You can tell this is a lie from the first paragraph. It's not "roughly 1000 BCE", the Mosaic kosher laws are from 1539 BC, and when Christianity was founded Peter had a vision about pigs being clean that led to all Christianity except a couple Jewish-influenced sects not using the same kosher laws. There was no Islam until the first revelation of 610 AD, and the degree to which Arabs were somewhat kosher before then was only because of Jewish influence in a couple prior centuries. So it's not "multiple religions suddenly" by any stretch, it's only Abrahamic religion and only as influenced by Abraham's grandson Israel and no other grandson.

The reason cows, goats, and sheep are clean is exactly that they require pasture to graze; pigs are unclean because they'll eat anything, they are (like shrimp and crabs) the bottom-feeders that perform a valuable service to nature of removing refuse at risk of infection. If that makes pigs "democratic" and cows "landlorded", it also makes cow owners more likely to have good ideas for societal organization than pig owners. Yes, parasites are a valid additional reason; and yes, forbidding people from pork is a valid sanitation and societal improvement to legislate in spite of any bogus argument that it somehow "improves" a people to eat unhealthy food. (Even if the case were valid that pork was truly more healthy, which is both dubious and misleadingly presented, there's nothing inherently wrong with wealthier people making decisions for poorer in society; though the powerful have abused it in favor of the wealthy, nowadays we've also seen it thoroughly abused allegedly in favor of the poor, so it's always about those with greater power having greater responsibility, and abuse of that responsibility getting punished by natural consequences sooner or later.)

I don't follow at all the logic that "This pattern repeats through history. Medieval European nobility consumed pork freely while peasants were restricted. Victorian England saw pork associated with lower classes while beef signified wealth and status." If the "pattern" is wealthy deprecate pork to preserve status, the second example fails; if it's that wealthy direct the diet of the poor regardless, the objection that pork suppression was about power fails. The only logical thing left that is proven is that more powerful people have more power, a tautology.

The conclusion, "When everyone can access protein, hierarchies flatten", is a false dilemma. The nature of the world is that things of more benefit are harder to achieve, and yet that the basics are available to all; and the least privileged, to whom subsistence is hardly available, generally find the more privileged willing to share reasonably, one way or another (except when morality fails and greed or pride intervenes). 99% of the world can access enough protein to live off of, and those that can't are in some temporary crisis status, not endemic curse. People who have been "starving" for years, though greatly overhyped by manipulators, are almost always the victims of mismanagement by their own leadership and by outside exploiters. The blame lies squarely on human irresponsibility, stemming from Adam's own failure of dominion; it is not based on ordinary determination of what foods are healthy, at a determination level fit to how far human knowledge has progressed, by those who have enough luxury to research and report on the subject. There is ordinary warning by the knowledgeable about sanitation, and then there is extraordinary theft of resources (not by promoting moral code but by physical force) by the better-armed and better-connected.

Mudpies are free, the rich don't eat them, and they tell the poor not to eat them, and yet they are not significantly unhealthy. It would be silly to say that encouragement not to eat mudpies on a basis of societal improvement is a control tool of the powerful, and to say that it's not a factor at all if there were massive forcible theft of corn by others who aren't interested to any degree in whether peasants eat mudpies or not at all.

Why am I even debunking such a stupid writeup, I wonder, what is even its point. Seems to me the person is influenced by Big Pork to promote propaganda that is directing people to eat food they want eaten for exactly the same control reasons projectively complained about.