Blog

The Center for Human Equality exists to advance a simple discipline: encounter every human being as a unique individual of equal worth, never as a specimen of a group. Ethical Individualism is not a top-down design for society. It begins with the person who is actually there. That starting point, as Arthur Herman’s contrast of Plato and Aristotle helps us see, is Aristotelian rather than Platonic. Plato begins with an ideal order and then sorts living people into the types the order requires. Aristotle begins with particular human beings in the world that exists. In American public life today, three political philosophies compete for authority. Two of them are Platonic in structure. One is not. The first two engage in group judgmentalism and classism. The third, at its founding core, does not. The first is a form of leftist Marxist collectivism now familiar in campaigns, universities, corporations, and public administration. It is organized by identity politics and DEI-style group accounting: people are first classified by race, sex, sexuality, or historic role; moral worth and institutional treatment are then assigned by category; equal individual standing is replaced by the management of group outcomes. In its more ambitious form, this politics still carries the Marxist demand of a designed future in which property, production, and distribution are rearranged so that each contributes according to ability and receives according to need. That slogan, popularized by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, is a picture of a completed social Form. Persons become functions in a planned whole. The individual is not the starting point. The pattern is. This is Platonic in method even when it is atheistic in theology. The cave wall shows classes, identities, and historic sins. The shadows are treated as more real than the never-repeatable person. “Equity,” in this usage, often means treating groups differently in order to produce a preferred pattern of results. That is the opposite of Ethical Individualism’s horizontal line of equality. EI holds that we are one species and that equal value is a human recognition of shared status, not a moral ranking of tribes. Group judgmentalism—whether it flatters a group or condemns it—is still group judgmentalism. It violates truth because no group is a uniform moral substance. It violates dignity because it uses the person as a representative. A philosophy that begins with categories cannot end in genuine respect for individuals.The second philosophy is Islamism. It must be distinguished, at the outset, from Islam as the faith of millions of individual Muslims. Islamism is not prayer, charity, or private devotion. It is a political ideology that treats Islam as a comprehensive public order—din wa dawla, religion and state together—and seeks an Islamic legal-political regime whose final authority is Sharia as interpreted by those who claim guardianship of it. In that project, the decisive question is often not who you are as a person, but whether you belong to the community of belief. Non-Muslims are not merely neighbors with different convictions; they occupy a lower civic and sometimes legal status in the desired order. The same ranking is applied to sex. In classical legal traditions that Islamist movements seek to restore as public law, men and women are not equal persons before a neutral constitution. They are assigned different rights, authorities, testimonies, inheritances, and powers. That is group judgmentalism written into the architecture of the state. Islamist utopianism is also Platonic. The ideal is a completed religious-political Form: a society in which the law of God, as a movement defines it, dominates public life, and in the most ambitious versions claims a right of supremacy beyond any particular country, including the United States. Sayyid Qutb and related modern ideologues treated non-Islamic systems as jahiliyya—ignorance to be overcome—so that a comprehensive Islamic order might be established. Not every