Cascadian Independence: A Change Before the Crisis

I often live under a rock (a fertile place, see below*) with the Cascadian Independence Movement just entering my narrow radar screen. After some investigation, however, it seems the movement itself also dances between rock-roofed dormancy and active assertions of the human striving for freedom from unnecessary shackles. There are many humans in social media circles that give off revolutionary vibes, standing atop the rock as one would a soapbox, exuding that something big politically will be happening very soon; who am I to cast doubt and preclude such a future? I have a taste for their revolutionary energy, and all I wanted to do when I first realized this was a real movement within the American continent I occupy—where the political imagination is generally as fluid as a desert—was go hug the nearest conifer and have someone take a me and tree selfie, and photoshop that onto a Cascadia flag with the words “Solidarity With Cascadia”.

Solidarity With Cascadia

The Cascadian nation’s coming into existence is important beyond just those that it will include (I wouldn’t say “contain”, as that has a statist connotation and I think Cascadia is far more a free and open nation), as it could serve as both a model for emerging nations and a further disintegration of the overgrown, malnourished, obese post-imperialist empire euphemistically labeled “the United States”. Cascadia is another front against the sprawling Empire to help take it further off balance; another stronghold of a mountainous island to not be drowned out when the real threat to it’s residents—the one to its east (District of Columbia) not west—topples from within. Cascadia has a deep enough of a foundation in place that it cannot be faulted as being a mere reaction to the politically and economically decadent times. Cascadia is full of insight and foresight that put it in a different league of nations than most that have arisen in the last century; it will prove to be a one word poem, prompting other nations to arise before such a possibility is precluded. Cascadia is yearned for by the people within, not a convenience contrived by people without!

11288999_10205972912629384_4338429049458963641_o

A blogpost on Cascadia could go into many different tributaries that wouldn’t lend itself to the linear writing style here employed, so I will return to the rock metaphor, as a matter of course. On this theme, the vanguard revolutionaries need to be prepared psychologically and not lose their far-sighted visions, when another winter comes and they need to migrate back underground to warm and nourishing places. Their thrusting efforts to birth a new sovereign nation may likely be averaged-out and watered-down by their spermicidal, prudish, conservative “let’s stay put” neighbors that don’t have the same lust for an open-ended Cascadian future. However, I have a sense that the number of winters between their hopes of an unoccupied Cascadia nation and its reality, are quickly thinning. The most important reason for this is the revolutionary zeitgeist: Cascadian pride is a phenomenon that might be comparable to a vine spiraling upwards, clinging to a cliff-side at times, but only to return and reveal more of its glorious self higher up, daringly exposed and awe-inspiring. The vine has deep roots that I cannot appreciate, that are larger and more fertile than Ecotopia even understood, though that book was immensely important in its current growth strides. For me, I am gazing up at the vine, rooting it on. I see more hope for it still because what might be the most important inhibition barring the Cascadian nation from bearing its first fruit (a fir cone baby) is a negative that may soon be negated. The Cascadia nation’s biggest natural predator averred to above—the United States, along with its global reserve currency status—is going to be having organ failures of all sorts that will put it in a hospital bed before too long. In such a state the federal government might become too impaired to grasp at a fledgling nation. One must wonder if FEMA’s imminent deployment in response to the fault line is a pretext for federal presence, “reminding” residents that they are not free to self-determine. In any event, at some point this governmental force will release the Cascadian land from its grip, enabling the people to put on full display the beautiful ideas informing their struggles.

Change before the Crisis: “Get ahead of the times with silver ParaDimes”. One triage tactic the region can take up (if it hasn’t already begun to do so) to further ensure it isn’t as injured by any American economic collapse, would be the encouragement of converting dollars into physical silver and bartering with it for trade. This transition to a silver backed currency will allow a more seamless transition when the need arises, as well as becoming another social glue between the Cascadian people. Even more to the revolutionary side of things would be a continued push for an organic economic method of sharing and mutual aid, which I know already exists locally in many different places over Cascadia where people are even further ahead of their times.

