Blog

The Center for Human Equality (CHE), based in Grants Pass, Oregon, has launched an ambitious research initiative titled the “Nazism Ideological Origins” study. The project’s central thesis is that National Socialism (Nazism) under Adolf Hitler, along with Benito Mussolini’s Fascism and certain strains of theocratic Islamism, are more accurately classified as left-wing totalitarian movements when judged against a liberty-based political spectrum rather than the conventional academic left–right model.The Liberty Spectrum vs. the Traditional SpectrumMost 20th- and 21st-century political science places Nazism on the “far right” and Soviet-style communism on the “far left,” treating the two as polar opposites. CHE rejects this seating-chart framework and instead adopts a spectrum first articulated by thinkers such as David Nolan, F. A. Hayek, and later popularized by commentators like Jonah Goldberg and Dinesh D’Souza:Right → Maximum individual liberty, minimal state coercion, private property, free markets, personal responsibility.&nbsp; Left → Maximum state control, collectivism, suppression of individual rights for the alleged benefit of a group (class, race, nation, or religious community). Under this liberty spectrum, any ideology that subordinates the individual to a collective and grants the state or party totalitarian power to enforce that subordination falls on the left, regardless of which collective it exalts (the proletariat in Marxism, the Aryan race in Nazism, or the ummah in some forms of political Islam).Core Arguments of the CHE StudyCollectivism as the Defining Feature CHE researchers point out that both Hitler and Mussolini openly despised individualism and liberalism (in the classical sense). Mein Kampf repeatedly attacks “bourgeois individualism” and praises the “community of the Volk” (the racial-national collective) above the person. The infamous line “Du bist nichts, dein Volk ist alles” (“You are nothing, your people is everything”) is functionally identical in spirit to Marxist slogans such as “The individual is nothing, the class is everything.” Economic Control and State Direction Although the Nazis permitted nominal private ownership (unlike the Soviets who formally abolished it), the German economy under the Four-Year Plan and organizations such as the Reich Economic Chamber was comprehensively directed by the state. Prices, wages, production quotas, and labor allocation were all dictated from Berlin. Hermann Göring’s 1936 declaration that “private enterprise must be subordinated to the needs of the state” could have been uttered by any Soviet commissar. Anti-Capitalist Rhetoric and Policy The original 1920 NSDAP 25-point program contained explicitly anti-capitalist demands: profit-sharing, nationalization of trusts, confiscation of war profits, and the abolition of “interest slavery.” While some points were later downplayed for tactical reasons after 1933, the regime’s persecution of “reactionary” big business figures and its Gleichschaltung (coordination) of industry demonstrate that free-market capitalism was never tolerated. Mussolini’s Journey to the Left and FascismMussolini began his political life as a prominent socialist journalist and editor of Avanti!, the official newspaper of the Italian Socialist Party. He broke with orthodox Marxism over the issue of nationalism rather than over collectivism or state power. His 1932 Doctrine of Fascism explicitly states that “the state is absolute, individuals and groups relative,” a formulation indistinguishable from Leninist or Maoist conceptions of the state. Parallels with Modern Theocratic Islamism CHE extends the analysis to certain Islamist movements that demand total submission of the individual to the religious collective (ummah) and enforce it through state or proto-state violence (e.g., the Islamic Republic of Iran, ISIS, Taliban Afghanistan). Like Nazism and Italian Fascism, these regimes reject liberalism, free markets, and individual rights in favor of a totalitarian collective defined by faith and submission. Why the Conventional Placement PersistsCHE acknowledges that the traditional placement of Nazism on the “far right” arose for historical reasons: Opposition to communist parties placed Nazis on the right in Weimar parliamentary seating. Extreme nationalism, racism, and militarism were associated with conservative monarchist and Junker traditions. Post-1945 Western intellectuals needed a clear “opposite” to Soviet communism to maintain the moral legitimacy of the left. Nevertheless, the Center argues that these are secondary characteristics. The primary axis—individual vs. collective, liberty vs. totalitarian state power—places Nazism, Fascism, and theocratic Islamism on the same side of the spectrum as Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, and Pol Pot’s agrarian socialism: the anti-individual, statist left.Goals of the “Nazism Ideological Origins” SeriesThe forthcoming essays will examine:Detailed textual analysis of Mein Kampf and Hitler’s Second Book showing contempt for individualism and classical liberalism. The socialist origins of Nazi party members (Strasser brothers, Goebbels, Röhm, etc.). The regime’s war on private property rights in practice. Comparisons between Nazi labor policy (German Labor Front) and Soviet trade-union abolition. The shared totalitarian DNA with modern anti-liberal ideologies that prioritize group identity over the sovereign individual. The Center for Human Equality emphasizes that reclassifying Nazism as a left-wing phenomenon is not intended to exonerate traditional conservatism or classical liberalism (which Nazism also despised and persecuted), but rather to sharpen analytical tools so that totalitarian collectivism—whatever its flavor—can be recognized and resisted in all forms.By locating National Socialism and its cousins to their proper place on a liberty-based spectrum, CHE believes citizens will be better equipped to identify and oppose any movement that preaches the subordination of the individual to the collective, whether that collective is defined by race, class, nation, or religion.

