Blog

On the liberty spectrum—where the defining axis is individual liberty and unique human dignity versus collectivism in any form - economic differences fade into irrelevance compared to the core question of human relations: Do we judge and treat people as sovereign individuals, or as interchangeable members of groups to be praised, blamed, privileged, or punished collectively?Nick Fuentes and Senator Jeff Merkley occupy different ends of the traditional economic divide - Fuentes has expressed support for elements of free-market capitalism (while criticizing neoliberal globalism), and Merkley is a progressive Democrat aligning with Democratic Socialists for regulated markets, social safety nets, and progressive taxation. Yet, when it comes to demonizing Israel and, by extension, Jews as a collective, they share a striking commonality rooted in regressive collectivist thinking. Both reduce complex geopolitical and human realities to monolithic group narratives, subordinating individual rights and uniqueness to group-based scapegoating or grievance.This places both firmly on the left of the liberty spectrum: the side of government control, top-down domination, and dehumanization.The Collectivist Commonality: Demonizing a GroupNick Fuentes is overtly antisemitic, promoting classic tropes of Jewish collective control, dual loyalty, and subversion. In 2025 statements (including his interview with Tucker Carlson), he labeled "Zionist Jews" as enemies of conservatism, invoked "organized Jewry" as a transnational threat, and argued that Jewish loyalty to Israel undermines American unity. He conflates criticism of Israeli policy with blanket attacks on Jews as a people, recycling conspiracies about Jewish influence in media, finance, and politics. This is pure collectivism: treating "Jews" (or "Zionists" as a proxy) as a unified, malevolent group whose individual members bear collective guilt. Jeff Merkley, while condemning overt antisemitism and supporting Israel's right to exist, has repeatedly framed Israel's actions in Gaza as "indiscriminate bombing," "weaponization of hunger," and part of a "systematic plan to destroy and ethnically cleanse Palestinians" (per his 2025 report with Sen. Van Hollen). Stating that Israel is engaged in "ethnic cleansing" instead of the reality of a existential war of survival against the large terrorist army that had just committed the October 7th massacre of Jews in Israel is an accusation of genocide. There is no evidence for this accusation since Israel does not target civilians, only terrorists. This genocide-type claim dehumanizes all Jews who make up the IDF to be as morally bad as the Nazis of Germany.&nbsp;His 2024 Easter post linking Israel's conduct to civilian deaths drew accusations of evoking blood libels from Jewish leaders and Israel's antisemitism envoy. Merkley calls for cutting U.S. aid, often portraying "Netanyahu's government" or Israel collectively in these dehumanizing terms degrades into tropes about Jewish power or intransigence as "oppressors." Both engage in group demonization: Fuentes explicitly targets Jews as a collective enemy; Merkley harshly collectivizes Israel's actions in ways criticized as feeding antisemitic narratives (e.g., disproportionate blame or historical tropes). Neither consistently affirms the uniqueness of every individual—Jewish civilians, the IDF, or diaspora Jews—nor prioritizes individual human dignity over group labels.Why Human Relations Trump Economics on the Liberty SpectrumCollectivists—whether through racial/ethnonationalist lenses (Fuentes) or progressive identity/grievance frameworks (Merkley via DEI support and group-outcome policies)—view people primarily as group representatives. DEI initiatives, which Merkley aligns with as a progressive Democrat, explicitly prioritize group equity over individual merit, assigning advantages or disadvantages based on collective identity. This mirrors Fuentes' racial collectivism: both systems justify controlling individuals (via policy, coercion, or exclusion) for the "greater good" of a preferred group. On the left of the liberty spectrum: More government control. Top-down mandates—whether enforcing ethnic purity (Fuentes' ethnostate vision) or equity quotas (DEI-style policies)—deny people the right to be judged solely by their unique character and actions. This path historically leads to totalitarianism: state power trampling dissenters deemed part of the "wrong" group, eroding personal freedom.On the right: More liberty and individual rights. Less government intervention, voluntary associations, and respect for each person's irreplaceable individuality. No group privilege or punishment—only sovereign uniques in symbiotic relations.Fuentes and Merkley may clash economically, but their shared collectivist approach to human relations—demonizing a group (Jews/Israel) while elevating collective narratives - reveals them as birds of a feather on the control side of the spectrum. True freedom demands rejecting all such groupism, embracing Ethical Individualism: zero tolerance for any ideology that dehumanizes uniques in service of a collective. Only then can we safeguard individual liberty against the slide into domination by top-down government power.&nbsp;

Nick Fuentes and Jeff Merkley - Birds of a Feather?

