In times of uncertainty, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed by challenges we can’t fully control. But let’s remember this: men like Trump, Musk, and their allies are just that-men, not gods. They are powerful, but they are not all-powerful. They cannot arrest or silence us all. I know the temptation to give in to fear; my anxiety often flares up when my cats disappear for a couple of days. Instead of succumbing to worry, I’ve started using Bayesian Logic and AI to approach problems with calm and reason, helping me focus on what I can control. This mindset has been invaluable, not just for managing personal concerns, but also for tackling broader issues that affect us all. Now, more than ever, we must remain hopeful, think clearly, and come together to protect the values of freedom, justice, and democracy. Together, we are unstoppable. Using Bayesian logic, we can approach this problem by estimating probabilities based on prior knowledge and updating those probabilities as we incorporate new evidence. I did realize I left off Project 2025 stuffing Career Civil Servant Roles with 47 Loyalists, but this is just a starting point. I’m sure with loyalists it would be a gloomier outlook. So, if there is a way to legally challenge that plan. Just a rough concept, someone who knows logic and math can do a better job, I’m sure. I understand even looking at the logic, it paints a depressing scenario, but perhaps by looking at it like a clockwork, we can understand the dynamics at work….and at least approach the matter in a neutral way. I am hopeful we can meet this challenge and come out stronger. If anyone can provide better variables and perameters to consider share them to me on Facebook at https://facebook.com/thebregonetwork Here’s how we might systematically address each question:
1. What are the chances of a permanent authoritarian regime, including fixed elections?
Prior Evidence:
- Historical instances of authoritarian consolidation (e.g., Hungary, Turkey).
- The U.S. has a history of checks and balances, but recent erosion of norms increases vulnerability.
- Control over the executive, legislative, and judicial branches significantly raises the probability.
Factors to Consider:
- Probability of undermining elections: Evidence from prior actions to subvert the 2020 election suggests intent.
- Strength of opposition: Blue states and grassroots resistance could provide barriers, but effectiveness depends on coordination.
Bayesian Estimate:
- Without resistance: 60-70% chance of entrenched authoritarianism over a decade.
- With strong resistance from blue states and civil society: 30-40%.
2. How might oligarchic allies, like Elon Musk, influence or support such a regime?
Prior Evidence:
- Oligarchic systems thrive in authoritarian regimes (e.g., Russia).
- Musk’s control over communication platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and SpaceX’s strategic importance for defense could amplify influence.
Factors to Consider:
- Financial incentives: Musk and similar figures benefit from deregulation and weakened oversight.
- Media control: Musk’s platform could amplify propaganda and suppress dissent.
Bayesian Estimate:
- High likelihood (>75%) that oligarchs aligned with deregulation would support such a regime, provided their interests are protected.
3. What safeguards might exist to protect citizens and prevent the worst outcomes?
Prior Evidence:
- State governments: Blue states have robust legal and political infrastructures (e.g., California’s resistance during Trump’s first term).
- Federal bureaucracy: Career officials might resist unlawful orders, as seen during the Trump administration’s first term.
- Civil resistance: Mass protests and international pressure can constrain authoritarian actions.
Factors to Consider:
- Judicial independence at the state level.
- Resilience of federal employees and whistleblowers.
- Capacity for blue states to pass protective legislation.
Bayesian Estimate:
- Safeguards moderately effective (50-60% chance of mitigating full authoritarianism) if blue states and civil resistance are well-coordinated.
4. Are mass detentions or violent crackdowns plausible? What is the likelihood of the military being turned on U.S. citizens?
Prior Evidence:
- Instances of crackdowns in authoritarian regimes (e.g., Tiananmen Square, January 6th pardons as precedent).
- U.S. military has historically resisted unlawful domestic deployments, but loyalty among leadership varies.
Factors to Consider:
- Military leadership: High-ranking officers may resist orders to attack civilians.
- National Guard and state militias: May align more closely with federal or state directives depending on the political climate.
- Cultural and institutional norms: Despite erosion, norms still hold some weight in U.S. institutions.
Bayesian Estimate:
- Mass detentions: 30-40% likelihood if authoritarianism consolidates.
- Military use against civilians: 10-20% likelihood, given the U.S. military’s historical resistance.
5. What states might remain safe havens for democracy and civil rights?
Prior Evidence:
- States with strong Democratic leadership (e.g., California, New York) have historically resisted federal overreach.
- Some blue states have already enacted laws to protect voting rights and abortion access.
Factors to Consider:
- Economic independence: Wealthier states are better positioned to resist federal interference.
- Population size and political will: States with large, engaged populations (e.g., Illinois, Washington) could sustain resistance movements.
Bayesian Estimate:
- Safest states: California, Massachusetts, New York, Washington, and Oregon.
- Likelihood of sustained safe haven status: 70-80%, barring extreme federal crackdowns.
6. Most probable outcomes if blue states resist effectively?
Prior Evidence:
- Civil conflict in countries with regional divides (e.g., U.S. Civil War, Spain’s Catalonia crisis).
- Economic interdependence complicates federal overreach.
Factors to Consider:
- Federal-state conflicts: Blue states could face funding cuts or legal challenges.
- Economic resilience: Blue states might leverage their economies to negotiate autonomy.
- Citizen activism: Protest movements and strikes could amplify resistance.
Bayesian Estimate:
- Outcome 1: Soft authoritarianism with partial resistance (50-60% chance). Federal power grows, but blue states retain pockets of autonomy.
- Outcome 2: Fragmented union with strong state autonomy (20-30% chance). Blue states maintain democratic norms within their borders.
- Outcome 3: Widespread authoritarianism (10-20% chance), resistance crushed nationwide.
Variables or Scenarios Not Yet Considered:
- International intervention: Would foreign allies support resistance movements or apply sanctions?
- Media and technology dynamics: The role of decentralized media and encryption in supporting dissent.
- Internal Republican divisions: Potential fractures within the GOP over extreme authoritarian actions.
- Economic consequences: Severe economic instability could undermine authoritarian power.
- Grassroots organization: The rise of a unified resistance movement across states and demographics.
Conclusion:
While the scenario is concerning, several safeguards and resistance mechanisms could limit the extent of authoritarian consolidation. However, sustained vigilance, coordination among blue states, and grassroots activism are critical to mitigating risks. Bayesian logic suggests that while the most extreme outcomes are possible, they are not inevitable with active and strategic resistance.
