I'm not sure about your interpretation, Scourge.
- We were not created, we evolved through stages of speciation
- We were never at any point ALL equal in any meaningful way
- We therefore cannot have all been created equal
- The foregoing is the authentic self-evident truism
This refers to superiority in the sense of survival of the fittest which obviously guided human evolution thus far up until recent history. But I think the author is talking about a different kind of superiority. I think you should appreciate this because you, too, often talk about a different kind of superiority, for example you talk about improving the gene pool, in which case you would break from traditional survival of the fittest--which focuses on having sex as much as possible with partners the most likely to produce offspring the most capable of repeating the same process--by redefining "fitness" to mean the ability to be wise and strong and be able to discern who to reproduce with in order to improve the gene pool.
If the author is putting value mainly on one's individual uniqueness, then everybody would indeed be a blank slate *so to speak* as uniqueness is not beyond the attainment of anybody, barring physiological defects that detract from the basic building blocks of sentience. However I definitely don't like this view, I think it's misleading, because if the slate is blank then why does it exist at all? Evoking the slate implies that the real physical, practical differences we all have are less pertinent, in contrast to this blank slate. But the blank slate only refers to the fact that we are all relatively free to paint our own personalities and respective uniqueness--this has nothing to do with how skillful we are at a given task compared to other people, and shouldn't be conflated with it to smooth the rough edges of feelings of inadequacy or to promote the value of limitations. We're unique in both our strengths as well as our weaknesses, more specifically the human condition is finite and thus we each specialize in different ways, allowing for losses in one area in order to divert capacity towards strengthening another area - the creation of an identity. In contrast for example, a truly *omnipotent* deity could not possibly possess any such identity, for it would need to necessarily be equally capable and equally-leaning in all possible ways (ex: if it has an emotional whim in one direction, it must be 100% able to have it also in the other direction, but the whim of course can't just arise at random as if the deity were supremely skitzo, rather it would stem from an underlying pattern of organization, a pattern which can't just be wholly diverted with the flick of a switch).