CHE Research Project: Left wing Nazism and Islamism

Group judgmentalism — the tendency to ascribe collective guilt, stereotypes, or moral failings to an entire people based on the actions or perceived traits of some — is a persistent human failing. Few organizations have opposed this impulse more consistently than the Center for Human Equality in Oregon, founded by Rabbi Russell McAlmond, which has made the fight against all forms of collective blame a central mission. Yet even among the many varieties of group judgmentalism, antisemitism stands apart in its protean complexity. Unlike most forms of racism or ethnic prejudice, which tend to remain relatively stable in their justifications over time, antisemitism is uniquely shape-shifting: it can invert its own logic, adopt contradictory premises, and reappear in new ideological clothing while maintaining the same underlying impulse to judge all Jews as a group.The Mutability of the ChargeMost forms of racism operate with a fairly fixed hierarchy of rationales. Anti-Black racism in the Western world, for example, has historically oscillated between two relatively stable poles: “inferiority” (biological or cultural incapacity) and “threatening superiority” (criminality, hyper-sexuality, or athletic dominance used as evidence of danger). These justifications contradict each other, but they rarely coexist simultaneously in the same ideology. You are either deemed “inferior” or “dangerously hyper-competent,” but the racist framework usually picks one lane and stays there for generations.Antisemitism, by contrast, has sustained both charges at the same time for centuries, often within the same text or speaker:Medieval Christian Europe: Jews were both subhuman Christ-killers and diabolically cunning moneylenders who secretly controlled kings.&nbsp; 19th-century racial pseudoscience: Jews were a degenerate, parasitic race and simultaneously a hyper-intelligent conspiratorial elite.&nbsp; Nazi ideology: Jews were both Bolshevik commissars threatening to enslave the world through communism and capitalist financiers enslaving it through banking — two ideologies that supposedly hate each other, yet both were blamed on the same people.&nbsp; Contemporary discourse: Jews/“Zionists” are accused simultaneously of being rootless globalists with no national loyalty and ultra-nationalist ethnic supremacists who place their own nation above all others. This ability to hold logically incompatible accusations in suspension is unique. The Jew becomes a Rorschach test onto which any societal anxiety can be projected, and the prejudice survives by changing its justification to match the spirit of the age.The Trans-Ideological CharacterMost group prejudices are tethered to a particular political or cultural constellation. Anti-Asian sentiment in the United States spikes during periods of economic competition or war with Asian powers. Islamophobia surges after terrorist attacks or during culture-war backlashes against immigration. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);">These prejudices have a clear “address”: they are owned by specific demographics, parties, or historical moments.Antisemitism is almost uniquely trans-ideological. It appears with equal ease on the far right (white supremacists who see Jews as non-white race-polluters) and the far left (anti-imperialist frameworks that cast “Zionists” as the ultimate symbol of settler-colonial evil). It flourished under religious theocracies (medieval Church, Islamic dhimmi regulations), under racial-biological regimes (Nazism), under communist universalism (Stalin’s “rootless cosmopolitans” campaign), and under contemporary progressive intersectional paradigms (where Jews are uniquely excluded from the circle of the oppressed because of Israel’s existence).No other group judgmentalism can migrate so seamlessly across mutually hostile worldviews. The same week can produce a neo-Nazi chant of “Jews will not replace us” and a campus activist slogan that “Zionists” control American foreign policy — two worldviews that despise each other yet converge on the same target.The Self-Sealing Conspiracy StructureOrdinary racism generally does not need an elaborate conspiratorial explanation. It can rest on open contempt or pseudoscientific hierarchy.Antisemitism, however, almost always requires a theory of hidden Jewish power. Even when Jews are a tiny, persecuted minority, the prejudice insists that their influence is vastly greater than their numbers suggest. This creates a self-sealing loop:If Jews are prominent in finance, media, or academia → proof of conspiracy.&nbsp; If Jews are underrepresented in those fields (as they were for centuries in Christian Europe) → proof they are manipulating things from the shadows.&nbsp; If a Jew criticizes Israel → proof of divided loyalty or a clever deception.&nbsp; If a Jew defends Israel → proof of tribal chauvinism. Evidence against the conspiracy is simply interpreted as further proof of the conspiracy’s sophistication. This epistemological closed circuit makes antisemitic group judgmentalism extraordinarily resilient to factual rebuttal.The Morphing Moral ValencePerhaps the deepest difference is that most racisms operate with a consistent moral framing: the targeted group is either inferior (and therefore pitiable or contemptible) or dangerously superior (and therefore in need of suppression). The moral direction remains stable.Antisemitism flips the moral valence of Jewish success itself. When Jews are excluded and impoverished, they are despised as weak, ugly, and parasitic. When some Jews achieve success after emancipation, that very success becomes evidence of malevolence (“How did they get all this power unless they cheated?”). The same characteristic — striving for education, professional achievement, cultural contribution — is condemned when Jews do it, yet celebrated when other historically marginalized groups do it. Jewish success is uniquely transformed from a story of overcoming into a story of exploitation.Antisemitism is not “just another racism.” It is the paradigmatic example of a prejudice that can justify judging all Jews as a group under almost any ideological regime, using almost any contradiction, and surviving refutation by incorporating the refutation into its own narrative. Its complexity lies in its adaptability: it does not need consistency of logic, only consistency of target. That is why it has outlived empires, religions, and ideologies that once sponsored it, reappearing in new forms while the older forms of group judgmentalism — tied to more rigid hierarchies — often fade when their justifying conditions change.Until we recognize this shape-shifting quality, efforts to combat group judgmentalism in general will continually be blindsided by the one form that refuses to stay in one shape. The work of places like Rabbi Russell McAlmond’s Center for Human Equality remains indispensable precisely because antisemitism keeps inventing new disguises for the oldest hatred.