The Statue of Liberty over the Scene of New york cityscape river side which location is lower manhattan,Architecture and building with tourist concept

Classical liberalism and Ethical Individualism, as articulated by Russell McAlmond, represent convergent philosophical approaches to governance that prioritize the celebration of individuality, limited government, and the conditions necessary for human flourishing. Both frameworks view the individual—not the collective or group—as the fundamental unit of moral and political life, rejecting hierarchies and coercion in favor of freedom, equality, and mutual respect. In an era of deepening polarization, these ideas offer a path back to principled governance that transcends artificial divisions. Classical liberalism, emerging from thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill, posits that individuals possess inherent rights to life, liberty, and property. Government exists solely to protect these rights, remaining limited in scope to prevent tyranny and allow personal pursuit of happiness. This tradition celebrates individuality by emphasizing personal responsibility, voluntary exchange, and the dignity of each person as an end in themselves. Similarly, Ethical Individualism asserts three core axioms: the primacy of individuality (each person as a unique "mosaic of experiences"), equal inherent value (no moral hierarchies among humans), and the immorality of group judgmentalism (rejecting stereotypes or collective blame based on identity factors like race, religion, or politics). McAlmond interprets "love your neighbor as yourself" as universal respect for the sovereign individual, free from group labels.These philosophies align profoundly in governance. Both advocate limited government to maximize human flourishing: Classical liberalism through restrained state power that safeguards individual freedoms and markets; Ethical Individualism through policies that honor personal uniqueness without imposing group-based preferences or punishments. Limited government prevents the state from becoming a tool for factional dominance, allowing individuals to thrive through their own efforts and choices. Excessive government intervention, whether in economic regulation or identity-driven mandates, risks subordinating the individual to collective agendas—eroding the very liberty and dignity both systems uphold. Russell McAlmond, a Republican candidate challenging incumbent Jeff Merkley for the US Senate in 2026, embodies this synthesis. Drawing from his experience as a U.S. Marine veteran and founder of the Center for Human Equality, McAlmond argues that the United States has drifted from its classical liberal roots toward a regressive "group-oriented tribalism." This shift manifests in identity politics, collective guilt narratives, and policies that categorize citizens by group affiliations rather than treating them as equals. Such tribalism, McAlmond contends, regresses human relations by fostering division, resentment, and dehumanization—the opposite of the symbiotic trust that arises from respecting individuality.This departure harms all human relations and individual rights. When governance prioritizes groups over individuals—through quotas, reparations rooted in ancestral blame, or demonization of political opponents—it creates artificial hierarchies, stifles personal agency, and fuels polarization. Citizens become proxies for collectives, losing sight of shared humanity and equal worth. This not only undermines classical liberal institutions like equal protection under the law but also breeds distrust, hindering cooperation and progress.To advance, America must return to respecting unique individuality as a moral imperative. Ethical Individualism provides the ethical foundation: Govern by recognizing every person's infinite value and sovereignty, rejecting groupism in policy and discourse. Combined with classical liberalism's structural safeguards—limited government, rule of law, and free markets—this approach dismantles polarizing divisions, restores individual rights, and enables true human flourishing. As McAlmond's vision suggests, a return to these principles offers hope for a united nation where governance serves people as individuals, not tribes—fostering harmony in diversity and strength through freedom. In reclaiming this shared heritage, we progress forward, building a society where every unique voice contributes to the common good without coercion or division.

