Cascadian Resilience Network - Mission Statement

  • Posted on: 28 August 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>we are looking for some constructive feedback:

The Cascadian Resilience Network is intended to build bioregional self-sufficiency and sustainability among the common people of the Pacific Northwest. We believe tumultuous times are here as a result of the financial crisis, ecological overshoot, the nascent police state, and climate change. We believe the best way for us to live joyful, fulfilling lives is to band together with those we love and share values with, through whatever lies ahead.

Our values are:

1) Mutual Aid- Our greatest resource is each other. We must learn to share what we have. We speak not only of material resources, but also of knowledge, and laughter. We aim not only to protect our survival, but also to build a more just world. We are the community we have been looking for.</td><td><img title="Quick pre-summary. Facebook, what's the point, what does common mean, why $5 words?" src=""></td></tr>...

2) Decentralization- We organize and make decisions in an equitable and collective manner, either through consensus or direct democracy.

3) Solidarity- We intend to do the hard work necessary to make our communities respectful to all people, including, but not limited to people of differing races, genders, and sexual orientations. We oppose colonialism and respect Native people's claims to autonomy.

4) Bioregionalism- We mean to reshape our key institutions, economic, social, and political, to suit the needs of the earth. We believe that we must nurture a deep sense of place, and a connection to the natural world in order to achieve sustainability.

5) Open Source- We believe that the free flow of information must be preserved at all costs. We resist the enclosure of our digital commons.

Join us:

or email us at:


Bah hah hah! *Constructive* feedback? Have you ever read a comments section on this website? My heart goes out to you.


This seems pretty awesome. Will stay tuned for more updates.

i love 2 see this; but i must say, those who focus mostly on "resilience" could use a little more resistance and those groups which are mostly into resistance could use more resilience.

seems like in the cities, the people who organize workplaces(or try too), protests, anticap actions, AFA actions, etc, are mostly renters, wage-laborers, shopers, and just generally living city lives, where as people who try to start communes in the country or agricultural coops dont have much interaction with the greater population of wage-laborers, renters, and the like.

i kno its a huge generalization but in IL at least i think its an important way too look at it. being someone who is a renter, wage-slave, buyer, ive been trying to convince my regional comrades too invent time and effort into cutting ourselves out from the cycle of rent, wage, buy. but it seems that many comrades in chicago are more interested in THINKING and talking about the holy war against the employers than they are in how to win.

i blame marx and collage.

You blame collage? What's mixed media visual art ever done to you, huh buddy?

this is anarchist but shutting down the HEAT conference isnt?

Constructive criticism: build a website other than facebook. Lots of people will just not touch a facebook page (like me). I want to know more about this though, sounds like a necessary project.

i second this motion.



its rare, but its happened before.

hmmm.... must be a glitch. I'm sending a bug report to Worker...

me too. I don't do facebook.

This ‘Cascadian Resilience Network’ statement is very much in resonance with the Machean/Poincarean/Schroedingerian worldview, which rejects the mainstream science worldview in terms of ‘local, material things-in-themselves’ and restores the worldview of our natural physical experiencing of an energy-charged relational space.

The flip in worldview comes about when one shakes off one`s Western civilization/mainstream science indoctrination and is reminded that language is the source of ‘local material objects’ and not ‘physical phenomena’. The organism persists not because language declares it to ‘have being’ but because it is where there is resonance in the spatial-relational field of energy-flow. We see this all the time in fluid dynamics, the formation of a hurricane, tornado, convection cell, etc, dynamic forms that language allows us to give names to and then treat as if they were ‘things-in-themselves’ with ‘their own development and behaviour’ [language makes space [energy-charged field-flow] ‘disappear’ as the natural, primary animating source of the world-dynamic].

This is not ‘just’ an argument over particle-wave duality, it is fundamental to the shaping of our world view and is the basis for the radical difference between the ‘standard’ institutionalized ‘what-things-in-themselves-do’ worldview of Western civilization that we are trapping ourselves in, and the relational ‘web-of-life’ worldview of aboriginal cultural tradition.