The Complexity of Antisemitism

The word capitalism of golden color on scattered dollar bills. The concept of economics. 3d render

Hitler’s Rejection of Individualism and Liberal Capitalism: From Mein Kampf to the Zweites Buch (Second Book)Adolf Hitler’s worldview was built on the absolute subordination of the individual to the racial state and the total coordination (Gleichschaltung) of every sphere of life—political, cultural, and economic—under the will of the Führer. Both Mein Kampf (1925–1926) and the unpublished Zweites Buch (1928) make this unmistakably clear: liberalism, individualism, and what Hitler called “Jewish” or “international finance capitalism” were, in his eyes, mortal enemies of the German Volk and had to be eradicated root and branch.The Destruction of IndividualismHitler regarded the very idea of individual rights and personal freedom as a corrosive Jewish invention that dissolved the organic unity of the race. From Mein Kampf (1925, Ralph Manheim translation):“The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture.” (Vol. I, Ch. 2) “Any crossing of two beings not of the same level produces… a medium between the level of the two parents. […] Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life.” (Vol. I, Ch. 11) (Here the individual has no right to choose a partner; biology and the state decide.) In the Zweites Buch he is even more explicit:“The bourgeois world is governed by the view that the individual is everything and the community nothing… This individualistic attitude is the greatest enemy of a real national community.” (p. 25) “Individualism… destroys the very foundation of any higher human community.” (p. 153) The practical consequence is spelled out repeatedly: the individual exists only to serve the Volk; the Volk exists only to serve the Führer who embodies it. There is no private sphere, no personal ambition, no “human rights” that can stand above the demands of the racial state.The Condemnation of Liberal CapitalismHitler did not oppose private property in principle (National Socialism always distinguished itself from Bolshevik communism), but he despised capitalism as it actually existed in the liberal-democratic West: stock-exchange capitalism, international finance, and the idea that the economy could be left to impersonal market forces or individual profit-seeking.From Mein Kampf:“The harder it was [for the Jew], the more he pushed himself into the circles of the ‘upper class’… In a short while he began to twist the whole State into an instrument of his own particular usury. […] The stock exchange began to triumph and prepared slowly but surely to determine the fate of the nation.” (Vol. I, Ch. 10) “The internationalization of the German economic life had been begun even before the War through the medium of stock shares… One part of the German industrialists… took a hostile attitude toward the national interests.” (Vol. II, Ch. 14) In the Zweites Buch the attack becomes systematic:“Capitalism as a whole… has become an instrument in the hands of the international Jew… The stock exchange has become the center of gravity of economic life.” (p. 149) “The most terrible example of this madness is the bourgeois-social world of today, which in its capitalistic form has made the stock exchange the center of its economic thinking and feeling.” (p. 35) “The capitalistic economic system… is in its deepest essence nothing other than the economic expression of the liberal-democratic worldview.” (p. 107). The Positive Vision: Total Control by the Führer-StateHitler demanded that every owner—factory director, landowner, shopkeeper—place his property and his decisions at the service of the racial community as defined by the Führer.From Mein Kampf:“The folkish state… must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure… It must see to it that only the healthy beget children… Here the state must act as the guardian of a millennial future.” (Vol. II, Ch. 2) In the Zweites Buch he lays out the foreign-policy corollary: Germany must seize Lebensraum in the East, and the entire economy must be reoriented toward that war of conquest. Private economic freedom is therefore impossible:“A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape.” (Mein Kampf, Vol. II, Ch. 2) In practice this meant that after 1933 every aspect of German life—wages, prices, investment, labor allocation, what farmers could plant, what newspapers could print, whom one could marry—was brought under the control of the NSDAP state. The Reich Economics Ministry, the German Labor Front, the Four-Year Plan Office, and ultimately Hitler himself decided the destiny of every German and every mark.ConclusionHitler’s writings leave no room for ambiguity. Individualism was “the greatest enemy of a real national community,” and liberal capitalism was simply “the economic expression of the liberal-democratic worldview”—both had to be crushed. The only permissible freedom was the freedom to obey the Führer, who alone embodied the will of the racial Volk. In the end, as the Zweites Buch and Mein Kampf both make clear, the National Socialist revolution was not about liberating the individual or the entrepreneur; it was about delivering the most total control over human life—spiritual, biological, and economic—that any modern state has ever attempted.