Classical Liberalism

Female teacher discussing with preteen children about LGBT

In the 2026 Oregon U.S. Senate race, Republican candidate Russell (Russ) McAlmond is challenging incumbent Democrat Jeff Merkley. A U.S. Marine veteran, financial advisor, and advocate for human equality through his nonprofit, McAlmond brings a distinctive philosophical perspective to the campaign. Central to his worldview is "Ethical Individualism," a human relational philosophy he developed and outlined in his book Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy. This framework emphasizes treating every person as a unique individual of infinite and equal value, regardless of group identities such as skin color, gender, or sexuality. McAlmond's views on transgenderism stem directly from this principle, positioning it as a key point of contrast with Merkley, whom critics associate with support for gender-affirming medical interventions for minors, including puberty blockers and surgeries.Ethical Individualism posits that no individual is fully defined by any single group affiliation. Instead, each person is a multifaceted being deserving of equal respect and dignity. Group-based judgments—whether positive or negative—distort human relations by creating hierarchies of value. McAlmond argues that elevating one group above others fosters division and undermines true equality. This philosophy is not about denying differences but about rejecting the idea that group membership confers superior moral authority or special status.Applied to transgenderism, McAlmond views it not merely as personal identity but as an ideology that has been politicized and placed atop an "intersectional hierarchy." In contemporary discourse, transgender individuals are often portrayed as possessing heightened moral authority, with their experiences prioritized over those of other groups. This elevation, McAlmond contends, violates Ethical Individualism by implying that transgender people hold greater value or insight than others. It creates an unequal playing field where certain voices are amplified while others are marginalized, harming interpersonal and societal relations.Crucially, McAlmond's opposition to transgenderism as an ideology does not entail denying the equal value of transgender individuals. On the contrary, he asserts that his critique reinforces their equality. By opposing the ideological framework that lifts any group—including transgender people—above others, he seeks to affirm that every person, transgender or not, possesses infinite worth as an individual. No one should be reduced to a group label, nor granted privileged status because of it. This stance echoes his broader rejection of "group judgmentalism," where collective guilt or merit is assigned based on identity.The Senate race highlights a stark policy divide on issues related to transgender youth. Merkley, a progressive Democrat, has aligned with positions defending access to gender surgery care on minors, including opposition to bans on puberty blockers and hormone therapies for minors contested by critics concerned about long-term effects and irreversibility. McAlmond, drawing from Ethical Individualism, likely sees policies promoting such interventions for children as part of the ideological elevation he opposes: prioritizing one group's claims in a way that overrides individual nuance and broader societal equality.McAlmond's philosophy warns that hierarchical ideologies, even those framed as advancing justice, ultimately erode human connections. When transgenderism becomes a political litmus test granting moral superiority, it divides rather than unites. True progress, in his view, lies in treating all as equals—free from group-based hierarchies—fostering relationships built on mutual respect for individuality.In challenging Merkley, McAlmond offers Oregon voters a vision rooted in common-sense balance and ethical clarity: a society where no group is exalted, and every individual stands on equal ground. By opposing transgenderism as an elevating ideology, he aims not to diminish transgender people but to uphold the infinite value of all, preventing the harmful dynamics of division in pursuit of genuine human harmony. This principled stand reflects his commitment to restoring equitable representation in the Senate, prioritizing the many over narrow interests.

Transgenderism

As a proud U.S. Marine veteran running for the United States Senate against incumbent Jeff Merkley, I am deeply troubled by the actions of Oregon's two Democratic senators—Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden—in December 2025. On December 17, the Senate passed the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a critical bipartisan bill authorizing $901 billion for our military, including a well-deserved pay raise for our troops and essential resources to modernize our defenses. This legislation passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, 77-20, reflecting broad agreement that strengthening our national security is a top priority.Yet both Oregon's senators Merkley and Wyden chose to vote against it, placing partisan concerns above the needs of our service members and the safety of our nation. Senator Merkley's opposition stemmed in part from his failed attempt to amend unrelated legislation earlier in the year with provisions that would force federal law enforcement officers, including those with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to publicly display their full names and remove any face coverings during operations. While accountability is important, such requirements in high-risk enforcement actions—particularly deportations of individuals who may pose threats—could endanger officers and their families by exposing them to doxing, harassment, or retaliation from extremists. Merkley's amendment was rightly defeated, but his frustration with that outcome appears to have influenced his "no" vote on the NDAA, prioritizing protections for those facing deportation over the urgent needs of our military personnel.Senator Wyden, for his part, criticized the bill for containing what he called "authoritarian" elements and lacking sufficient guardrails against potential abuses. However, this characterization rings hollow when the NDAA garnered strong support from many of his fellow Democrats who recognize the bill's core mission: honoring our troops and ensuring their missions are safer and more effective. If the bill truly had authoritarian flaws severe enough to warrant rejection, it is unlikely that a majority of Democrats would have joined Republicans in supporting it.The extreme votes of Merkley and Wyden align more closely with the priorities of far-left groups, such as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who have long opposed robust military funding and traditional national defense measures. By rejecting this bipartisan bill, our senators effectively abandoned the men and women in uniform who risk everything to protect our freedoms—troops who deserve better than their ideological gamesmanship in Washington.My vote would have proudly joined the overwheliming majority of senators to fund the NDAA which was a bipartisan bill. As a veteran who served overseas and understands first-hand the sacrifices of military service firsthand, I believe we must always put our service members safety first with funding. This bill provides critical pay increases, modernizes weapons systems, and enhances readiness—making our troops' missions more successful and keeping them safer in an increasingly dangerous world. Oregon families, veterans, and active-duty personnel deserve senators who stand firmly and honorably with our military, not against it. In 2026, we have a chance to elect leadership that honors our troops, secures our borders, and prioritizes American strength over extremist agendas. I am committed to being that voice in the Senate for Oregon.