‘Mutual aid’ becomes the basic physical reality in Machean physics, in the same manner that ‘holodynamics’ takes over from ‘the dynamic of things’ in optics. In the former ‘wave’ based holodynamic view, the local image forms from ‘mutual aid’ or ‘constructive interference’ within a relational web of energy-sources. In the optics-based view, we imagine ‘light rays’ going out geometrically from the eye, striking an ‘object’ and ‘reflecting from it’, so that our impression of dynamics is in terms of ‘local material objects’ and ‘what they do’, as if in an absolute space and absolute time framing [operating theatre].

As Poincaré observes, ‘geometry’ is another absolutizing language we impose upon the world. It is not a physical phenomenon. The ‘holodynamical view’ in which visual images are resonances features in the continually transforming relational space [energy-flow-space] is the ‘physically real’ phenomena. It is ‘convenient’ to give to those images that APPEAR ‘independent’ such as the tornado or the human organism, a name and a definition based on ‘their internal processes’, as in the approach we call ‘scientific analytic inquiry’. When we have done this, we promptly ‘forget’ about the physical reality that these ‘forms’, which we have just used language and grammar [nouns and verbs] to ‘make over’ into notional ‘things-in-themselves’ with ‘their own locally originating, internal process driven and directed behaviours’, ... are in fact, transient forms within a transforming relational continuum.

Organisms in nature, such as ourselves, after we subject our experiencing of inclusion in a relational space to reduction to the absolutizing terms of language and grammar, are no longer forms that form within a mutual aid web-of-life, as in the holodynamic view. That is, thanks to language and grammar and the ‘conventions’ of absolute space and geometry, ...these dynamic features in the web-of-life become ‘independently-existing machines’. At least they do so in our Western civilized heads, and are treated as such in our Western institutions such as the institutions of Justice and Commerce, both of which see dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’.

Western justice does not consider space to be a participant in physical phenomena. It sees only people as ‘independent things-in-themselves’ that are ‘fully and solely responsible for their own behaviour’. The landowners (a) whose land-grabbing monopolizes control [through the concept of 'property ownership'] of the fertile terrain, the spatial sources of nurturance, and the non-landowning others (b) who find themselves having to squeeze into the barren patches ‘remaining’, are viewed as ‘equals’ in the eyes of the law. Why? Because the Western world view is in terms of ‘what-independently-existing-things-in-themselves do’, as if space is an absolute, fixed, empty and infinite ‘Euclidian geometry’ reference frame.

Since who people are includes their relationship with the nurturing space they are included in, treating them as 'inhabitants' that are mutually exclusive of 'habitat' is ridiculous, of course, but the judge, the prosecutor and the police all behave as if this ‘de-spatialized’, ‘worldview-born-of-discursive-convenience’ makes sense. Any potential or actual 'Robin Hood' knows that his argument that ‘mutual aid’ within ‘the web-of-life’ is the real, physical Nature-dynamic, will not be listened to in court. He knows that the judge and the laws are coming from the notion that ‘The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ can be captured in terms of ‘what-things-in-themselves do’, ... so that monopolizing control over access to physical space, the nurturance-sourcing relational-spatial plenum, and using it to extort and manipulate the behaviours of others, is ‘nowhere on the radar screen' of the Western law and the judgements of Western justice.

Western laws and judgements are all in terms of ‘what things do’, as if space were nothing other than an absolute, fixed empty and infinite ‘reference box’ as the idealized language of Euclidian geometry would have it, a ‘language’ that has been adopted as the foundation of mainstream science and analytic inquiry.

Many of the landowners became commercial producers and because we see the world in de-spatialized terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’, we credit the landowners as being the ‘causal agents’ responsible for the production [the sun, rain, air, soil that is our common placenta do not appear on the commercial credits list). The invention of money has enabled these landowners, whether private or corporate to invent the concept of ‘wages’ where, instead of people applying their labours directly within the mutual aid web known as ‘community’ [as it exists in its natural form], they were ‘bought out' of the direct mutual aid web of community, and given a pittance sufficient for their continued survival and exploitation as ‘workers’ to sustain the business of the landowners. As the Amerindians observed, the colonizer culture gives people the right to 'buy and sell the sky' [the 'terrain' or 'habitat' is not REALLY a 'thing-in-itself' but a visible feature within the continually transforming relational spatial-plenum that we, too, gather in and will be regathered into].

