Class News

‹ Back

3/4/2025: I have used Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) to run an analysis and generate a timeline of the decline of the USA. For those unfamiliar with CDST, a brief overview is in order. CDST emerged in the late 20th century, drawing from chaos theory, cybernetics, and nonlinear dynamics. It's all about how interconnected parts evolve over time, forming patterns through feedback loops, self-organization, and emergent behavior. Key thinkers include Ludwig von Bertalanffy (general systems theory, 1960s), Ilya Prigogine (dissipative structures, 1970s), and complexity scientists like Stuart Kauffman and John Holland (adaptive systems, 1990s). At its core, CDST seeks to create mathematical equations which can predict complex systems of all types—from the brain to the economy to political structures—they aren't linear or predictable; tiny changes can spiral into massive shifts, and stability is often just an illusion. Although they aren't predictable, we can use CDST to generate probabilities and identify key factors.

Core Principles of CDST

Nonlinearity – Cause and effect aren’t proportional; tiny shifts can create massive changes (think butterfly effect).
Emergence – Patterns arise from local interactions, not from a central controller (e.g., how ant colonies organize).
Feedback Loops – Positive feedback amplifies change (e.g., viral trends), while negative feedback stabilizes a system (e.g., homeostasis in biology).
Self-Organization – Systems naturally evolve into structured states without external direction (e.g., cities forming around trade hubs).
Attractors – Systems tend to settle into certain stable states, but they can shift into new configurations under the right conditions (e.g., political revolutions).
Phase Transitions – Sudden shifts from one stable state to another when certain thresholds are crossed (e.g., water turning to ice, or economic collapses).
Adaptive Behavior – Systems react to environmental changes and reorganize (e.g., stock markets adjusting to global events).

Why CDST Matters

Predicts systemic shifts—economic collapses, political upheavals, cultural trends.
Identifies hidden interdependencies—how small disruptions lead to global consequences.
Offers new solutions—adaptive policies, decentralized decision-making, resilience-building.

CDST doesn't predict exact events but helps us map possible futures by understanding the underlying patterns of change.

CDST and American Democrazy

Analyzing the decline of American democracy under the Trump administration through the lens of Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) reveals how interconnected factors and feedback loops have contributed to systemic erosion.

1. Initial Perturbations (2016–2020):

Erosion of Democratic Norms: The Trump administration's disregard for established political norms, such as challenging media credibility and undermining judicial independence, acted as perturbations destabilizing the democratic system's equilibrium.

2. Feedback Loops and Amplification (2020–2024):

Polarization and Echo Chambers: The administration's rhetoric intensified societal polarization, creating feedback loops where partisan media and social networks reinforced divisions, reducing opportunities for bipartisan cooperation. princeton.edu

3. Phase Transition and Systemic Shift (2024–2025):

Consolidation of Power: Following the 2024 re-election, actions such as pardoning individuals involved in the Capitol attack and installing loyalists in key positions indicate a phase transition towards authoritarianism, fundamentally altering the system's structure. apnews.com

4. Emergent Properties and International Concerns (2025):

Global Perception: The UN human rights chief expressed deep concerns about a "fundamental shift" in the U.S., highlighting the erosion of equity and anti-discrimination policies, signaling emergent properties of democratic backsliding. theguardian.com

5. Potential Attractors and Future Scenarios:

Authoritarian Stability: The system may stabilize into an authoritarian regime, characterized by centralized control and diminished democratic freedoms.

Chaotic Fluctuations: Alternatively, ongoing resistance and institutional pushback could lead to a chaotic state with unpredictable political dynamics.

Timelines and Probabilities:

Short-Term (2025–2026): High probability (70%) of continued democratic erosion, given current trajectories.
Mid-Term (2026–2028): Moderate probability (50%) of either stabilization into authoritarianism or initiation of democratic recovery, depending on internal and external pressures.
Long-Term (2028–2030): Uncertain outcomes with equal probabilities (50%) for democratic restoration or entrenchment of authoritarian norms, influenced by societal resilience and international responses.

What This Means for American Citizens (Using CDST Analysis)

Applying Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) to the current trajectory of American democracy shows that individuals are now part of a system in phase transition, meaning small actions could have outsized effects, but the system is also highly unstable. Here’s what it means in practical terms:

1. Increased Political and Social Unpredictability (High Probability: 70-80%)

Elections may become symbolic rather than functional.

If voter suppression laws, gerrymandering, or state-controlled election processes escalate, voting may no longer determine outcomes in a meaningful way.

Expect legal battles over electoral legitimacy and the normalization of disputed elections.

More rapid legal and social policy swings.

With democratic institutions destabilizing, policies will be dictated by executive power rather than long-term consensus.

This means protections (civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights, abortion access) may be reversed overnight.