Nazi Hate  of individualism and capitalism

Ethical Individualism: Defining Diversity Through the Uniqueness of Every Human Being In an era where "diversity" is often invoked as a mantra for social progress, its meaning has become muddled, frequently reduced to checklists of group identities—race, gender, ethnicity, or religion—that prioritize collective labels over personal essence. This superficial approach risks perpetuating the very divisions it seeks to heal, fostering a new form of judgmentalism where individuals are pigeonholed by shared traits rather than celebrated for their singular humanity. Enter Ethical Individualism, a profound human relational philosophy developed by Russell McAlmond, which offers a transformative antidote. At its core, Ethical Individualism asserts that every human being is a unique mosaic of experiences, thoughts, and potentials, deserving of respect and judgment solely on the merits of that individuality—not on the arbitrary characteristics of any group to which they might belong. This philosophy, articulated in McAlmond's seminal work Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy, redefines true diversity not as a quota of group differences, but as the boundless variety inherent in each person's irreplaceable self. Echoing the timeless wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who implored us to judge his children "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," Ethical Individualism dismantles group-based assessments, championing a world where uniqueness is the sole measure of worth. This essay explores Ethical Individualism as the authentic embodiment of diversity, illustrating how it liberates us from the pitfalls of group judgmentalism and aligns seamlessly with King's vision of character-driven equality. By embracing this framework, we can foster genuine human connections that honor the infinite spectrum of individual souls, rather than the crude categories of collective identity. The Foundations of Ethical Individualism Russell McAlmond, a Universal Ethical Judaism rabbi and human rights advocate, developed Ethical Individualism as a response to the pervasive "groupism" that fractures modern society. Ordained by the Jewish Spiritual Leadership Institute, McAlmond's philosophy emerges from a deep commitment to interfaith harmony and ethical human relations, drawing on principles of reason, compassion, and moral evolution. In his writings and public engagements, he describes it as "the ideal standard for human relations in the 21st Century," a pragmatic ethic designed to counteract the toxic effects of stereotyping and collective blame. Central to Ethical Individualism is the rejection of what McAlmond terms "group judgmentalism"—the erroneous practice of attributing traits, guilt, or value to individuals based on their affiliation with a demographic group. He argues that humans are not monolithic collectives but distinct entities, each shaped by a lifetime of personal encounters, choices, and insights. "We are not groups—we are individuals," McAlmond writes, emphasizing that symbiotic relationships thrive only when both parties recognize the equal intrinsic value of the other as a unique being. This philosophy does not deny the existence of groups—families, communities, or nations—but insists that ethical interactions must transcend them, focusing instead on the "primacy and reality of individuality." McAlmond's theory arose from personal reflection on social injustices, including racism and ethnic conflicts, where he observed how labeling individuals by skin color or heritage perpetuates cycles of distrust and inequality. By prioritizing ethical individualism, we dismantle these barriers, creating space for trust and mutual benefit. As he notes in his book, this approach infuses hope: only through the lens of uniqueness can each person contribute their irreplaceable perspective to the world. In essence, Ethical Individualism is a call to action—a blueprint for relating to others with dignity, free from the distortions of group-based prejudice. Diversity Defined: The Power of Uniqueness Over Group Traits The term "diversity" has evolved into a buzzword, often wielded to celebrate a rainbow of group identities in workplaces, schools, and media. Yet, this version of diversity frequently devolves into performative inclusion, where skin color, gender, or cultural background becomes the proxy for value, inadvertently reinforcing stereotypes. True diversity, as illuminated by Ethical Individualism, lies in the