When this 'buying selling the sky' system generates huge discrepancies in the quality of life of the ‘haves’ versus the ‘have-nots’, Natural dynamics do not step in and restore balance and harmony, not in the globally dominating Western civilization because its institutions such as ‘sovereigntism’ control all the going on in the common living space, and the laws and judgements are in terms of ‘what-things-in-themselves-do’, as if the continually transforming relational space [the energy-charged spatial-plenum], rather than being the primary physical reality, was instead a non-influencing empty [where not populated by 'things'] reference box within which all the actions are being sourced by the ‘things-in-themselves’ which ‘inhabit’ the box.

This worldview was rightfully ridiculed by the Amerindian population when their colonizers affirmed it [by offering to 'buy their land'], but in spite of the deserved ridiculing, the colonizers did not 'see the stupidity' of their belief system and the aboriginals were met with the same incredulous steely-eyed ‘serious belief’ from the colonizers and their judges, prosecutors and police, that today’s ‘anarchists’ and other 'mockers' of the system continue to meet when they are arrested and brought before judges and juries.

The Cascadian Resilience Network appears an attempt to restore sanity within a civilization that has institutionalized insanit by switching the foundations of its understanding from the physical experience of inclusion in a relational space, to mental models based on confusing the absolute objects of language and grammar and ‘what they do’ for 'physical reality'.

It deserves contagion. ['support' in the sense of restoration of a mutual aid web].

* * *


Error 135: the EMILE advanced troll AI cannot recognize your request.

Why? Because the Western world view is in terms of ‘what-independently-existing-things-in-themselves do’, as if space is an absolute, fixed, empty and infinite ‘Euclidian geometry’ reference frame.

Hi Emile. I've been reading you over the past few months and as you know, I sympathize with some of your thoughts, but you state so many things that are false and incoherent that I felt obligated to jump in with something for you.

"...physicists could have kept Euclidean geometry (as Poincare wrongly predicted they would) and could have explained the new observations by introducing new correction factors into the mechanical and optical laws. Instead, they chose to follow Einstein in his abandonment of Euclidean geometry... [The] Euclidean approach has a much simpler geometry but more complicated physical laws. The non-Euclidean approach has a vastly more complicated geometry but more simplified physical laws." - Rudolf Carnap, Space in Relativity Theory

Here is someone else saying the same thing I've pointed out to you previously. Your notion of science, i.e. The Western World, seeing space as "an absolute, fixed, empty and infinite ‘Euclidian geometry’ reference frame", is false. Perhaps this debate raged 100+ years ago, but it only rages on in your psyche still. More to the point, Carnap expounds on your oft quoted Mach passage about science being "the completest possible presentment of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought." Even your non-Euclidean geometry can't escape from wanting to meet this requirement through simplifying physical laws!

More Carnap regarding your repetitive pummeling of Kant and his "thing-in-itself" which you (correctly) tie to Euclidean geometry:

"Kant should not be blamed for his error because, in his day, non-Euclidean geometry had not been discovered. It was not possible for him to think about geometry in any other way. In fact, throughout the entire 19th century, except for a few bold individuals, such as Gauss, Riemann, and Helmholtz, even mathematicians took this Kantian point of view for granted. Today, it is easy to see the source of Kant's error. It was a failure to realize that there are two essentially different kinds of geometry - one mathematical, the other physical." - Rudolf Carnap, Kant's Synthetic A Priori

In short, the ideas you convey via Mach, Nietzsche and Poincare have been assimilated by contemporary science and The Western World. I've written this many times previously. Pretending that this debate rages on like it's 1910 is simply asinine.