Islamist is a terrorist, and Islamism itself is a spectrum. What the spectrum shares is the refusal, in principle, of a secular civic plane on which the individual is first a rights-bearing person and only second a believer. The person is fitted to the sacred pattern. The pattern is not limited by the person. Ethical Individualism cannot accept that ranking. A Muslim, like every other human being, is a unique individual of equal worth. A woman, like every other human being, is a unique individual of equal worth. EI does not assign value by faith or by sex. The third philosophy is Americanism as the country was founded to practice it, not as every generation has succeeded in practicing it. Its charter sentence is still the clearest statement of the alternative: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Those are individual rights. They are not group rights, government rights, or religious rights. Government is instituted to secure them, and it draws just powers only from the consent of the governed. Equality here does not mean sameness of talent, virtue, or outcome. It means that no one is born the rightful owner of another, and that no official caste—racial, ecclesiastical, or ideological—is entitled to rank human worth. Jefferson’s earlier draft was even more explicit: men are created “equal and independent.” The rights are inherent in persons. They cannot be surrendered to a collective, a church, or a state as if those bodies were the real bearers of dignity. This is Aristotelian in the sense that matters for Ethical Individualism. It starts with the particular human being, not with a completed utopia. It does not require a philosopher-king, a vanguard party, or a clerical guardian to assign each soul its place. It assumes a world of distinct individuals who may worship differently, succeed unevenly, and remain mysteries to one another, yet who meet on one civic plane of equal standing. The American founding was stained by the contradiction of slavery and by other group exclusions. Those were betrayals of the principle, not proofs that the principle was a group theory. The later struggle to make the promise real—Lincoln’s reading of the Declaration, the Civil War amendments, the civil-rights insistence that persons be judged by character rather than color—was a struggle to apply individual equality against group ranking. That is the same direction Ethical Individualism takes. The contrast can be stated without euphemism. Left collectivism of the identity-and-need type designs society from a theory of groups and then fits persons into the design. Islamism designs society from a theory of sacred community and sexual hierarchy and then fits persons into that design. Both say, in different languages: the pattern first, the individual second. American founding liberalism says the reverse: the person first, the state as a limited instrument, religion free but not sovereign over other people’s rights. Individual rights are supreme. Group rights are not. Government rights are not. Religious rights, meaning the right of a faith to dominate those outside it, are not.Ethical Individualism is the relational ethic that makes this third philosophy livable in ordinary encounters. It adds what a constitution alone cannot supply: the refusal to carry group judgmentalism into daily life. We are one species. Equal value is a human judgment about that fact, not a moral trophy awarded to the correct tribe. No one is a shadow on a cave wall—not “the oppressor class,” not “the unbeliever,” not “the woman as lesser,” not “the identity as destiny.” Each is an unrepeatable individual.The Center for Human Equality does not ask Americans to choose a party. It asks them to recognize which of these three philosophies begins with the unique human being and which begin with a designed whole. The first two are caves with different murals. The third, at its best, is the light of a civic world in which every person already stands equal—and in which Ethical Individualism teaches us how to meet them there.