*I admittedly couldn’t figure a way to put in this further elaboration without further confusing the text, so I thought I would say it here. With regards to living in proximity of a rock: there is much bio-activity that happens during all seasons, as permaculture profounder Sepp Holzer has displayed in his “symphonies of nature”. A man ahead of his time is surely not unheard of in a place that is ahead of it’s time, and those familiar with his love of rocks would know that they regulate temperature, increase moisture to dry areas, clean and mineralize water, among many other talents known and unknown such as creating an appropriate pH for a fir tree sapling to grow strong and tall!


Related:

https://cascadiablogs.wordpress.com/the-cascadian-independence-project/

https://freedomcaravan.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/cascadia-freedom-caravan-to-the-tear-down-the-walls-national-gathering/

http://www.seattlecascadianow.org/

Farming, Food, Factories, and Feminism, a Postface

Since the time of my thoughts from the Preface, my mind has continued to ruminate on the possible origins of the shift away from patriarchy. I have quite a crude hypothesis about how this situation has arisen, which looks very generally at some basic changes in the home, relationships, and lifestyles of people over the last few hundred years. I think anything we look at over this time span has to at the very least take into account the industrial revolution, if not link to it as the primary force for any noteworthy modern themes.

It’s best to begin with food, not least because it’s the most essential tangible item that humans need—after air to breath—and its production has always been an occupation of at least some members of a nation. Food production or gathering will always be first to originate in anything termed an economy, whether subsistent, traditional, market, command, or mixed; and it will always be the last occupation to fade when a civilization is ceasing to exist. This primacy of food production might be suppressed in various “high points” of civilizations, but when things start to go awry it’s importance will be reasserted—it is never far from

So even if women played a role in food production, men were usually the owners/managers/directors of the operations and the ones esteemed as the driving force of the farm. Women might cook the food and make the final essential edible meal, but this too, was only possible if the man had brought in the food: he was the real bread winner, if not the bread baker.

Up until the industrial revolution got well under way this was the main trend in societies: the relationship between males as dominant and females as subservient was codified in the immediate setting of every home, and reinforced by larger cultural traditions that put men as the only legitimate owners, dealers, shot-callers, etc.

Once industry started to literally and figuratively tower over agriculture, most men couldn’t or wouldn’t continue to be involved in farms and went on to either own factories, transport services, or work for them. Men were shuffling off to earn what was deemed more valuable—money; and giving up on what was deemed less so—food production and rural patches of land.

During all this, women were still the homemakers: preparing meals and raising the children, because it fell on them to do so. I think this is where the inflection point occurred and patriarchy began its waning. Why? Women had day-to-day evidence that what they did was in a basic biological sense absolutely essential to their families. What men were doing could not compare. It’s true that the money and the pursuit of wealth that men were undertaking had the highest amount of social legitimacy, but it wasn’t something biologically necessary the way food was, and so as men were gaining wealth from one generation to the next, they were losing ground in their visible necessity at home. Children might be told that their fathers were bringing home the bacon, but their mothers were making the rules, constantly involved in their upbringing, and going and buying the bacon AND cooking it. This shift in female self-concept probably had its greatest surges inter-generationally rather than the less likely story of singularly revolutionary females having epiphanies about their real worth; mothers might have the visibility of their value repressed by their own blinders, but their disgruntled daughters who were daily fed empirical evidence that women had the more important role in society were sure to be the ones with fires lit under them.

I don’t know if I’ve made a strong enough case for causation, but I would definitely argue that there is a strong correlation between the industrial revolution and the growing prowess of females. There are certainly other factors that played a large role in originating patriarchy to begin with, such as men taking on the role of warriors. What role soldiers being given the highest societal honor plays in modulating the waning of patriarchy is not for me to say here. I am not of the opinion that we should somehow try to engineer a way back to patriarchy either, and do not think gender relations were necessarily any “better” back then as to how they are now.

This and other details I leave for you to fill in as you will.