I enjoy your criticisms of science and the modern day civilization we inhabit, or inhabits us, but your enforcement of "Emile's Worldview" here on Anarchist News is not only pathetic, but incorrect and dogmatically contrarian. Your particular philosophy of science serves as the foundation to all your writings and frankly, I don't think you're being honest with yourself. By this, I mean that you pretend it is 1910 and ignore much of what science, philosophy, civilization has gone through in the last 100 years.

I've been reading. I've read Poincare and I have to say that I've enjoyed him. Like a previous admonition against your style though, I have to repeat that Mach, Nietzsche and Poincare all write clearly, but you write in your own lingo. The codification of your texts is difficult to stomach. And it's not because it is so "complex" as you like to tell yourself and those brave few of us who suffer through your insanely long comments - it's because you make it too complicated with your lingo.

Your ideas are old and they've been incorporated into the flow that is contemporary science and The Western World. Much like "red" anarchists, I see you as part of the problem, actually. Nobody and nothing will be saved by your ideas regarding the philosophy of science. Your ideas are driven by the desire to make reality fit into some psychological modeling of it. A particular philosophy of science as the foundation for experience is the wrong starting point, in my opinion.

"Your ideas are old and they've been incorporated into the flow that is contemporary science and The Western World."

Have they really? Most scientists as far as I can see still believe in in some kind of big bang beginning and entropic end when it comes to the universe and the basic assumptions grounded in monotheist Aristotelian belief structures are still being given life. Until I see the assumptions of materialism and determinism among other things deconstructed away I will assume that the debates are still raging, there are some cutting edge scientists like Scott M Tyson who recently wrote a book called the unobservable universe who are going into what I see as the logical direction, but they are still a minority, we still have people who believe in a notional being here and a totality there.

If you argue the simultaneity of all that is you will still be seen as some whacky new age heretic by most of the scientific methodists.

Carnap makes a nice and tidy statement that scientists can keep Euclidian geometry and create complicated physical laws, or they can embrace the more complex, less intuitive non-Euclidian geometry which enables simplified physical laws. This is essentially gleaned from Poincare, but Poincare suggested the former would hold out because the geometry is easier to grasp. This hasn't been the case.

The majority of scientists accept the physics of relativity which embraces non-Euclidian views on space-time. That is to say that space and time are not absolute, as emile states science believes, but rather relative to each other which creates an absolute space-time. This is an important distinction that emile fails to address. Classical physics is a broken model and absolute space and absolute time do not exist. I think this is a well-established and accepted fact in contemporary science. In fact, there has been plenty of empirical data to establish that classical physics (based on Euclidian geometry) is fallible when applied to the physical world. This is fairly old news, yet emile attacks it ad infinitum as if he is totally unaware that science has already moved away from these views. It's a typical straw man argument, really.

As for "The Unobservable Universe", I don't know it. However, based on what I read about it via Tyson's website and blog, it seems to point in the direction I've already alluded to here regarding science. That is towards modern day theoretical physics akin to what Brian Greene, Leonard Suskind, Edward Witten, Michio Kaku and countless others offer. None of these scientists believe in what emile says they all do.

Read this article called "the false promise of green technology" - it talks about what real sustainability looks like (a scientific critique of industrial civ) and was written in the Pacific NW so it's pretty relevant to what y'all are talking about. Bioregionalism is a great start, but sometimes doesn't go as deep as it should.

in the article, the notion of ‘humanity’ as a ‘separate’ item in the web-of-life is inconsistent with the notion, also used in the article, of the interdependent web of diverse forms;

“The overall war for the survival of humanity as a species and some baseline of biodiversity is, however, one that we might still be able to win.”

this is nonsense and it makes the article internally inconsistent. this kind of nonsense [which conceives of one strand's war for survival in an interdependent web-of-life where the web is responsible for the strand, not vice versa, where the strands jointly produce the web] is based on visualizing the ‘organism’ as an independently-existing machine and the species as a collection of machines.

