portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government | human & civil rights | imperialism & war selection 2004

Should Cascadia be an Isolated state?

Should cascadia be part of a larger strategy to unseat facist rule in america?

one answer:

COMMON FRONT OF FREE COUNTIES NOW!

FIGHT THE DRAFT!

FREE YOUR TOWN!

TO SUCCEED WE MUST SECEDE!
Yes I know there will be a meeting. People are talking about this already, and the ideas they shape now will no doubt influence course of the meeting Saturday. (Saturday, November 13th at 5:30PM at Pioneer Courhouse Square)
I didn't feel that the course of the current threads

>  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/302556.shtml
>  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/302602.shtml
>  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/302547.shtml
>  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/302524.shtml

reflect the challenges or rewards my partner Jemma and I feel would be present in adopting a broader strategy. This thread is dedicated to discussing some challenges and rewards of addressing the schisms among social progressives, and shifting thoughts twards a strategic vision of how we can unseat facist rule in America.

Cascadia, I hope it works. It seems like we will be a lone affinity group swimming in a swarm of cops. The country is under facist rule. They are consolodating thier power. Is cascadia an effective response to this problem? Or is it an escapist fantasy? The response I've gotten so far is that Cascadia would be an example. An example to other bio regions.
I think that if cascadia is alone in it's efforts to secede it will be crushed as an example to other would be free states. Not because of a failure of the colective will of our people, but because of the power of the facist control in the rest of america. We do not need one shield to fend off the forces of facism, but a common front held by millions. Bush made a great many americans beleave that Saddam Hussen had WMD's long after the opposite has been definitivly proven. Clinton made the democrats beleave that the World Trade Organization with it's brutal economic imperialism was an agent of social justice. I do not doubt that bush, or the coming "Presinator" can make the rest of the nation believe we are a terrorist conspiracy worthy of bieng smitten by the forces of "good."

The broad cross section of people bieng drawn to this struggle are bieng drawn because they lack hope. We see the ideal of a socially just state and are drawn to it like moths to a flame. But will our desire to taste liberty get us burned? The democratic party crumbled under the might, and in some measure, burden of corperate facism in america. People are bitter. Actavists that months ago would call the cops if they saw us at a protest, are openly debating insurection.

You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...

Yet there are those among us that are calling for the change we need in a way that further polarizes, and devides us. I went to a protest the other day, to support it, and was shouted at and scolded by a man that claimed that non-violent tactics are the ONLY solution. I came home today eager to lend my voice to the call to secede. I saw that the person that had called next weeks meeting made a point of declairing "Not to worry, this won't be some bullshit PPRC meeting." We have a little different vision of how we can suceed.

Here it is:

Challenge:

Oregon/Cascadia is not alone in it's dread at what's happened to this country. If it acts like it is, efforts at independance will be crushed. If for the sheer sake that so much of this nation depends on the agriculture, and other economic goods and services of this state. This isn't doomsaying. Think about how many states get thier electricity from our dams.

Possible solution?:

Spread the liberty. Take this movement on the road. Use that "oregon bus" for a more usefull project! Spread the message of independance! Form a federation of Progressive states or counties! Then if (metephoricly speaking) cascadia's food producing counties were to become militarily occupied. There could be support from other freestates and we'd still be able to eat, live, and RESIST!

Challenge:

The polarization of the left is tearing us apart. We are in imminent need of the ability to defend ourselves yet chauvinist liberals preach absolute pacafism. We are in serious need of unifying the left yet chauvanist militants rehtoric is forcing us to be devided. We need unity.
The Democratic party is bieng marched to the firing squad before our eyes.
It won't be long before the next red scare comes for us. Carl Rove has declaired that the future will consist of Republicans, and moderate Republicans. The NeoCon GOP is activly working working twards a totalitarian one party state. The Democrats plagued by thier history of compromise with corperate facists have lost control. Their populist moral backbone has left. The greens and libriterians are not yet strong enough to challenge this push.

Possible solutions?:
Is the unity we need a blind unity that will be filled by whatever isolationist qlique, or vanguard shoves it's way into this vacume in power? NO! Is the enviroment we're seeing really a vacume in Power? A vacume in leadership? (weather collective or democratic?) YES! All around us we see the groups and the parties and the issues scrambling for dominance, only more fervantly than usual, but will this get us what we desire? I don't think so. We need to find common ground, and build a common front of free counties. If even one county suceeds at seceding they will have to defend themselves. If more than one seceeds we will be forced to defend eachother. Every progressive must arm themselves. Not to seek out violence, but to protect thier family, thier home, and thier communities from it. The militants should be told to form or join community defense militia.

Other problems?

Other solutions?


COMMON FRONT OF FREE COUNTIES NOW!

FIGHT THE DRAFT!

FREE YOUR TOWN!