Marxism, Islamism and Americanism

Arthur Herman’s The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization is more than a history of two philosophers. It is a map of two ways of seeing. One way looks upward from the world toward perfect, unchanging Forms and then tries to impose that vision on living people. The other way begins with the world as it is—with particular things, particular lives, and the stubborn fact that no two beings occupy the same place in reality. Russell McAlmond’s Ethical Individualism (EI) belongs decisively to the second way. It is not a top-down philosophy handed down from an ideal city or an enlightened elite. It starts with every unique individual human being. In doing so, it recovers Aristotle’s bias toward the particular and brings that light into the twenty-first century as a human relational philosophy for everyone. Plato’s famous image of the cave is the heart of the first way. Prisoners chained in darkness mistake flickering shadows on the wall for reality. Liberation, in the Platonic telling, means leaving the cave, beholding the sun of the Good, and then—if one is a philosopher—returning to rule those still below. The political expression of this vision is the Republic: a city organized by classes, ordered by those who claim knowledge of the Forms, and willing to treat persons as instances of types rather than as irreplaceable individuals. Herman traces how this pattern—ideal first, living people second—reappears whenever societies attempt to sort human beings into ranks, tribes, or historic roles and then assign value accordingly. The shadows on the wall become race, class, creed, nation, or ideology. The persons themselves recede. Aristotle reversed the direction of thought. As Herman notes, Aristotle’s philosophy carries a built-in bias in favor of the individual—in science, metaphysics, ethics, and later in politics. Universals are real, but they are real in particulars. Knowledge begins with observation of this world, not flight from it. Ethics is not the imposition of a perfect pattern from above; it is the cultivation of character in actual human lives. Politics is the art of living together among citizens who are not interchangeable parts of a designed whole. Where Plato asks what the world ought to look like according to an eternal blueprint, Aristotle asks how we fit into the world that already exists—and how we can live well inside it. Ethical Individualism is aligned with Aristotle because it refuses the cave’s first move: the reduction of a living person to a category. EI does not group people and assign values to them. It opposes any group judgmentalism—any practice that treats an individual as a representative of a collective and then praises or condemns on that basis. Group judgmentalism is shadow-thinking. It is the habit of staring at the wall and calling the silhouette “the person.” History has shown, again and again, what follows when that habit becomes policy: collective guilt, collective virtue, collective punishment, and the erasure of the one who actually stands before us.EI begins instead with truth about what human beings are. We are one species. That is not a slogan; it is a biological and relational fact. Because we are one species, the proper starting point for encounter is not a hierarchy of groups but a horizontal line of equality. Every human being is equally valuable. This is a human judgment—a recognition of shared species-membership and shared status as persons—not a moral ranking that some deserve more dignity than others because of ancestry, belief, or power. McAlmond is explicit: equality of respect is not a comparative moral score. It is the acknowledgment that no human being belongs above or below the line of common humanity. Worth is not finite and transferable. It is not a prize awarded by the group. From this recognition flow the interlocking axioms of Ethical Individualism as developed through the Center for Human Equality. Every human life possesses infinite and equal worth. Every human being is absolutely unique and never repeatable—a mosaic of experience, choice, temperament, and inner life that has never existed before and will never exist again. Every human being remains, in some measure, a mystery; no ideology, science, or stereotype can exhaust another person’s interior reality. These are not pious hopes. They are statements about reality. Once they are granted, group judgmentalism becomes not merely unkind but false. You cannot assign a group-value to what is infinite, unique, and never fully known. You can only meet the person. This is why EI is not a top-down philosophy. Plato’s city is designed from the Form of Justice downward: classes first, souls fitted to their functions, philosopher-kings to keep the pattern intact. EI works in the opposite direction. It starts with the encounter itself—two never-repeatable human beings meeting on the same horizontal line. Responsibility remains individual. Character remains individual. Trust is built person by person, not tribe by tribe. The ethical demand is relational: never reduce the other to a category; never treat a unique life as a means to a collective end; never presume you have the final verdict on who someone is.The shadows of our own cave are familiar. They are the habits of identity politics, racial essentialism, religious sectarianism, nationalist myth, and every other system that first sorts and then judges. They promise moral clarity by substituting a type for a face. They are attractive precisely because they spare us the work of seeing. Aristotle’s light, and McAlmond’s, is harder. It requires us to look at the particular human being who is actually there—this species-member, this unrepeatable mosaic, this equal. It requires us to hold two truths at once: we share a common humanity, and no two of us are the same.That is the light Ethical Individualism brings into the twenty-first century. It does not ask us to flee the world of living persons for a realm of perfect Forms. It asks us to inhabit this world more truthfully. In an age that endlessly recategorizes human beings and then treats the categories as more real than the people, EI is a return to reality. It is the insistence that the proper object of ethics is not “the group” but the one who stands in front of you.The Center for Human Equality exists to make that insistence practical. Founded by Russell McAlmond, it promotes a simple and radical discipline: encounter every human being as a unique individual of equal worth, judged by character and action rather than by assigned membership. That discipline is Aristotelian in its starting point and contemporary in its urgency. It is the light outside the cave—not an abstract sun reserved for a few, but the ordinary, demanding light in which every human being should be seen. Plato taught the West to yearn for a higher order. Aristotle taught it to study the world that is. Ethical Individualism takes the second lesson into the realm of human relations and refuses to surrender it. We are one species. We are equally valuable as a matter of human recognition, not moral caste. We are each unique. Group judgmentalism is a shadow on the wall. The person is the light. That is the philosophy the Center for Human Equality offers—not from above, but from the ground where every unique individual already stands.

Plato or Aristotle?

Solo female traveler with electric bike standing on mountain overlook during peaceful early morning light