radical acknowledgment that every human is inherently unique—no two minds, no two life stories, are identical. This individuality is the richest tapestry imaginable, far surpassing the limited palette of group characteristics. Consider the implications: if we judge people by skin color, we erase the poet from the engineer, the innovator from the artist, all in favor of a superficial hue. McAlmond warns that such groupism breeds division, as it assumes uniformity within categories that simply do not exist. Ethical Individualism flips this script, urging us to perceive each person as a "distinct mosaic of experiences," worthy of respect precisely because of their one-of-a-kind composition. In professional settings, for instance, hiring based on individual talents and ethics—rather than demographic quotas—yields teams of unparalleled creativity, where diverse minds collaborate without the baggage of assumed biases. This redefinition extends to societal narratives. In discussions of privilege or disadvantage, Ethical Individualism invites us to look beyond group statistics to personal narratives. A person of color might excel in STEM not despite their background, but through the alchemy of their unique grit and ingenuity; conversely, a white individual facing poverty deserves empathy not as a token of class diversity, but as a fellow human navigating their singular trials. By stripping away group lenses, we uncover a diversity that is dynamic and infinite—every conversation, every collaboration, a fresh encounter with the extraordinary. McAlmond's philosophy thus transforms diversity from a static checklist into a living celebration of human singularity, where judgment is reserved for character and conduct alone. Parallels with Martin Luther King Jr.: A Shared Rejection of Group JudgmentalismNo figure embodies the spirit of individual-focused ethics more poignantly than Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech delivered a searing rebuke to racial groupism. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," King proclaimed, envisioning a society liberated from the tyranny of collective labels. This was no mere platitude; it was a profound denial of group judgmentalism, insisting that true equality demands appraisal of the soul, not the surface. Ethical Individualism stands as a philosophical heir to King's dream, extending its principles beyond race to all forms of categorization. McAlmond explicitly frames his theory as an antidote to the same ills King decried: the fallacy of collective guilt or virtue, where one person's actions taint or elevate an entire group. Just as King rejected judging Black Americans by the crimes of a few or white Americans by historical sins, McAlmond asserts, "There is no such thing as collective guilt—only individual guilt." Both visions converge on a radical individualism: King's through the lens of civil rights, McAlmond's through universal human relations. In King's words, character is the great equalizer; in McAlmond's, it is the ethical imperative that honors uniqueness above all.This synergy is not coincidental. King's nonviolent philosophy, rooted in agape love—unconditional regard for the individual—mirrors Ethical Individualism's call for symbiotic respect. Together, they dismantle the architecture of prejudice, brick by groupish brick, revealing a foundation of mutual dignity. In applying King's dream through McAlmond's framework, we fulfill the promise of a colorblind meritocracy, where diversity blooms not from enforced multiplicity, but from the natural variance of human character. Toward a World of Ethical Relations Ethical Individualism by Russell McAlmond is more than a theory; it is a clarion call to reclaim diversity's true essence—the profound, unassailable uniqueness of every human being. By judging individuals solely on their personal character and contributions, free from the shadows of skin color or group traits, we honor King's legacy and forge a path beyond division. This philosophy invites us to build relationships of equals, where trust flourishes in the soil of mutual recognition, and society thrives on the collective brilliance of singular minds.In embracing Ethical Individualism, we do not erase differences; we elevate them to their rightful place as facets of individuality. Let us, then, heed McAlmond's wisdom and King's dream: dismantle the idols of groupism, and in their stead, raise altars to the human spirit. Only then will diversity—true, vibrant, and redemptive—illuminate our shared humanity.