Not a Hyperbole but at Hypo-bully: the United States Becoming the World’s Biggest Reject

The American Empire’s ship might be sinking, but fortunately-or-unfortunately there is only enough sea to fill up the lower cabins; a demobilizing anchor is increasing in weight—a permanent drag that will keep the empire stuck close to home. In certain regions it used to serve as a stabalizing agent, but now the “sea tide” turning against its foreign legitimacy can be painted in three broad strokes: 1) the coming into question of its multi-decade trend to abuse the privilege of being a global “umpire” in matters of responsibly issuing the global reserve currency, the misuse of which is currently undergoing exponentiation (and diffusion to Japan and the Eurozone) 2) a lack of restraint and caution when using military force, that would be tolerable, if disagreeable, to the other powerful nations, but for the fact that the war policy decisions are actually not rational or predictable, bringing the potential for danger to new levels; 3) oil is running in quantities lower than the full American juggernaut was upgraded and designed to run smoothly on, so a series of downgrading obstacles that the wasteful empire has an inability to jump over are leaving it stuck behind in the race. The ship is going to putter out right as it hits shoal bottom. I intentionally don’t say shale because before the literal bottom of shale deposits could be reached, the operations will be foregone as too costly for the coming meager times.

Why else has the United States lost its global hegemon stature? It has become camera shy before the very global media apparatuses it paved the road for. It probably fears the dreaded global public opinion and so time and again it has been indecisive and reluctant. In particular is the indecisiveness in war decisions that if gone astray might put a blotch on its image (don’t worry USA, there are already huge blotches); it bullies everybody 3/4’s of the way, but hasn’t gone past that point, and all those different 3/4’s add up to a lot of common resentment, but unfortunately for the USA not a lot of fear. It is an antibiotic in many senses of the word, that stops itself short so that resistant bacteria can evolve and develop their own antibodies to help with future deterrence.

In this post, the United States has been regarded as a whole entity acting in unison, but of course this is never the case, and should be elaborated on… more later, but a bit now. Fractures are and will continue everywhere, but one fracture in particular may appear visible in the elite/oligarchic class that is so much to blame for the empire lost. Some of its members will flee the ship and test out their cosmopolitanism in other parts of the world they became familiar with during their profiteering and plundering. I fear the majority, however, will choose to stay local and make the best of the new game of recolonizing America and try to be kings of the smaller ponds available to them.

Timed Release Tablets: Planned Obsolescence to Continue the Bread and Circus Train

In this age of entire legions of professional risk managers and over securitization—in every sense of the word, including mutually assured robbery, with everyone’s hands in everyone else’s pockets—can we still kid ourselves that every “new release” of a consumer technology product is anything but a new release?

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Inventions

In the economosphere, the future is so utterly feared and thus overly planned for that no bell nor whistle is added nor subtracted without overly paranoid thinking and consultation, so as to keep the illusion of technological progress going. The ratio of research-and-development-fruitfulness to actually allowing that fruit to ripen and be tasted by the masses is so large that there must be 200 years worth of steady releases that will never come into existence.

So why wouldn’t a company put out a totally revolutionary communications device that it has sitting in its workshop? The reason is that no company wants to rock the boat so much as to rattle the presumptive trusts and cartels that could set of an unbalance in the global markets that could ripple back to hurt them. If entire markets are destroyed and new ones seek to arise, who knows which other, less friendly corporations could arise in the market vacuum they created that could destroy them down the road, irregardless of their original pioneering ingenuity. A less revolutionary but very practical example of this is thinking back to the blu-ray player being released by company iForgot. There were many people out there, myself included, who didn’t rush out and by the first available blu-ray player, but were conservative and waited a few years and the devices to be tested out, improved upon, so much so that the original blu-ray creator was chewed up and spit out by bigger companies that replaced them. Pioneers don’t often last, and there is great instability until new trusts and cartels arise. Plus, consumers have been conditioned into liking and expecting small advancements. Something entirely new and different would be a big hassle in learning to adapt to for the general consumer and runs a great risk of being rejected (perhaps the electric car would be a fitting example? I don’t actually know or care to research).

Delaying Karma

Modern corporations are very big believers in karma, that’s why they are so careful in how they fuck people over and have a science to making the cycle return time pushed so far in to the future that it might be mitigated by some other factors such as generation change, wars, mergers and acquisitions, law code changes, and many more muddling factors. If they set off such a large wave, it would create too many feedback loops that could blindside them very quickly from an completely unpredicted angle—exactly what they have so many people hired to prevent.