Russell McAlmond’s Ethical Individualism (also called Ethical Individualism Theory or EIT) is presented as a secular “human relational philosophy.” Its specific arguments center on a small set of foundational axioms that, once accepted, make group-based moral judgments (what he terms “group judgmentalism” or “groupism”) both factually false and ethically forbidden.Core AxiomsMcAlmond articulates the philosophy through two to four interlocking axioms (the number varies slightly across his writings, but the substance is consistent):Infinite and equal worth Every human life possesses infinite value, equal to that of any other human life or any combination of lives. Value is not finite, comparative, or conditional. There is no moral mathematics that can legitimately rank one life above another or sacrifice one for a “greater” collective good. Infinity cannot be doubled or halved. Absolute uniqueness Every human being is absolutely unique and never repeatable. Each person is a singular “mosaic” (or “universe of value”) of experiences, choices, temperament, memories, and potential—a configuration that has never existed before and will never exist again. No two people are identical, even if they share group markers. Infinite mystery (in expanded versions) No mind, science, ideology, or relationship can ever fully exhaust or master another person’s inner reality. Every individual remains partially opaque and open-ended. These axioms are presented as self-evident once stated and mutually reinforcing. Equal worth prevents hierarchies of value; uniqueness prevents interchangeability; mystery prevents final, totalizing judgments.Central TheoremFrom the axioms McAlmond derives the core claim: Any judgment of a human being based primarily on group membership is immoral.Group judgmentalism—the practice of ascribing traits, virtues, vices, guilt, or moral worth to individuals because of their perceived membership in a collective (race, ethnicity, religion, gender, politics, class, etc.)—violates the axioms. It treats a never-repeatable person of infinite worth as if they were interchangeable with others and fully knowable through a category. This is both a factual error (people within groups are not uniform) and a moral betrayal (of the other person and of one’s own responsibility to encounter them properly).Key Supporting ArgumentsAgainst collective guilt and collective virtue Individuals are responsible only for their own actions. There is no such thing as collective guilt (or collective credit) that can be transferred to people who did not personally commit the acts in question. Statements of the form “All [group] are [trait]” are never true and are themselves a form of prejudice. Deindividuation and dehumanization Reducing a person to a group label is the first step toward dehumanization. Historically, this process enabled slavery, the Holocaust, genocides, and other atrocities by portraying entire categories as inherently inferior, threatening, or expendable. The same logic appears in modern identity politics, quotas, and tribal polarization. Distinction between groups and individuals Groups as organizations or collective entities can be evaluated by their stated purpose and actions (e.g., a criminal gang or a political party can be condemned). Individual members of those groups, however, must still be judged only by their own character and conduct. Membership alone never justifies pre-judgment. Practical and relational grounding McAlmond developed the philosophy from his experience as a financial advisor, where treating clients as unique individuals (rather than demographic statistics) produced trust and mutually beneficial outcomes. He links it to the ethical imperative to “love your neighbor” interpreted as radical, non-hierarchical respect. The goal is “symbiotic” (win-win) human relations rather than zero-sum group competition. Connection to Kant In some writings McAlmond frames Ethical Individualism as a concrete extension of Kant’s categorical imperative into a “relational imperative”: never reduce a person to a representative of a group; always encounter them as a singular end-in-relation. Equality of worth functions like Kantian dignity, while uniqueness and mystery add content that blocks the reduction of persons to categories. What the Philosophy Does Not ClaimIt does not assert that all individuals are equal in talent, character, effort, or accomplishment. Differences in achievement are real and legitimate. The equal-value axiom applies only to baseline human dignity and the refusal to deny uniqueness or assign collective moral status. It is not a call for equal outcomes or the erasure of cultural or personal differences—only a refusal to let those differences define or diminish any person’s inherent worth as an individual.In McAlmond’s view, once the axioms are granted, group judgmentalism becomes not merely unwise or outdated but rationally and morally incoherent. The philosophy is offered as a direct antidote to antisemitism, racism, and other forms of collective prejudice precisely because those phenomena depend on the forbidden reduction of unique persons to group stereotypes.