Diversity is only defined by the uniqueness of everyone

In an era dominated by identity politics, social media echo chambers, and tribal divisions, the need for a philosophy that elevates the individual over the collective has never been more urgent. Russell McAlmond has emerged as a thoughtful architect of such a framework. Through his writings, including the seminal book Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy (2021), McAlmond articulates a moral and relational ethos that prioritizes the inherent dignity of each person as a unique entity. At its core, Ethical Individualism challenges the pervasive "group judgmentalism"—the tendency to stereotype and evaluate individuals based on their perceived affiliations with race, religion, gender, nationality, or other collective labels. Instead, McAlmond proposes a "human relational philosophy" that he coined to describe an intentional, ethical approach to interactions: treating every human qua human, stripped of prejudicial overlays, to foster mutual respect, trust, and symbiosis. This essay explores McAlmond's articulation of Ethical Individualism, the origins and significance of his coined term "human relational philosophy," and its practical application in combating division while promoting harmonious relations. The Foundations of Ethical Individualism Ethical Individualism, as developed by McAlmond, is not merely an abstract ethical theory but a pragmatic guide for everyday human encounters. Rooted in his experiences as a rabbi ordained by the Jewish Spiritual Leadership Institute and as the founder of the Center for Human Equality in Oregon, McAlmond's philosophy begins with a fundamental assertion: every human being is a "distinct mosaic of experiences," irreducible to any single group identity. In his book, he writes that this approach "teaches us to recognize the primacy and reality of individuality over groupism," positioning it as an antidote to the "toxic labeling and judgmentalism" that erodes social fabric. Central to Ethical Individualism is the rejection of what McAlmond terms "group judgmentalism." He defines this as the unethical practice of ascribing uniform traits, values, or moral worth to entire groups, thereby denying the individuality of their members. For instance, in a 2023 Substack essay titled "Mosaic of Identities," McAlmond explains that humans possess "multiple identities" — as parents, professionals, veterans, or cultural participants — but no single label fully defines them. Assigning value based on one facet, such as ethnicity or political affiliation, leads to deindividuation and dehumanization, phenomena McAlmond links to broader societal harms like racism and polarization. He draws on social science, invoking Franz Boas's concept of cultural relativity to argue that judgments must be "based on unique individuality and character, not group identity factors."McAlmond's theory is distinctly ethical in orientation, emphasizing that relations should be "symbiotic" — mutually beneficial and trust-building. In a 2023 article on the Fair for All platform, "Why I Developed Ethical Individualism Theory," he clarifies that this is "an ethical individualism theory, not a group theory," underscoring its focus on interpersonal dynamics rather than institutional reform alone. Ethics here means approaching others with the presumption of "equal value as human beings," regardless of background. This principle echoes universalist traditions in Judaism, which McAlmond adapts for the 21st century by integrating science, reason, and moral progress. He envisions Ethical Individualism as a tool for Jews and non-Jews alike to "light the world" not through favoritism or chosenness, but as "equals among equals," dismantling divisions to "weave a tapestry of peace." Coining "Human Relational Philosophy": A Framework for Relational Ethics A pivotal innovation in McAlmond's work is his coining of the phrase "human relational philosophy," which he explicitly introduces in Ethical Individualism as a descriptor for his system. In a reflective comment on his 2023 Fair for All post, McAlmond notes the novelty of the term: "My book referred to Ethical Individualism as a 'Human Relational Philosophy' and it was interesting to find out that this phrase could not be found on a Google search." This deliberate naming reflects his intent to shift philosophical discourse from abstract metaphysics or isolated self-cultivation toward the concrete terrain of human interactions."Human relational philosophy," in McAlmond's articulation, concentrates on "improving human relations" by prescribing the "best and most ethical way to approach human qua human interactions." The