The Left is a mob, and mobs are composed of individualists, because they all want to do whatever they want and be protected from the consequences of those actions by being faceless in a crowd. Lower classes with economic mobility, cities and governments all contribute to the formation of crowds, who then act according to herd behavior.
In order to rationalize its behavior, the Left claims to support something called “equality,” which they never really define but interpret to mean that everyone has the same freedoms, minimum economic status and social rank. This is how they expand the crowd: they sell it to others with the promise that removing social hierarchy means they will get the “anarchy with grocery stores” that they crave.
When considering the American Constitution, many point to language by the founders about equality. However, they misinterpret these words because what the founders spoke of was natural equality, which is distinct and opposite to human-enforced equality. Their notion refers to lack of government intervention and not the opposite as the Left argues:
He’s positing on behalf of the Founders a normative equality of persons founded in Christian metaphysics: As persons created in the image of God, we all have inherent dignity and value and are equal as rights possessors regardless of our physical, empirical inequality.
In other words, the founders recognized that we were unequal in ability, and argued only for equality under the law, which to them meant not meritocracy or defense of criminals against their victims, but that no one was excluded from due process and fair treatment in trial.
We can tell why they did this by looking at what was roiling Europe at the time: secret trials, convictions based on the words of an accuser, and exclusion of whole groups — say, Protestants — from being participants in a legal system. In the view of the founders, the point of the Constitution was to limit government from being abusive.
The above quotation comes from an article about the Alt Right that is entirely wrong because it conflates recognizing a genetic basis to behavior with “materialism,” which in this case means thinking that humans make decisions on anything but a blank slate basis. In fact, the opposite is true: only by acknowledging that people operate according to their inclinations, and that very few are conscious, do we understand an escape from materialism, because the blank slate is arguing from the effect, or saying that we are all equal because we all have material bodies, and therefore our choices are entirely based on our intellects and do not reflect our underlying differences in ability, social stature and moral character. Read it if you want an example of clever and well-written but ultimately deceptive reasoning.
For those of us looking to construct the next iteration of Western Civilization, it is important to recognize what the founders did not: equality is a concept that expands to fill all available money, power and time. After all, if people are treated uniformly, and yet results are not uniformly, the inner human monkey will always blame the process. Humans are notorious for playing the victim especially when they are victimizers — one need look only as far as Kevin Spacey’s recent statements explaining his drunken homosexual molestation of a fourteen-year-old — and so, in a democracy, the illusion that the system “created inequality” will always be popular and thus, always win.
Instead, it makes sense to phrase our theory of justice this way: intelligence and moral character are unequal, therefore understanding is relative, and we want to reward those who rise above type, if they are members of the group that created this civilization and will be the only one to successfully inherit it. If a prole does something prole-like, that is not exactly the news, and in fact is the overwhelming normal. However, when someone rises above his heritage, it is important to reward that person and keep an eye on him toward advancing his family line to higher status in the future.
On the other hand, the great American quest for justice by eliminating discrimination has clearly backfired, so even normative equality is a dead concept. There are no blank slates, and people act out their genetic programming based on what they can understand enough to value. However, to make natural selection work for us, we need to take into account what people are — probably through a caste system — and then elevate those who do right while punishing those who do wrong.