Ethical Individualism Explained

The Center for Human Equality in Southern Oregon, founded by Russell McAlmond, advances Ethical Individualism: the principle that every human being possesses equal inherent dignity and unique value, to be judged solely by individual character and actions rather than by group identity, hierarchy, or collective status. This stands in direct opposition to any system that ranks people by religious affiliation, sex, or belief, imposing secondary status, coercion, or lethal penalties. In numerous Muslim-majority countries where Sharia (Islamic law derived from the Quran, Hadith, and classical jurisprudence) shapes or constitutes civic and criminal law—even outside formal theocracies—such hierarchies are foundational and operational. These practices systematically devalue non-Muslims, women, LGBT individuals, dissenters, and apostates, conflicting with modern human rights standards that reject force, coercion, and secondary status in matters of belief and personal autonomy. Classical Islamic doctrine establishes a clear supremacy of Muslims over non-Muslims (“infidels” or kuffar). The Quran and prophetic traditions distinguish believers from unbelievers, with historical applications including the dhimmi system: protected but subordinate status for Jews, Christians, and certain others, involving the jizya poll tax, restrictions on public worship, testimony in court, and social equality. Non-Muslims were often barred from full citizenship-equivalent rights, military command, or equal legal standing. In modern practice, where Sharia informs law, this plays out through blasphemy statutes that criminalize criticism of Islam or Muhammad (often with death penalties or mob violence), discriminatory personal status laws, and barriers to religious freedom for minorities. In Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, Christian, Hindu, Ahmadi, or Baha’i communities face legal and social inferiority; church construction is restricted, conversion out of Islam is perilous, and non-Muslims encounter unequal blood-money valuations or inheritance rules in some jurisdictions. Even secular-leaning states retain elements of this hierarchy when family or criminal codes draw on Sharia. This group-based ranking treats human beings not as equal individuals but as members of superior or inferior religious categories. Parallel to this is the doctrinal and legal supremacy of Muslim men over women. Quranic verses and classical rulings assign men authority (qiwama), allow polygyny for men while prohibiting polyandry, grant sons double the inheritance of daughters, value a woman’s courtroom testimony as half that of a man in financial matters, and permit husbands disciplinary measures including striking (Quran 4:34). Male guardianship systems (wilaya) historically and in contemporary application require male approval for a woman’s marriage, travel, or certain contracts. In countries applying Sharia personal status codes—Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, parts of Nigeria, Yemen, and others—women face restricted mobility, compulsory dress codes enforced by morality police, unequal divorce and custody rights, and barriers to education or employment in extreme cases. While some reforms have occurred (e.g., limited driving rights in Saudi Arabia), the underlying framework subordinates women as a group rather than recognizing equal individual agency. This is incompatible with human equality that rejects sex-based hierarchies. Consensual same-sex relations and gender nonconformity face severe criminalization under traditional Sharia interpretations of liwat (sodomy) and related offenses. In approximately ten jurisdictions that justify capital punishment via official Sharia readings—Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Mauritania, northern Nigerian states, Somalia, parts of the UAE and Qatar, Brunei, and sometimes Pakistan—death by stoning, hanging, or other means remains legally available for male same-sex acts; lesser penalties or lashes apply in others, with women also targeted under broader morality laws. Iran has carried out executions; elsewhere, the threat, imprisonment, flogging, and societal violence enforce the prohibition. These laws treat private adult relationships as capital crimes based on religious classification rather than harm to others, denying individuals equal respect for personal autonomy. Islam as practiced under Sharia frameworks exhibits profound intolerance for dissent and restricts freedom of speech. Blasphemy, insult to the Prophet, or questioning core doctrines are frequently capital or severe offenses. Media, academia, and public discourse in countries from Iran and Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and Afghanistan operate under censorship that prohibits criticism of Islamic tenets or rulers claiming religious legitimacy. Apostasy (riddah)—leaving Islam—is punishable by death for adult males in classical jurisprudence across the major schools, with imprisonment or other penalties for women in some views. This remains law in roughly a dozen countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Yemen, Maldives, Qatar, UAE, and Brunei; executions are rare but documented historically and the legal threat, combined with family and social coercion, enforces conformity. Pew surveys have shown substantial popular support for such penalties in several Muslim-majority societies that favor Sharia as official law. These features—group supremacy of believers over non-believers, men over women, the lethal criminalization of sexual minorities and apostates, and the suppression of speech and exit—stand in sharp contrast to the advances of modern human rights and humanism. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related instruments affirm equality of dignity without distinction of religion or sex, freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (including the right to change belief), freedom of expression, and protection from cruel or degrading punishment. Humanism and secular ethical frameworks reject any religion or ideology that employs force, coercion, secondary legal status, or the death penalty to compel adherence or punish departure. Treating human beings as members of ranked collectives rather than unique individuals dehumanizes them: non-Muslims as lesser, women as dependents, LGBT persons as criminals, and apostates as traitors worthy of death. From a consistent human-rights perspective that prioritizes individual equality of respect—the core of the Center for Human Equality’s Ethical Individualism—systems that embed these Sharia-derived inequalities in civic law fail the test of modernity and universal dignity. They prioritize doctrinal group hierarchies over the equal worth of every person. While individual Muslims and reformist interpretations exist, and while practices vary in severity across countries, the persistence of these rules wherever classical Sharia governs personal status, criminal sanctions, or public order demonstrates a structural incompatibility with the principle that no human being should be devalued, coerced, or killed for their beliefs, sex, orientation, or decision to leave a religion. True equality demands the rejection of such hierarchies in favor of respect for every unique individual. The Center for Human Equaity rejects Sharia law that elevates Muslims above others or dehumanizes anyone who is not Muslim.&nbsp;