in the continually transforming relational space [biosphere] in which human forms gather and are regathered, it is the interdependent web-of-life that is primary. now that ‘we humans are here’, we seem to have decided to ‘unilaterally declare our independence’ from the ‘habitat’ in which we are being continually gathered and regathered [our inclusion in the nurturance-giving space we are being gathered in does not stop when we are born, we continue to be a resonance feature in it until the space we are in regathers us]. our problems stem from this kind of idealized thinking, suggested by language which gives us notional ‘things-in-themselves’, that does not check out with our experience.
humans are not in control. we are part of the relational dynamic unity of nature. humans did not plan their own entry into the ‘ballgame’ and they don’t have the power to plan their own non-departure. as Frédéric Neyrat writes in ‘Biopolitics of Catastrophe’, this notion of ‘humanity’ which takes itself to be a ‘thing-in-itself’ is ‘killing us’;

“In extending his living space in a manner that destroys the space of others, he destroys his own space. Not initially his inside space, his ‘self’, but his outside space, this real outside-of-self which nourishes his ‘inside-of-self’. The protection of this outside space now becomes the condition without which he is unable to pursue the growth of his own powers of being.”

restoring our awareness of interdependence and the naturalness of mutual aid as in the web-of-life in which we are included is ‘the way to go’. but as the amerindians observed, being a strand in the web-of-life does not give the power to one strand, to re-invent and manage the 'interdependent' web in such a manner as to ensure the persistence of ‘one’s own strand’.

religious humanity has this idea that humans have God-like powers, and science, by portraying everything as 'things-in-themselves' machines, portrays man as the most powerful machine ever. of course, the machine model is just 'appearances' [the physically real dynamic is the transformation of relational space as per Mach's principle] and man is busily transforming his own habitat/web-of-life in such a thoughtless manner as to screw himself and others who depend on it for nurturance [for persisting participation].

nature engenders a lightning bolt in the service of restoring balance in a freely associating, transforming relational space. man engenders a lightning bolt to create imbalance that can be used to control and determine what goes on in a non-freely associating space [e.g. the police arm themselves with tasers to suppress non-compliant/anarchist behaviours]. the general point is that man has learned how to 'liberate' the energies in nature and use them in an abstract manner as 'power-in-itself' to control and manipulate the world around him, whereas, in the overall scheme of nature, this power emerges in the context of spatial transformation [the transforming relational space is 'all there is'].

articles on 'green philosophy' often have a kind of 'schizophrenia' [as the referenced one does] that starts off acknowledging how power arises in the process of transformation of the relational [web-of-life] space we are included in, ... but then reverts to the megalomanic advocacy for man to use 'his powers' to perpetuate himself in the form he has become accustomed to, and to otherwise 'make nature do the right thing', as if 'man' and 'nature' were two mutually exclusive 'things-in-themselves' and that 'man' can be in the driver's seat 'if he plays his cards right'.

Knowing the Land is Resistance might be a resource for developing bioregional anarchism in your area, though they don't go much in for the language of reshaping institutions.

Facebook again???

Autonomy, fer mom's sake!

I only hope that everyone hearts are going out to the grand jury resisters at this moment. Their struggle is our struggle. Most of everything else we do in the next two days amounts to jack shit.

"Beware the wicked messenger..."

True, so true.

Real mutual aid begins with the support of those targeted by the Grand Jurys. This is the moment of truth for an entire movement.

Hippies will always seek "mutual aid" in their sectarian resorts, isolated from the rest of the world. Fuck them, let's support the fighters of liberation!

So am I the only one who finds this bioregionalism stuff to be complete garbage? This statement could have been written by any liberal social democrat and like most bioregionalist rhetoric completely ignores (or glosses over) the capitalist, colonialist and white supemacist foundations upon which modern society exists in the PNW today, in favor of this shallow psuedo-nationalism. Bioregionalism thrives on chic appeals to the progressive "nature" of the PNW devoid of any actual content or analysis of society and once you get past the veneer of radicalism you will find, that much like the 99% slogan of occupy Cascadian Bioregionalism is nothing more then an empty populist platitude.

I'm really dissapointed, but not suprised, that this crap has come back into style. Good thing that Cascaduian bioregionalism is only popular amongst a small circle of bourgeois intellectuals and a handful of wingnuts.... and maybe a few primmies too, but I'm being redundant.