Latin phrase qua human — meaning "as a human" — captures the essence: interactions should engage the other not as a representative of a category, but as an irreducible person. This philosophy is relational in its core mechanism: it views ethics not as solitary virtue but as emergent from encounters where both parties benefit equally. Trust, McAlmond argues, arises when individuals feel "truly understood... not just a number or another item on a list of clients," a insight drawn from his financial career.By coining this term, McAlmond differentiates his work from predecessors like Rudolf Steiner's "ethical individualism," which he acknowledges but distinguishes as more inwardly focused on personal development. McAlmond's version is outwardly directed, a "positive approach to human relations that treats every human being as special and unique." It serves as the philosophical backbone for Ethical Individualism, providing a lexicon to operationalize anti-judgmental practices. He describes it as a Judaism that "rejects the divisions of groupism," adapting ancient wisdom to modern truths. The phrase encapsulates a call to action: philosophy is not for contemplation alone but for relational repair, halting the cycle of prejudice that begins with grouping and ends in conflict. Stopping Group Judgmentalism: Practical Implications for Human Interactions The genius of McAlmond's human relational philosophy lies in its direct assault on group judgmentalism as the root of relational dysfunction. He posits that such judgmentalism — lumping people into categories and assigning blanket values — is not only inaccurate but corrosive, as it "denies the uniqueness and individuality of every person." In his 2017 blog post "Deindividuation and Dehumanization," McAlmond warns that treating humans "like barnyard animals" grouped by superficial traits fosters harm, from casual bias to systemic injustice. To counter this, McAlmond advocates a disciplined mindset: approach every interaction with neutrality toward group affiliations, focusing instead on the individual's character and shared humanity. This is the "ideal standard for human relations in the 21st Century," as he states in his book. Practically, it manifests in coaching and training, as seen in his work with the Grants Pass Police Department, where he delivers sessions on viewing others as "unique individuals deserving of respect and equal fair treatment." Politically, as a 2025 candidate for Congress in Oregon, McAlmond applies it to governance, arguing for compassionate administration that avoids demonizing groups amid fiscal strains like inflation. The philosophy's ethical superiority stems from its universality and simplicity. By stopping group-based judgments, it promotes symbiosis: relations become trust-building exchanges where prejudices dissolve, replaced by genuine understanding. McAlmond's vision extends to education, urging schools to teach Ethical Individualism as a "common cause of tolerance," and to interfaith dialogue, where it unites diverse groups without erasing differences. Ultimately, it promises a world where "all shine as equals, bound by compassion and devoted to peace." Conclusion Russell McAlmond's Ethical Individualism stands as a beacon of hope in a fractured world, a philosophy that reclaims the individual from the shadows of groupism. By coining "human relational philosophy," he has given us a precise tool to diagnose and heal relational wounds, emphasizing ethical interactions that honor the human qua human. In halting group judgmentalism, McAlmond does not deny groups' existence — he reminds us that groups are defined by purpose, not by homogenizing their members. His work, infused with wisdom and pragmatic insight, invites us to build a tapestry of connections where uniqueness is celebrated, trust is symbiotic, and division yields to dignity. As we navigate the complexities of 2025, McAlmond's message resonates: only by seeing each other as irreplaceable mosaics can we forge the equitable, harmonious relations our shared humanity demands. In embracing this path, we not only improve our interactions but redefine ethics for an interconnected age. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

Ethical Individualism: A 21st Century Approach

<h2>Understanding Group Judgmentalism</h2>
Group judgmentalism refers to the tendency of individuals within a group to form opinions or make decisions that are influenced by the collective's attitudes, often leading to a lack of independent thinking. This phenomenon can have a profound impact on mental health, affecting those who are both part of the group and those who find themselves outside it.