The modern market is where really good progressive ideas of real consequence go to die, and novelty ideas of no real consequence thrive.

Those Who Have the Gold Will Make the New Rules

With every skyscraper is built a crater. The only problem for the United States is that we have so many skyscrapers to hold our gaze upwards, that we aren’t looking for the many holes right before us and below us. They are quite likely to become our graves, as we have a long fall from our stilts, that are becoming ever thinner as we repurpose wood girth to greedily seek yet new heights. Thanks to Jim Willie for making me aware of how incredibly vulnerable we have made ourselves as our dollar—not backed by gold nor oil, and less and less by an incapable, unwilling military (I am happy about this last point, and sick of knowing that I live in an imperial state)—is going to be revealed as paper. We will no longer be able to trade around our dollar for “cheap premium” (if this is an oxy moron, all the better) imports of everything from natural resources all the way up to highly refined specialized consumer and industrial goods that we have grown used to buying and periodically throwing away. On the brightside, at least our dumps and landfills will get to have a breather.

The new likeliest most common piece of trash to be found at dumps the world over will be the US dollar… probably (The probably is due to the wonderful and frightful analysis of James Corbett on the trend towards a global oligarchy and the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights Currencies that will likely continue to include the dollar, along with adding the Huan). Why will the dollar be trashed? The dollar has given an unfair preeminence to the United States in all matters of foreign exchange and trading. Many players in the game are surely sick of being seconded by the USA having a position of leverage whenever the game isn’t going their way. I thought of an overly simplistic way to explain this in an “International Relations, Nation States as Individual Actors” kind of way:

Imagine there are 4 different players in a game to get the most resources, and each player at the beginning is given money—8 paradimes—and a specialization for exportability. Nation A’s specialization is in Agriculture, Nation B’s specialization is in Smart Phones, Nation C’s specialization is in Energy Crude and Refined, and Nation D’s specialization is that it has a paradime making machine that only requires an input of water. The focal point of this heuristic device is Nation D. They realize the strategic advantage of a paradime making machine, but after a few rounds of trading, as they are only purchasers and have nothing to trade, they make only a few paradimes so that the other players don’t catch on that they have this machine. They are in a sense very responsible with their gift and don’t want to abuse and lose it, and they are just using it, very justly, for survival since they don’t have anything else to offer. However, as time goes on and they see how central paradimes are to the other 3 nations interacting and getting along, they decide to push their advantage and want to be number one—not dependent on the other nations but as the one who is depended upon. They start working the machine over time and buying disproportionately lots of food, oil, and smart phones, and the paths of trade into Nation D become well worn and defined, so that Nation’s A, B, and C all tweak their operations to accommodate to Nation D’s importing habits and they have less and less need or desire to trade with each other beyond basic needs. Eventually, Nation C gets exhausted of its Energy Resources, and Nation A loses its soil nutrients, and they realize that their own domestic needs cannot be met while simultaneously meeting Nation D’s lust for these items. Nation D ups the ante by offering exorbitant amount of paradimes for food and energy, and for a while Nation A and C are willing to tighten their belts because they love paradimes. However, at some point Maslow’s hierarchy of needs kicks in and they really need their food and energy and realize that paradimes are not so important, as they aren’t edible and can’t be burned for fuel, and that they are not very important to them. They become quite annoyed as well when it dawns on them that Nation D has somehow had an unlimited supply of these things and hasn’t contributed anything more than these useless circlets of metal. Their view on paradimes shifts…

There is a Nation ABC summit to the exclusion of Nation D, where the three nations decide that they need some sort of currency to facilitate trading and that food is a fundamental resource that will always be desired and the more of it created does not have the negative effect of inflation, but the positive effect of allowing more eating and/or trading. Nation D does not hold water, so it cannot even trade water for food, and its existence begins to dwindle as the famine and then disease take their course. Such is the rise and fall of a nation that had an unfair advantage, which proved in the long reality to be a grave disadvantage.