TO SUCCEED WE MUST SECEDE!
ideology 08.Nov.2004 23:00

Ack

I think a lot of it will come down to weather it's a fight by states against states or people against states...

peace

hmm. 09.Nov.2004 06:15

Mb

By what means other than a border would we define ourselves in opposition to those that support imperialism, genocide, corperate rule? Especially if counties that are seceding as we do, are doing it in places like Georga, or Texas?
One thing that seems cool to me about having the states be the size of counties is that it's a whole lot easier to effect democratic change in a state the size of Multinomah, than in one the size of say Texas.

As far as anarchy goes I think that the co-operitazation or democratic control of resources should focus on larger resources like the systems of food, shelter, and healthcare and leave family owned small buisineses to be the engine of growth that they are. But all in all shouldn't the government of the free states be left to the free states themselves beyond some basic gaurantee of radically progresive rights and values?

Are most of the people bieng drawn to this anarchists? If not then the focus may not be as you say, in less of course we philibuster. I think that to define this in tearms of left versus left, anarchist versus progressive will blow this thing to shit, and doom it to failure. That's what i think. I don't know.
Thanks for the thought. Concerns?

arnie thinks "I'll be back" 09.Nov.2004 18:08

code blue

hmm

arnie for president 2008?

16 years of facist rule?

yes 14.Nov.2004 14:38

ack

I see what you are saying, I'de rather lives in a radicaly progressive state than this one, I was merely stating that we should think about weather this will be an emphasis on political means or peoples freedom.
I wasn't pushing the idea of a mob of unorganized people fighting the state either. While generaly I am opposed to borders, I understand the need for them at a time like this.
It's just that I'm not so much interested in a call to arms for a political system, a state body, etc. not just beacuse I'm an anarchist, but because I feel that everybody, liberals included, are more drawn to human relations, concrete interactions, than ideology.
So bassicaly, we should look at how we frame this, how people see it, as the battle for a new state (county, whatever)- or for extended freedom in our personal lives (even if the two are essentialy the same, it's the difference in perspective).
I understand that a majority of people in Cascadia are not anarchists. I would love it if they were, but I can accept that they aren't, and that they will proabably organize some sort of government for themselves.
I personaly will fight for my own independance from governing bodies in any free state, and I would expect whatever government there was to respect anarchist's want and need to be independant. I would expect for us to have our own communities without control. I also expect that within time, the people around those communities (assuming they functioned properly) would come to realize anarchist life is, well, just better, and gradualy move toward this.
I suppose that's a little idealistic, but bassicaly I see what your saying. No matter what happens, (complete anarchist revolution aside) anarchists will have to interact with non-anarchists, even if only in purely economic terms.

peace

What is an anarchist state to you? 15.Nov.2004 06:15

heck

Is anarchy a lack of control, or organization, or is it a lack of un just control? Look to other anarchist states, to the extant that they existed they were hella organized, by the people that is.

Anarchists working with non-anarchists? 15.Nov.2004 07:16

Trin Kiger trin@subvertical.org

Well, we do it everyday, don't we? Honestly, I'm pretty optimistic about most things I'm involved with. Take Subvertical for example, we've changed our focus to deal almost exclusively now with the issue of Cascadian Autonomy, hell, we've been looking for something for awhile that we could be entirely immersed in, and this is it. The thing is though, is that there's so much work to be done on this and our little group of Subvertistas can only do so much. We invite and/or accept the help of all groups or individuals interested in an autonomous Cascadia.

We want the communities all around the bio-region to get into this on their own respective terms, and not to be outdone, we feel it's equally important that the other regions within the borders of fascist America find their way with us as we do this. It'll help alot, as Mb suggests, if we're not the only ones attempting to throw off U.S. occupation of our lands and resources. Alone, we might easily be crushed, but with a bold New England movement and some of the others in solidarity with us, we ought to at least have a crack at this. Shit, all the troops are gone any old how, so we may as well move on this while we can.

Perhaps if we play this right, we can win the support of soldiers who presently wear the United States uniform? Damn, lots to do really, in terms of us characterizing this struggle with an empowering and liberating quality to it, in our seeking as much support as can be had. Anarchists and non-anarchists will have plenty of things to do together. Such as it is, maybe the nons will finally get a good sight of what we've been on about for all these years merely from seeing how we do things? Anyways, we won't seem so scary anymore to those who once thought we were a bunch of crazy radicals, what with all the work we need to do and the ton of it we'll have to share with the communities at large.

Just my thoughts this morning, in solidarity,

Trin

971-404-9449

anarchist state 16.Nov.2004 14:19

ack

In reply to Heck:
An anarchist "state" to me is an area whos inhabitants control what happens in a completely equal, direct-democracy setting. I advocate relational anarchism (looking at all oppressions equaly and dealing with them accordingly) but some anarchists are more or less concerned with certain aspects of oppression, i.e. "no government" but not a very good sex or race analysis, which, depending on thier individual beliefs, would determine the outcome of an anarchist "state"

In all honesty, the term "anarchist state" seems pretty silly to me, concidering the whole "world without borders" concept, and the tendancy for isolated areas to act in hostility towards other states, and for patriotism, a pretty bad condition.
Bassicaly, in the extreme larger picture, a global, unified anarchist movement, society, whatever, is needed for true liberation. "No one is free while others are oppressed" being the main reason, also because humans benefit when having access to resources from around the world.
And because it would be fun to travel in an anarchist world.... no passports, cheaper air-fare, he he he.