In many social settings, individuals may feel pressure to conform to the group's beliefs and behaviors, even if these do not align with their personal values. This pressure can lead to stress, anxiety, and a diminished sense of self-worth, as individuals struggle to reconcile their personal identity with the group's expectations.

<figure id="figure-dzj8ef0m5jm7feucqy"><img id="dzj8ef0m5jm7feucqy" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/87300417/photo/a-lawyer-and-defendant-talking.jpg?b=1&s=2048x2048&w=0&k=20&c=99izT0-eywiJuqTuY4trmgS1PXChdDhqa1K8yI9ZACU=" alt="group discussion" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9"></figure>

<h2>The Psychological Effects of Conformity</h2>
Conformity can significantly impact mental health by fostering a sense of inadequacy or self-doubt among individuals who do not align with the group's norms. Those who feel compelled to conform may experience an internal conflict, leading to feelings of depression and anxiety. The fear of rejection or ostracization can exacerbate these feelings, creating a cycle of negative emotions.

Moreover, those who resist conformity might face criticism or exclusion, which can be equally damaging. The human need for social connection is strong, and being isolated from a group can lead to loneliness and decreased self-esteem.

<figure id="figure-i5zx1uw4bem7feucqy"><img id="i5zx1uw4bem7feucqy" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/669938158/photo/getting-older-can-bring-senior-health-challenges.jpg?b=1&s=2048x2048&w=0&k=20&c=Ks626ItXB0jCPyPS_YpF2Ym7w2jOWqgRw8RPzGUWaHw=" alt="lonely person" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9"></figure>

<h3>Social Media and Group Judgmentalism</h3>
In the digital age, social media has amplified the effects of group judgmentalism. Online platforms often serve as echo chambers where similar opinions are reinforced, and dissenting voices are marginalized. This environment can intensify feelings of inadequacy for users who do not fit the mold presented by these groups.

The constant comparison to curated online personas can lead to increased anxiety and feelings of inadequacy. It's important to be aware of these dynamics and actively work towards maintaining a healthy relationship with social media.

<figure id="figure-vt4oew8giam7feucqy"><img id="vt4oew8giam7feucqy" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/842883252/photo/this-internet-connection-is-testing-my-patience.jpg?b=1&s=2048x2048&w=0&k=20&c=iPnh9spgpKDvz5XvKoTTCEwPjEq9pZbKGW3Td0wOqrk=" alt="social media stress" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9"></figure>

<h2>Strategies for Coping</h2>
Addressing the impact of group judgmentalism on mental health requires both individual and collective efforts. Here are some strategies that can help:
<ul>
 <li>Self-awareness: Cultivate an understanding of your own values and beliefs. This can help you navigate situations where group pressure is strong.</li>
 <li>Seek supportive networks: Surround yourself with people who respect your individuality and encourage open dialogue.</li>
 <li>Limit social media use: Recognize when online interactions are negatively impacting your mental health and take breaks when necessary.</li>
</ul>

<h3>Building Resilience Against Group Pressure</h3>
Building resilience involves developing skills that help maintain mental well-being in the face of group pressure. Practice self-compassion and remind yourself that it's okay to hold different opinions than those around you. Engaging in activities that boost your confidence and self-esteem can also fortify your mental health against external judgments.

Finally, consider professional support if you're struggling with the effects of group judgmentalism. Therapy or counseling can provide tools to better manage stress and anxiety related to social pressures.

<figure id="figure-e28bdn4iplm7feucqy"><img id="e28bdn4iplm7feucqy" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1150732836/photo/listening-to-the-counselor.jpg?b=1&s=2048x2048&w=0&k=20&c=vo7BtDYGa9K9TSvUJcGj8xY5K3pRt3tBJx-zxH1aOew=" alt="therapy session" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9"></figure>

<h2>Conclusion</h2>
The impact of group judgmentalism on mental health is a complex issue that requires awareness and proactive strategies. By understanding the mechanisms at play and taking steps to protect our mental well-being, we can navigate social environments with greater resilience and confidence. In doing so, we create a healthier space for ourselves and those around us.

Blog

CHE Research Project: Left wing Nazism and Islamism

The Complexity of Antisemitism

Nazi Hate of individualism and capitalism

Diversity is only defined by the uniqueness of everyone

Ethical Individualism: A 21st Century Approach

The Impact of Group Judgmentalism on Mental Health