Abandoning Our Troops: Oregon's Merkley and Wyden

ANTISEMITISM - image with words associated with the topic RACISM, word, image, illustration

The 2026 United States Senate election in Oregon pits incumbent Democrat Jeff Merkley, seeking a fourth term, against emerging Republican challenger Russ McAlmond, a proud U.S. Marine Corps veteran challenging Merkley directly. McAlmond, drawing on his military service and commitment to moral clarity, has positioned himself as a strong, unwavering supporter of Israel—the Middle East's only democracy and a key U.S. ally. In sharp contrast, Merkley has aligned with far-left voices in criticizing Israel's defensive actions against Hamas, employing inflammatory rhetoric that many view as unfair and harmful. This divide highlights a critical choice for Oregon voters on U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding support for Israel amid ongoing threats from terrorists in Gaza and other hostile Arab states.&nbsp;Russ McAlmond's pro-Israel stance reflects a deep appreciation for Israel's role as a moral nation defending itself against existential threats. As a Marine veteran who served overseas and understands the realities of war, McAlmond views Israel as a beacon of democracy surrounded by adversaries committed to its destruction. It is committed to self defense of its people - which is absolutely moral - just as when the USA defends its people.&nbsp;He firmly believes that Israel, a country founded in the aftermath of the Holocaust—the worst genocide in history perpetrated against the Jewish people—would never commit such atrocities itself. Accusations of "genocide" against Israel are not only factually baseless but represent a dangerous blood libel, echoing historical antisemitic tropes designed to demonize the Jewish state and its people. McAlmond has emphasized a zero-tolerance policy toward antisemitism in his campaign, pledging to call out hate wherever it appears, even if it comes from within Jewish communities or political allies. He argues that the extreme left has unfairly demonized Israel over its necessary response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas atrocities, and he supports Israel's right to defend itself fully without undue restrictions on U.S. aid.In contrast, Jeff Merkley has repeatedly criticized Israel's military operations in Gaza, describing them as involving "indiscriminate bombing" and "ethic cleansing" that are antisemitic statements. He has aligned closely with extreme figures like Senator Bernie Sanders and elements of the Democratic Socialists of America, co-sponsoring efforts to condition or block U.S. weapons transfers while demonizing Israel.&nbsp;Merkley has called for early ceasefires and halting aid until certain conditions are met, framing Israel's actions in ways that isolate it on the world stage. An early ceasefire would have kept Hamas intact to attack Israel again. Critics, including pro-Israel advocates, argue that such language applies a double standard to Israel, ignoring Hamas's use of human shields and its charter calling for Israel's destruction. Sanders and Merkley both have labeled Israel's response as "ethnic cleansing" or worse—fueling narratives that demonize Israel and contribute to rising antisemitism by portraying the Jewish state as uniquely villainous. These claims are antisemitic themselves by any rational basis and not factual. Israel is clearly targeting Hamas terrorists, not all Palestinian Arabs.&nbsp;Sander's accusation of "genocide" in particular stands out as a pernicious falsehood used by antisemites to delegitimize Israel. No credible evidence supports this charge; Israel's operations target Hamas terrorists who embed among civilians, while the IDF takes extraordinary measures—such as warnings and evacuations—to minimize harm. McAlmond believes this charge and similar claims made by Sanders and Merkley to be extremely hateful. &nbsp; The Jewish people, having endured the Holocaust, would never perpetrate such evil. Jewish critics like Sanders or historical figures like Karl Marx, who held antisemitic views despite their heritage, do not exempt such rhetoric from being called what it truthfully is.&nbsp;True support for Israel recognizes its moral right to exist and defend itself as a homeland for the indigenous Jewish people after centuries of persecution. As Oregon's 2026 Senate race unfolds, Russ McAlmond offers voters a clear alternative: steadfast support for Israel as a moral ally fighting terrorism, coupled with a rejection of antisemitic tropes masquerading as criticism. Merkley's antisemitic remarks and approach risks undermining a vital partnership and emboldening Israel's enemies. Oregonians deserve a senator who stands firmly with Israel, recognizing its people as moral defenders of freedom and on the front lines of that fight. McAlmond's veteran perspective and zero-antisemitism commitment make him that choice, ensuring U.S. policy reflects strength, clarity, and unwavering alliance with the Jewish state.