Human Rights Critique of Islam and Sharia

Legitimate Concerns Are Not Phobia: Islam, Power, and the Defense of Equal RightsThe term “Islamophobia” is frequently deployed to shut down scrutiny of Islam rather than to describe irrational hatred of individuals. People who are not Muslims have coherent, evidence-based reasons to be wary of the political and supremacist dimensions of the religion. Islam is not merely a private faith concerning the individual’s relationship with the divine. From its foundational texts and historical practice, it functions as a comprehensive political philosophy that seeks territorial control, legal supremacy, and the subordination of non-believers. Treating opposition to that project as a mental disorder called “phobia” inverts reality: the fear is a rational response to patterns of conquest, apostasy enforcement, and the stated goal of global dominance under a theocratic order.Historically, the expansion of Islam was not primarily the product of peaceful persuasion or individual conscience. The early caliphates spread across the Middle East, North Africa, and into Europe and Asia through military campaigns. Territories were taken by force; populations were offered conversion, subordination under discriminatory legal status (dhimmi), or the sword. This is not ancient mythology; it is the documented record of the seventh and eighth centuries and subsequent centuries of further conquest and consolidation. The idea that Islam’s growth was mainly a matter of personal spiritual choice ignores the central role of jihad as both military and political instrument. When modern advocates claim otherwise, they are rewriting history to shield a political ideology from the same critical examination applied to every other expansive doctrine.The internal logic of classical Islamic jurisprudence reinforces this political character. Apostasy—leaving the religion—is treated in traditional Sharia as a capital offense. This is not a fringe interpretation held by a handful of extremists; it appears in major schools of Islamic law and is still codified or enforced in multiple countries today. A belief system that claims the authority to kill those who exit it is not operating solely in the realm of private conscience. It asserts jurisdiction over the individual body and the community’s boundaries in a manner incompatible with individual rights. “Islam” itself derives from a root meaning submission or surrender. In practice, the will of Allah is mediated by human interpreters—clerics, jurists, and political leaders—who frequently translate that will into commands for violence, territorial expansion, or the imposition of religious law on non-Muslims. Spiritual devotion is repeatedly yoked to political and military objectives. The explicit aspiration in significant strands of Islamic thought is not coexistence on equal terms but the establishment of Islamic governance over the entire world. The ummah is conceived as a political community destined to prevail. Calls for a restored caliphate, the application of Sharia as superior law, and the ultimate subordination of other systems are not inventions of Western critics; they appear in foundational texts, historical practice, and contemporary movements. This is structurally analogous to other totalitarian projects—whether National Socialism, revolutionary communism, or any ideology that seeks to remake the world in its own image and tolerates no permanent equality with outsiders. The difference is that Islam’s claims are framed in religious language, which in liberal societies often grants it a protective aura denied to purely secular totalitarianisms.In the Western tradition of equality that the Center for Human Equality defends, the foundational premise is the equal dignity and rights of every individual under neutral law. No group is entitled to supremacy; no theology is permitted to override the equal protection of the person. The introduction of large-scale Islamic demographic and political influence into societies built on those principles therefore raises legitimate questions of compatibility. Where parallel legal systems emerge, where blasphemy and apostasy norms are enforced socially or legally, where free speech about the religion is constrained, and where the political goal of eventual dominance is openly articulated by some actors, the risk is not imaginary. It is the risk that the open society’s commitment to individual liberty and equality under law will be eroded by a competing system that does not accept those limits.Calling this concern “Islamophobia” performs a rhetorical substitution: it pathologizes the defense of equality and reframes the ideology under examination as the victim. The proper response is the opposite. Free societies have every right—and every obligation—to examine any doctrine that has historically expanded by conquest, that retains doctrinal mechanisms for punishing exit, and that continues to produce political movements seeking supremacy. Equality under law is not compatible with theocratic hierarchy. Protecting the former requires clear-eyed assessment of the latter rather than the enforcement of silence under the label of phobia. The Center for Human Equality exists to uphold the equal status of persons, not to exempt any political theology from the standards applied to every other claimant to power. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