No, you're not the only one.

What alternative do you promote? If it's the typical bland anarchist "all one world society with no divisions" then it's also actually colonialist and white supremacist (the historical root of that "universalist" contemporary idea is christian)

How can you claim to "reshape our key institutions, economic, social, and political" but fail to address fundamental questions such as class or even mention capitalism? Your website claims that "the Cascadian bioregion is home to some of the most progressive, sustainable, and resilient communities in North America", but anyone who has spent a fair amount time in the PNW would know that the progressive reputation of the PNW is nothing more then a facade. I'm so tired of people using the myth of "the progressive values of the NW" to cover up the racist social stratification that exists all around us. I live in Portland and it is one of the most racist and segregated cities I have ever been to, and I don't see how anyone in this town could speak of "progressive values" with a straight face. Cascadian bioregionalism only reinforces this white liberal myth and in-fact takes it to a whole new level of absurdity by trying to construct some sort of progressive identity around being from Cascadia. This is just another liberal wet dream that is totally obscured from reality that fails to understand society as a whole or even the very bioregion they claim to represent.

I'll take "typical bland anarchism" over the liberal fantasy of Cascadian bioregionalism any day.

No I actually agree with your critique as far as it goes: that has been the main problem with the cascadian movement so far. I also live in Portland and know how fucked up and dumb it is. What I'm asking is what specifically to you encourage instead? My whole deal is that if you strip away all the bullshit of how cascadian bioregionalism has actually expressed itself then you will find a core element that makes some good sense to me- the idea that every bioregion is from an environmental standpoint unique and that those unique conditions should shape how the culture in that place functions and exists on a fundamental level. Anything about how portland is some progressive vanguard is, as you have pointed out, bullshit. At the same time I think that the old school universalist anarchism that tries to break down any and all destinctions between different peoples is also bullshit, and largely for the same reasons. I think you get the best results from critically combining the best operative elements of anarchism, decolonization theory, and bioregionalism (plus some other stuff). What do you recommend?

Oh also just to clear things up, I'm not the OP or with the cascadian folks or anything, mostly I can't stand hanging out with them. I just think the core idea of bioregionalism has some merits, and shouldn't be dismissed just because the execution has been, shall we say, less than perfect.

"My whole deal is that if you strip away all the bullshit of how cascadian bioregionalism has actually expressed itself then you will find a core element that makes some good sense to me- the idea that every bioregion is from an environmental standpoint unique and that those unique conditions should shape how the culture in that place functions and exists on a fundamental level."

I don't believe there is any sort of homogenous culture in the PNW. I grew up in rural Oregon and the culture I experienced growing up is very different then the culture experienced by people who grew up in Portland. Take a bus out Clackamas county and you will most likely experience a culture which is different then if you were in inner S.E. Portland. The same could even be said for different Neighborhoods in Portland. My point being is I think that culture in our society is largely defined by class and race, not by some abstract concept of bioregionalism. That's not to say that class and race are the ONLY cultural defining characteristics in our society, that would be a gross over simplification, but I think in a broad generalized sense culture is a product of the overall political and economic structure of the society we live, and since we live in a heavily stratified racialized capitalist society our social relations and culture reflect that.

Another implication of bioregionalism as a methodology that I find very problematic is this idea that people who live in a specific bioregion have some sort of common interests or kinship. Should we tell workers that they have a common interest with their boss because they live in the same bioregion as each other? Should I feel kinship with a police officer because they live in the same neighborhood as me? I have even heard a Cascadian Bioregionalist suggest that we change Buy Nothing Day to Buy Cascadian Day. Now I'm not a big fan of Buy Nothing Day, but I don't think expressing solidarity or affinity to local businesses has any place in a radical critique of society, nor do I think class collaboration will lead to any sort of liberation. I think it displays the petit-bourgeois orientation of the bioregionalist "movement" and why find it to be reactionary.