🔎 What to do?

Diversify sources of information. Echo chambers will reinforce instability, so seeking out broad perspectives will be critical.

Pay close attention to state and local government actions—governors, state legislatures, and sheriffs may become the last line of defense against federal overreach.

2. The Risk of Normalizing Repression (Moderate-High Probability: 60-75%)

Law enforcement and military may shift priorities toward political enforcement.

The federal government has already purged some military and intelligence officials who were considered“disloyal.”

If this continues, expect law enforcement agencies to selectively target political opposition.

Protests, activism, and dissent could carry greater personal risk.

State-controlled law enforcement mechanisms (FBI, DOJ, local police) may increase surveillance and arrests on fabricated charges.

Certain forms of speech may be criminalized under vague laws targeting “anti-American” activity or “domestic extremism.”

🔎 What to do?

Assess personal risk tolerance—understand what forms of activism or expression carry potential consequences.

Stay legally informed—track changes in laws governing protests, social media speech, and privacy rights.

3. Economic Inequality and Resource Hoarding (High Probability: 70%)

Corporations will adapt to new power structures to protect their interests.

As government regulations weaken, expect massive wealth consolidation.

Companies will align with authoritarian policies to maintain government contracts and avoid scrutiny (Remember that PSU is being run like a corporation at the moment.

Blue states and urban centers may experience economic penalties.

States that resist federal policies could see cuts to federal funding, job loss, or private-sector disinvestment.

Certain careers (government work, academia, journalism) may become politically risky.

🔎 What to do?

Financial planning: If possible, diversify income sources and reduce dependence on government benefits or politically volatile industries.

Local networking: Mutual aid networks may become a necessary safety net as federal and state policies shift unpredictably.

4. The“Boiling Frog” Effect: Gradual Loss of Rights (Very High Probability: 85%)

Democratic backsliding doesn't happen all at once.

Most people won’t recognize the severity of change until they personally feel its effects.

Historical parallels (Turkey, Hungary, Russia) show that authoritarianism often arrives through legal means, not sudden takeovers.

Media and government narratives will adapt to justify restrictions.

Expect new legal terms and propaganda strategies that normalize repression.

Examples to watch for:

Framing opposition groups as “terrorists” or “subversives.”

Increased use of the term “un-American activities.”

Calls for "re-education" or "national unity" efforts aimed at ideological conformity.

🔎 What to do?

Pay attention to how language shifts in political discourse.

Understand historical precedents—knowing how past authoritarian states justified repression can help predict future tactics.

5. Future Scenarios & Possible Timelines

Timeframe: What to Expect?

Probability

Next 6-12 months (2025-2026) Legal battles over voting rights, media crackdowns, selective law enforcement against political opposition. 80% probability.
1-3 years (2026-2028) Courts either cement executive power or become an obstacle; protests may become criminalized. 65%
3-5 years (2028-2030) U.S. either transitions into stable authoritarianism or experiences mass destabilization. 50%

Final Takeaway

The U.S. is in an unstable, adaptive phase where individual and collective actions will determine the final state of the system.
Ignoring the warning signs increases the likelihood of authoritarian stabilization.
Active engagement, legal awareness, and community-building increase the probability of democratic resistance.
Once past a certain tipping point, reversing systemic decay becomes exponentially harder.

March For our Teachers, 3/3/25

3/3/25: We marched today from campus to the Cascade Building which is owned by Sheryl Manning. We chanted and danced our way through downtown until we reached the building. For a while security didn't know what to make of us, but then finally they asked us to leave, "or else". It's unclear what "or else" would have been because we were on the public sidewalk, and well within our rights to exercise free speech. Security told us they had never seen or heard of Sheryl Manning, and that she didn't own the building. We said we knew she did, and that we were well within our rights to make noise in a public space. We weren't blocking any entrances, and we weren't threatening anyone. We allowed anyone who needed to to come and go from the building, but this didn't satisfy building security. They tried to tell us that they were the building manager, and when we said that they should take up their complaint with Sheryl, they told us that wasn't possible because they didn't know who she was. We know for a fact that she does own the property, because it's listed as hers on the state of Oregon's official website. This is how these corporate ghouls hide from accountability. They create shell companies within shell companies to distance themselves not only from responsibility, but from their own employees. It's true that officially the owner of the Cascade building is listed as Felton Properties which Sheryl has no official ties to. Why the smokescreen? We're accustomed to criminals and gangsters creating these kinds of barriers between themselves and their assets, so why is Manning acting more like a gangster than like an educator? Well she has skeletons in her closet to say the least. She worked as an accountant at Arthur Anderson LLP from 2000-2002.