Islamophobia Is Healthy

Rejecting Socialism, Antisemitism, and Supremacist IdeologiesThe Center for Human Equality in Oregon stands firmly on the foundational American principles of equality before the law, the inherent dignity and uniqueness of every individual human being, and the rejection of collective guilt or collective privilege. These principles flow directly from Ethical Individualism: the recognition that moral worth attaches to persons as individuals, not as members of racial, religious, ethnic, or class groups. Any ideology or political movement that subordinates the individual to the collective, or that elevates one group as superior in worth to others, is incompatible with those principles and with the American experiment itself.Socialism is a failed economic system imported from Europe. It rests on the premise that the state or a self-appointed vanguard may forcibly reallocate the fruits of individual effort in the name of “equality of outcome.” History has repeatedly demonstrated its consequences: chronic shortages, political repression, and the erosion of personal liberty. From the Soviet Union to Maoist China, from Venezuela to the residual failures of Eastern European command economies, socialism has produced neither sustained prosperity nor genuine equality. It has instead concentrated power in the hands of those who claim to speak for “the people” while diminishing the agency of actual people. A political party that elevates Democratic Socialists as thought leaders is therefore advancing an un-American doctrine—one that treats citizens as interchangeable units of a class rather than as unique moral agents. That promotion is immoral because it denies the equal moral status of every human being and substitutes coercion for voluntary cooperation.Antisemitism is among the oldest and most lethal forms of group hatred in recorded history. It reduces Jews, as a people, to a collective object of suspicion, envy, or elimination. Its modern industrial expression was the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were murdered by a regime that made racial hierarchy state policy. Its most recent mass expression occurred on October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists crossed into Israel and slaughtered, raped, and kidnapped civilians in an explicitly antisemitic assault. Any major American political party that tolerates, excuses, or platform-shares with voices that traffic in antisemitic tropes, blood libels, or eliminationist rhetoric against Jews is violating the most basic tenet of human equality. Promotion of any group hatred is immoral; the selective indifference to antisemitism is especially so in a country founded on the proposition that all men are created equal.Of equal concern is the embrace, by elements within the same party, of Islamist movements whose political theology systematically denies the equality of all human beings. Islamist ideology treat non-Muslims as inherently lesser in legal and moral standing, prescribe differential rights based on religious identity, and regard Jews in particular with doctrinal hostility. This is not a critique of every individual who practices Islam if they reject this human supremacy; it is a rejection of any religious or political doctrine that elevates one faith community as superior in human worth while denying the uniqueness and equal dignity of every human being. Human supremacy—whether asserted by a race, a class, or a religious identity—is anathema to the Center for Human Equality. No ideology, secular or religious, may claim the right to rank human lives by group membership.The Center therefore states without equivocation: a major political party in the United States that treats socialism as a respectable governing philosophy and that accommodates antisemitic and supremacist voices is acting contrary to the moral foundations of the republic. They are an un-American party.&nbsp;Equality is not a slogan for redistribution or for collective grievance; it is the demand that every individual be judged and treated as a unique person of inherent worth. Anything less—whether the class warfare of socialism or the religious hierarchy of political Islamism—betrays that demand and must be opposed.The Center for Human Equality in Oregon will continue to defend Ethical Individualism against every form of group supremacy and collective ideology. The American tradition of equal rights under law is morally superior to European or Islamic class imports; it is the hard-won inheritance that still offers the best protection for the dignity of every human being.

Blog

Marxism, Islamism and Americanism

Plato or Aristotle?

Ethical Individualism Explained

Human Rights Critique of Islam and Sharia

Islamophobia Is Healthy

Opposition to Socialism and Antisemitism in the USA