"At the same time I think that the old school universalist anarchism that tries to break down any and all destinctions between different peoples is also bullshit, and largely for the same reasons."

Are you arguing for some sort of cultural relitivism? Or are you just arguing against some form of global cultural hegemony? I really can't figure out what you mean by this.

"I don't believe there is any sort of homogenous culture in the PNW."

Yes of course there is no specific homogenous culture within the area geologically defined by the cascadian watershed. Bioregionalism doesn't suggest that there just naturally is such a thing no matter what; rather it suggests that from a materialistic standpoint, environmental conditions make it so that there probably should be some overarching practices that are common to specific bioregions, that take in to account the unique environmental features of that region. Bioregionalism doesn't describe what currently exists, it suggests what should be constructed. Bioregionalism looks at the current situation where us consumers in the pacific nw are acting essentially the same as consumers in the mid-west, south, or east coast, and says "That's ridiculous. Sustainability dictates that we stop pretending like we don't live in a unique environment." It's pretty much just common sense. Like, if cedars grow where you live and there are fish in nearby streams, then build your houses out of cedar and eat fish.

Old school anarchism, in its most simplistic red formulations, pretty much envisions an industrial society like ours today except without coercive economic or political apparatuses. I don't think anything like what we have today, regardless of how egalitarian it is, can be environmentally sustainable. Bioregionalism at its most basic informs one component of that critique.

I don't know why you're so eager to label me some cop-loving capitalist, I'm absolutely against the police in any form and against all expressions of capitalism. The "Cascadian" movement, as it has actually constituted itself, is every bit as fucked up as you say it is. I'm getting tired of trying to explain how you're right about that and that I agree with you. So please stop trying to argue with me about that.

I'm also not arguing for cultural relativism (far from it, I have at least tentatively sided with the probable existence of a normative order). HOWEVER, variation amongst different cultures is natural, necessary, and good. Just because I think that in general there really are 'good' things and 'bad' things doesn't mean there shouldn't be a plurality of cultural expressions.

Old school universalist anarchism, with its whole "we are all one humanity and that's all that matters" ethos is somewhat better than xenophobic nationalism for sure, but it's also less dynamic and more simplistic than, say, the position of Zapatismo ("a world where many worlds fit" instead of "just one big world"). Most indigenous societies are not interested in anarchists, communists, capitalists, or anyone for that matter "liberating" them from their "backward" cultural specificity.

“... and like most bioregionalist rhetoric completely ignores (or glosses over) the capitalist, colonialist and white supemacist foundations upon which modern society exists in the PNW today, in favor of this shallow psuedo-nationalism.”

ok, you’ve just defined 'decolonization'. so what’s your problem with it?

So are you saying you're trying to establish an egalitarian, self-sustaining intentional community? If so, great idea. Don't listen to all of the haters who think that everybody outside of their little clique is full of shit. But do get the fuck off of facebook. I'm not suggesting you can completely elude surveillance efforts, but why make it easy for your enemies to keep tabs on you? Also, please do not discriminate against those who are "disabled." I tried to hook up with some intentional communities a while ago, but they wanted nothing to do with a cripple. That was their loss. I can contribute a whole lot even though I can't do as you do. Don't worry about me reaching out, though. I've since escaped from your cesspool of a nation state, and I have no plans to ever return. I wish you luck, though, and hope you have the gumption to follow through on your plans.

Look into different schools of thought as far as developing your relationship with the land. Permaculture practices, I think, are a must. Shit like fruit and nut-bearing trees, berry patches, perennial onions, rhubarb and the like provide nourishment on many levels, but require little in the way of maintenance efforts. Accommodating vegetkkkkkarian and vegan belief systems is honorable, but sticking to such ideologies at a community level overlooks valuable relationships among different species. The earth and other species have more to teach than any of us can learn in a single lifetime. Never think you have all of the answers. Always strive to learn. To learn, one must have an open mind. Always think water. In the near future, good ol' H2O will be the key resource for those not content to seek nourishment from crap processed from the diluted kernel of corn.

Again, good luck.

*vegetarian (don't quite know what happened there)

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.