must also tolerate unequal outcomes among its ethnic groups.

America’s present inability to resolve these conflicting imperatives is reflected in a system of political spoils based on the claims of rival victim groups. The political left advocates on behalf of the least materially successful minorities, viz.: those of African and Latin-American descent. The political right advocates on behalf of the more materially successful minorities who are held back in service to the imperative of equal outcomes, viz.: Asians and Jews.² Political discourse occurs in terms of whose ethnos is to be gored by whatever legislation might be proposed.

Where America’s founding generation proclaimed personal rights as endowed by a Creator, more current political adepts tend to source rights to equal material dignity in themselves. The political left employs the highest agencies of governance to actuate the equality posited with their constituents:

President Franklin Roosevelt proposed nothing less than a Second Bill of Rights to augment those that had proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.³

Former Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa placed the recent codification of President Roosevelt’s right to medical services with every right that we [presumably the U.S. Senate] pass for the American people.⁴

Meanwhile, the Quixotic right forms powerless ad hoc groups to protect the rights through which their presumably more capable constituents might liberate their individual excellence:

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has deputized itself to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. The rights now requiring their specific defense include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience ⁵ — rights presumably neglected by America’s founding generation, and therefore sure to be trammeled-upon by George III during His Majesty's progresses through the colleges and universities of his former colonies.

David Horowitz set himself up to mine this same vein by adding a Student Center to his very own David Horowitz Freedom Center.⁶ It is through this vehicle that Horowitz’ Students for Academic Freedom ⁷ achieve the standing to defy their professors, which they are encouraged to exercise in nebulous agitations for the freedom of speech already provided by the US Constitution. Free speech then takes form in Horowitz’ being invited to speak on their campuses where, for a modest two grand or so plus expenses, he temporarily pacifies the rabble he has aroused.

Mr. Horowitz’ exhortations to the mobs of individualists in his thrall always demand expressions of solidarity with the national proposition, as when advising his young savages-for-self-righteousness on how to earn their red bootlaces:

When you see a racist on the right, slam him down.⁸

Embrionic Jacobins are similarly cultivated by the Daily Wire's erstwhile Editor-in-Chief, Mr. Ben Shapiro:

Of course there are legitimate racists, and we should target them, and we should find them, and we should hurt their careers, because racism is unacceptable.⁹

While such mouthy, diminutive creatures as these offer little threat of summoning the physical courage to slam anyone down in a personal confrontation, the juveniles they empower are well-equipped by their universities to divert any attempt at classroom disciple into the personal demolition of an offending professor.