top of page
Search

The Limits of Tolerance: A Transhumanist Ethical Framework

Defining the Boundaries of Political Inclusion


I maintain that moral and ethical considerations must fundamentally inform our stance on political opposition. The concept of a “big tent” party possesses theoretical appeal, yet we must rigorously examine its practical implications. Specifically, how expansive should such a coalition realistically be?

We must acknowledge an obvious yet crucial point: literal universal acceptance remains impossible. Certain ideological positions exist in direct contradiction to core Transhumanist values. The critical question becomes: where do we establish these boundaries?

Consider whether we would accommodate figures such as Stephen Miller within our movement. I would contend that we cannot — and should not. We cannot reconcile ourselves with authentic fascism.

The Incompatibility of Fascism with Liberal Democracy

Fascism is, by its essential nature, fundamentally incompatible with liberal democratic principles. Fascist ideology seeks to dismantle constitutional frameworks, revoke civil liberties, and systematically destroy democratic institutions as we understand them. How does one negotiate or compromise with such an existential threat?

The contemporary American right has undergone a complete authoritarian transformation — this is not rhetorical hyperbole but a documented reality. Scholars analyzing Trump’s 2025 administration have noted its “shift towards authoritarianism,” with experts like Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt highlighting how Trump’s persistent attacks on the judiciary, media, and electoral integrity have undermined the legitimacy of democratic institutions. An April 2025 survey of over 500 political scientists found that the majority considered the United States under Trump to be quickly becoming an authoritarian regime. Political scientist Steven Levitsky, co-author of “How Democracies Die,” stated: “We’ve slid into some form of authoritarianism… we are no longer living in a liberal democracy”.

The entire Republican Party has been comprehensively captured by this authoritarian movement under Trump’s leadership. Even if individual Republicans harbor private reservations about fascist tendencies, their complicity through voting patterns renders such internal dissent functionally irrelevant. We cannot discern internal motivations; we can only assess observable actions. When voting records demonstrate no discernible difference between moderate Republicans and extremist faction members, then no meaningful distinction exists in practical outcomes. Those who enable fascism through their actions are, for all intents and purposes, fascists themselves.

The Historical Parallel and the Paradox of Intolerance

Many contemplate the hypothetical: “What would I have done in 1930s Germany?” That moment has arrived. We are living through it now. This is our opportunity to demonstrate our principles through action.

This situation perfectly exemplifies what philosopher Karl Popper termed the “paradox of tolerance.” In “The Open Society and Its Enemies” (1945), Popper argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance, positing that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices.

Popper explicitly stated: “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them”.

Popper emphasized that the limit lies in violence; as long as intolerant ideas or opinions could be countered through rational arguments, they should not be censored, but coercion and violence mark the boundary where suppression becomes necessary.

I recognize that skeptics may dismiss these concerns as exaggeration or fearmongering. However, the evidence is substantial and continues to accumulate. I propose establishing a dedicated channel for documenting evidence of our democratic backsliding to substantiate these claims comprehensively.

The Greatest Threat to Our Republic

I contend that this right-wing fascist movement represents the most significant existential threat to American democracy since the Civil War. Civil society analysts have observed that “Trump is attempting to centralise power in a 21st-century US variant of fascism, backed by a white nationalist ideology and largely based on Project 2025,” with civil society and institutions unprepared for “this level of attack”.

The cognitive dissonance becomes apparent when our movement remains silent about this clear and present danger while simultaneously defending figures like the CEO in question or Charlie Kirk — an individual who has been among the most influential architects of this right-wing fascist movement and, consequently, one of the most significant threats to our nation’s democratic foundations.

The Practical Impossibility of Accommodation

I genuinely desire our party’s growth. I would enthusiastically collaborate with moderate Reagan-era Republicans were we in 2014. However, such Republicans no longer exist within the contemporary GOP — they have been systematically purged from the party. This transformation is neither our responsibility nor our fault. We cannot reverse the Republican Party’s authoritarian trajectory. Our agency extends only to our own choices: we can either accommodate fascism or reject it.

Philosopher John Rawls argued in “A Theory of Justice” that a just society should generally tolerate the intolerant, but reserves self-preservation actions for when intolerance poses a concrete threat to liberty and stability. We have reached that threshold.

Fascism is inherently intolerant. As political philosopher Karl Popper conceptualized it, “in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance”. Tolerating intolerance creates a self-defeating dynamic: intolerance ultimately prevails, eliminating tolerance entirely. Therefore, if we genuinely aspire to maintain a tolerant society, we cannot extend tolerance to intolerance itself.

The Reality of Trump Support

We should not tolerate Trump supporters within our movement. Consider the question objectively: do Trump supporters seek a “big tent” party? Emphatically not. Their vision centers on Trump as monarch, dictator, or quasi-divine figure. A Trump supporter joining our party at this juncture is not motivated by principles of tolerance or pluralism — their presence serves only to recruit our members into the Trump movement.

Sources:

The Paradox of Tolerance — Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

The Limits of Tolerance: Popper’s Paradox — Friedrich Naumann Foundation https://www.freiheit.org/mexico/limits-tolerance-poppers-paradox

Paradox of Tolerance: To Tolerate or Not to Tolerate? — Academy 4SC https://learn.academy4sc.org/video/paradox-of-tolerance-to-tolerate-or-not-to-tolerate/

Donald Trump and Fascism — Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_fascism

Trump, Fascism, and the Authoritarian Turn — Spectre Journal https://spectrejournal.com/trump-fascism-and-the-authoritarian-turn/

Hundreds of Scholars Say U.S. is Swiftly Heading Toward Authoritarianism — NPR https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5340753/trump-democracy-authoritarianism-competive-survey-political-scientist

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Illinois Accountability Commission

The purpose of the Commission, housed within the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR), is to create a public record of the conduct of federal agents during “Operation Midway Blitz” and the Trump

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page