I undertsand, however, that at this present time it might be valuable to work towards an anarchist "state", or at the very least defined anarchist communities. Hopefully these would work towards building a world without oppression.

Secession can work! The Free Republic Of Cascadia! 22.Nov.2004 08:52

The Secretary

This crazy Cascadia idea can work, but to do so it will have to be desirable, polished, and presentable to the public at large. We can learn how to do this by the examples of the Lon Mabon, and other right wingnuts. The amendment to ban gay marriage is a good example (but a bad law). Its sponsers managed to get a constitutional amendment passed, we can too.

1 Learn how to write a ballot measure in Oregon in order to insert a new constitutional amendment. It can't be that hard to do! Get it printed and start gathering signatures. A safe office for organization and collection will be needed.

2 We don't need a team of legal experts to build our new government. We already have them, the state legislature. They are our tools. Let's use them for our purposes. All we have to do to start is write the amendment and get it on the ballot. The hairy details will follow.

3 The amendment requires the legislature to acheive secession from the US. They will have to do this as required by constitutional law. If its members object, they can retire, or be fired. We will elect replacements that will do as they are told by law.

4 The amendment outlines a rough 10(?) year plan to complete the task. 5 years to create the new government and establish international relations. 5 years to disengage from the US.

5 A committee (how to select them?) will oversee and report on the legislature's activity. They will have the power to create and enforce the rules of the action agenda. The committee will need to be accountable to the assigned task. (how?)

6 Creative graphics people can start now designing quality advertising. We are going to have to reach far beyond this site. Good ads can be initially online, but as the media discovers what is going on they will broadcast them. They have got to be good right from the start.

7 A dedicated, very intellegent, and absolutely excellent spokesperson needs to be found and brought into the project. This project is guaranteed to get national and worldwide attention. There will be talk shows and events to address. This person could become our first president.

There are going to be many reasonable questions that must be answered with thoughtfulness and reason. What is going to support our economy? Hemp? Organic farming? Will the US invade us? Maybe, but we will have the Canada, Japan, the UN, and our coalition of supporters ready to send in peacekeeping troups. Will we have a US type constitutional government? Probably, it worked pretty good until the neo-cons subverted it. Will gays be allowed to marry? NO! Marriage is not the government's business, gay or straight. Get married in a church if you have to. Will we have social security? A transfer of funds will be negotiated with the US to Cascadia. Will we have health care? Of course! Will we invite Washington and British Columbia. No, this is our country to start with. They can join us later if they are worthy.

look, rethink... 26.Nov.2004 12:07

neutralrobot

firstly, i like what you guys are doing. i like the idea of some nominal secession by bioregionalists or others on the left.

here's what i don't like: your strategies are freakishly unrealistic. a constitutional amendment to allowe secession? i'm sorry, but you will never achieve that. try if you really feel it's what you must do, but please bear in mind that it is so unbelievably unlikely that other options should be considered well before that one is taken.

and as far as pacifism vs. armed resistance goes: even if you do not hold pacifism as a moral ideal (or moral necessity), i think that in a case like this, you must consider the UTILITY of it. in my view, a well-placed camera is better insurance and a better weapon if you wish to combat government repression. this is the information age. when people see their own government using violence against unarmed people, they get shocked. but you do not need to hope for violence. the camera is your safeguard from it. in the minds of many, if not most, the posession of weapons will justify the use of force against you. the goal should be avoiding the use of force. that is, weapons or no weapons, use of force against you will be a severe defeat. in the absence of public indignation, it is a pointless defeat. thus, you should do your utmost to avoid those things which would justify the use of force against you. those who disagree may do so, but i really do think that this should be thought through by all of those involved. still, regardless of individual choices on the matter, you must ultimately decide if you are affiliated with those who wish to resist and disagree with you (whether you believe their policies to be harmful or not).

as far as the ultimate secession of cascadia is concerned: do you need official state recognition of your secession in order to operate autonomously? certain activities will be crushed from outside pressure if not, but you must ultimately take a good look at which of those (such as printing money, etc) are actually necessary for independant organization. if you wish to live outside of this economic system, it's a matter of organization. if you live outside of this system by virtue of your own organization, you do not need any official recognition of secession to have effectively acheived this goal.

perhaps when you are established in this sense, and thus have already seceded to the extent that you are able to acknowledge it, you may then consider legal means of recognition from a point of greater strength. even from here, i am not sure that application within the usa is the best route... but your guess is as good as mine. i mention this just because i would also consider looking toward the u.n. for recognition.