Arthur Anderson's connections to Enron, and subsequent collapse following the Enron Scandal, are well documented in the book "Final Accounting: Ambition, Greed, and the Fall of Arthur Anderson." by Toffler and Reingold. There can be no doubt about her complicity in the scandal seeing as her Linkedin profile clearly lists her as working of Arthur Anderson from 2000-2002, and the Enron Scandal went public in 2001.

Why was a Wall Street criminal like Sheryl Manning appointed to the PSU Board of Trustees? Ask Tina Kotek, the PSU Board of Trustees is appointed by the Governer of Oregon. If you get an answer from her, please tell us what she says. We're also quite interested. Perhaps if her connections to Enron, as well as her mismanagement of PSU were to be more publicly known, Kotek would step in and remove Manning from office. That's one of our goals here at Class.

How much time do we have to save our Democracy?

3/4/2025: I have used Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) to run an analysis and generate a timeline of the decline of the USA. For those unfamiliar with CDST, a brief overview is in order. CDST emerged in the late 20th century, drawing from chaos theory, cybernetics, and nonlinear dynamics. It's all about how interconnected parts evolve over time, forming patterns through feedback loops, self-organization, and emergent behavior. Key thinkers include Ludwig von Bertalanffy (general systems theory, 1960s), Ilya Prigogine (dissipative structures, 1970s), and complexity scientists like Stuart Kauffman and John Holland (adaptive systems, 1990s). At its core, CDST seeks to create mathematical equations which can predict complex systems of all types—from the brain to the economy to political structures—they aren't linear or predictable; tiny changes can spiral into massive shifts, and stability is often just an illusion. Although they aren't predictable, we can use CDST to generate probabilities and identify key factors.

Core Principles of CDST

Nonlinearity – Cause and effect aren’t proportional; tiny shifts can create massive changes (think butterfly effect).
Emergence – Patterns arise from local interactions, not from a central controller (e.g., how ant colonies organize).
Feedback Loops – Positive feedback amplifies change (e.g., viral trends), while negative feedback stabilizes a system (e.g., homeostasis in biology).
Self-Organization – Systems naturally evolve into structured states without external direction (e.g., cities forming around trade hubs).
Attractors – Systems tend to settle into certain stable states, but they can shift into new configurations under the right conditions (e.g., political revolutions).
Phase Transitions – Sudden shifts from one stable state to another when certain thresholds are crossed (e.g., water turning to ice, or economic collapses).
Adaptive Behavior – Systems react to environmental changes and reorganize (e.g., stock markets adjusting to global events).

Why CDST Matters

Predicts systemic shifts—economic collapses, political upheavals, cultural trends.
Identifies hidden interdependencies—how small disruptions lead to global consequences.
Offers new solutions—adaptive policies, decentralized decision-making, resilience-building.

CDST doesn't predict exact events but helps us map possible futures by understanding the underlying patterns of change.

CDST and American Democrazy

Analyzing the decline of American democracy under the Trump administration through the lens of Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) reveals how interconnected factors and feedback loops have contributed to systemic erosion.

1. Initial Perturbations (2016–2020):

Erosion of Democratic Norms: The Trump administration's disregard for established political norms, such as challenging media credibility and undermining judicial independence, acted as perturbations destabilizing the democratic system's equilibrium.

2. Feedback Loops and Amplification (2020–2024):

Polarization and Echo Chambers: The administration's rhetoric intensified societal polarization, creating feedback loops where partisan media and social networks reinforced divisions, reducing opportunities for bipartisan cooperation. princeton.edu

3. Phase Transition and Systemic Shift (2024–2025):

Consolidation of Power: Following the 2024 re-election, actions such as pardoning individuals involved in the Capitol attack and installing loyalists in key positions indicate a phase transition towards authoritarianism, fundamentally altering the system's structure. apnews.com

4. Emergent Properties and International Concerns (2025):

Global Perception: The UN human rights chief expressed deep concerns about a "fundamental shift" in the U.S., highlighting the erosion of equity and anti-discrimination policies, signaling emergent properties of democratic backsliding. theguardian.com

5. Potential Attractors and Future Scenarios:

Authoritarian Stability: The system may stabilize into an authoritarian regime, characterized by centralized control and diminished democratic freedoms.

Chaotic Fluctuations: Alternatively, ongoing resistance and institutional pushback could lead to a chaotic state with unpredictable political dynamics.

Timelines and Probabilities:

Short-Term (2025–2026): High probability (70%) of continued democratic erosion, given current trajectories.
Mid-Term (2026–2028): Moderate probability (50%) of either stabilization into authoritarianism or initiation of democratic recovery, depending on internal and external pressures.
Long-Term (2028–2030): Uncertain outcomes with equal probabilities (50%) for democratic restoration or entrenchment of authoritarian norms, influenced by societal resilience and international responses.