McAlmond versus Merkley's Antisemitism

Hanukkah Menorah - Candles With Glittering And Stars Of David In Shine Lights - Abstract Defocused Background

On December 14, 2025, the iconic shores of Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia—a place synonymous with summer joy and community gatherings—were transformed into a scene of unimaginable horror. During the "Chanukah by the Sea" event celebrating the first night of Hanukkah, two gunmen, a father and son inspired by Islamic State ideology, opened fire on hundreds of attendees. At least 15 people were killed, including a 10-year-old girl, a rabbi who had dedicated his life to the Jewish community, and a Holocaust survivor. Dozens more were injured in what authorities swiftly declared a terrorist attack motivated by antisemitism.This was not a random act of violence. The attackers targeted Jewish Australians specifically because of their faith, turning a festival of light into one of darkness. Among the victims were Rabbi Eli Schlanger, a beloved organizer of the event and father of young children, and other innocent families gathered for music, games, and celebration. The root cause was clear: hatred toward Jewish people, a hatred that has been surging in Australia for years.Yet, in the immediate aftermath, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's response emphasized tightening Australia's already strict gun laws, vowing further restrictions on firearms despite the country's low rates of gun violence since the 1996 Port Arthur reforms. In other words, the PM wants to blame the guns used in this horrific attack and not the root cause of it - which was group hatred of the Jewish people. Over a dozen Jews murdered in his country and he is blaming inanimate objects instead of the human beings pulling the triggers. Can any politician be more out-of-touch with the reality in his country? Jewish community leaders and international figures, argued that his government's broader approach to rising antisemitism has been inadequate for years. Reports from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry document thousands of antisemitic incidents in recent years—graffiti, assaults, arson on synagogues yet concrete actions to combat hate have lagged.Australia has seen one of the sharpest global increases in antisemitic attacks since October 2023, with incidents remaining at unprecedented levels even in 2025. Jewish leaders have repeatedly warned that unchecked vitriol could escalate to violence, and the Bondi attack tragically proved them right. Blaming guns while downplaying the need for a robust, zero-tolerance stance against antisemitic hatred sends a weak signal. It deflects from the ideological root cause: bigotry that views Jews as targets simply for existing and celebrating their heritage.In stark contrast, voices from abroad have been unequivocal in naming the problem. Russ McAlmond, a U.S. Marine veteran and Republican candidate challenging Senator Jeff Merkley for Oregon's U.S. Senate seat in 2026, swiftly condemned the attack as a direct result of antisemitism, not the weapons used. McAlmond has made zero tolerance for antisemitism and racism a cornerstone of his campaign, pledging to confront all group hatred head-on if elected. His clear-eyed focus on the motive—Jew-hatred—stands as a model for domestic and international political leadership in times of crisis, reminding us that true strength lies in addressing evil by name, not deflecting to secondary factors. The Bondi Beach massacre is a wake-up call. Governments must do more than offer condolences or tweak laws around inanimate objects; they must actively eradicate the scourge of antisemitism through education, enforcement, and unwavering condemnation of hate in all forms. Anything less dishonors the victims—a child robbed of her future, a rabbi slain while bringing light to his community, and survivors of past horrors killed again by intolerance. Light must defeat darkness, but only if political leaders have the moral courage to shine it directly on the source of the shadows - hate and antisemitism.&nbsp;