Blog

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.

Opposition to Socialism and Antisemitism in the USA

Kant’s Influence on Ethical Individualism: A Structured AnalysisThe Center for Human Equality advances Ethical Individualism as a human relational philosophy formulated by its founder, Russell McAlmond. While McAlmond drew upon ideas from multiple historical sources—including classical liberalism, Jewish ethical teachings such as “love your neighbor,” and relational thought—Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy supplies one of its clearest structural foundations. This analysis examines that influence through direct comparison of core principles, formulations, and adaptations.Kant’s Relevant Ethical FrameworkKant’s ethics, primarily developed in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), is deontological and grounded in pure practical reason. Key elements include:The Categorical Imperative as a universal moral law independent of consequences or inclination. The Formula of Humanity: “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” The concept of dignity (Würde): Rational beings possess absolute, intrinsic, incomparable worth that cannot be traded or subordinated. Equal moral standing of all rational agents and the duty of respect for persons as ends in themselves. Emphasis on autonomy, universality, and consistency in moral maxims. McAlmond’s Adaptation: The Relational ImperativeMcAlmond translates Kant’s abstract duty into a concrete ethic of interpersonal encounter. He formulates a Relational Imperative in two primary versions:First Formulation: “Engage every person as a singular end-in-relation, such that the principle of your engagement could be willed as a universal law of human encounter without erasure of particularity.” Second Formulation: “Never reduce a person to a representative of a group; always encounter them in the unrepeatable nexus of their relations—to you, to others, to history, to possibility.” This imperative is embedded within Ethical Individualism’s core axioms of infinite and equal worth, absolute uniqueness, and (in fuller statements) infinite mystery.Key Continuities with KantEthical Individualism retains several central Kantian commitments:Absolute and equal dignity of persons that cannot be subordinated to group goals or relative values. Prohibition on treating persons merely as means or instruments. Deontological structure: certain ways of relating to others are forbidden regardless of outcomes. Demand for universality and consistency in ethical principles. Horizontal equality that rejects hierarchies of human worth based on race, religion, class, or other group categories. Key Innovations and DifferencesMcAlmond develops Kant’s framework in specific directions suited to contemporary challenges:Secularization without dilution: He sets aside much of Kant’s transcendental apparatus (noumenal self, fact of reason) while preserving the binding force of the moral demand. From solitary reason to dyadic encounter: Kant’s agent often appears to legislate maxims in relative isolation; McAlmond shifts the focus to the living relation between persons, where ethical obligation arises in the encounter itself. Intensified emphasis on uniqueness: While Kant already rejects treating persons as mere means, McAlmond makes the rejection of group reduction central—group membership must never override the singular, unrepeatable individual. Practical relational orientation: Ethical Individualism stresses everyday interactions, mutual respect, trust, and symbiotic (win-win) outcomes rather than pure rational self-legislation alone. Targeted application against group judgmentalism: The philosophy is explicitly designed as an antidote to stereotyping, collective guilt, and identity-based essentialism. Significance for the Center for Human EqualityBy adapting Kantian respect for persons into a relational ethic centered on individuality, McAlmond provides the Center with a coherent philosophical foundation. Ethical Individualism affirms equal human dignity while insisting that moral judgment and everyday relations begin with the irreplaceable person rather than any collective label. In this way, Kant’s influence helps equip the Center’s mission to promote human relations free from the distortions of group judgmentalism.

Kant and McAlmond

The Anti-Americanism of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Address on America’s 250th BirthdayOn July 3, 2026, as the United States prepared to mark the 250th anniversary of its independence, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani delivered a speech that betrayed the founding principles of the nation rather than celebrating them. Seated at George Washington’s desk in City Hall and flanked by newly naturalized immigrants, Mamdani portrayed America as an “arena of supremacy” in which “only a select few are allowed freedom” and “not all are created equal.” This framing directly contradicted the Declaration of Independence, the document that defines American identity.The Declaration states plainly: “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.” These words established a radical commitment to individual equality before the law and unalienable rights grounded in natural law—not group identity, skin color, or collective grievance. The American experiment was built on the revolutionary idea that rights belong to individuals as individuals, secured through limited government, merit, and the rule of law. Success in America has historically rewarded talent, effort, innovation, and character, not ancestry or racial score-settling. From the frontier to Silicon Valley, the country’s extraordinary achievements in science, industry, and prosperity flowed from this color-blind meritocracy.Mamdani’s speech inverted this reality. By invoking an “arena of supremacy,” he echoed the divisive narrative that America is defined by systemic racial hierarchy rather than its founding commitment to equality under law. Such rhetoric dismisses the immense progress toward the ideals of 1776—from the abolition of slavery and the defeat of legal segregation to the expansion of opportunity across all backgrounds. It substitutes collective identity politics for the individual rights that made America exceptional.Mamdani’s background further underscores the disconnect. Born in Uganda in 1991 to prominent academic and filmmaker parents, he moved to the United States as a child and became a naturalized citizen only in 2018. At 34 years old, he has relatively limited life experience outside political activism, a brief period as a housing counselor, and a side pursuit as a rapper under the moniker Young Cardamom. His rise owes much to his family supporting him and connections to elite networking rather than decades of building business enterprises or navigating ordinary American challenges through his own merit. Such a profile hardly equips one to lecture a 250-year-old republic on its supposed failures. His ideology compounds the problem. As a democratic socialist and member of the Democratic Socialists of America, Mamdani advocates policies rooted in European collectivism—expanded government control over housing, wealth redistribution, and economic planning. These ideas have repeatedly failed wherever implemented at scale, producing stagnation, dependency, and diminished individual liberty. They stand in direct opposition to the American founding, which rejected centralized power in favor of free markets, private property, and the pursuit of happiness through individual initiative. Socialism prioritizes group outcomes and state authority; America was founded on individual rights and limited government.Mamdani’s adherence to Islam adds another layer of incompatibility. Core elements of Islamic doctrine and historical practice—particularly in its political and sharia-based forms—have long been associated with antisemitism, supremacist attitudes toward non-believers, and intolerance toward religious dissent, apostasy, and personal freedoms. Modern manifestations in many Muslim-majority societies and among significant segments of believers continue to show elevated rates of antisemitic attitudes and resistance to Western liberal norms on free speech, gender equality, and separation of mosque and state. This worldview clashes fundamentally with American exceptionalism, which rests on respect for the individual conscience and the separation of religion from coercive state power. In sum, Mamdani’s address was not a reflection on American ideals but an insult to them. On the 250th birthday of a nation that granted him citizenship and opportunity, he chose to frame its history through the lens of perpetual supremacy and grievance rather than gratitude for the unprecedented system of individual liberty that allowed his own ascent. He elevated collective rights and imported ideological frameworks over the founding commitment to color-blind equality and unalienable individual rights.The Center for Human Equality stands for the principle that human worth and rights derive from our common humanity and individual agency—not skin color, ancestry, or group membership. True equality means judging people by the content of their character and the merit of their actions, as the founders intended. Mamdani’s speech rejected that vision in favor of a divisive, anti-American alternative. On America’s semiquincentennial, such rhetoric deserves rejection, not endorsement, by anyone who values the enduring promise of 1776. America remains the greatest experiment in human freedom precisely because it was built on merit, individual rights, and the radical assertion that all are created equal—not on supremacy of any kind. Defending that truth is the highest form of patriotism.

Blog

Ethical Individualism Explained

Human Rights Critique of Islam and Sharia

Islamophobia Is Healthy

Opposition to Socialism and Antisemitism in the USA

Kant and McAlmond

Mamdani's Anti-Americanism