Cascadia: My Home?

Seattle was built on fire

In my novel, Seattle no longer exists as a physical location. After a 9.7 magnitude earthquake struck the west coast, the loose silt-stone that Seattle rests on turns to sludge, bringing the city and everyone else down into the Puget Sound. Portland is also abandoned, the rivers rising to meet and steal away its people. Victoria is split in half in the quakes. Anchorage is left to fend for itself in the chaos. All the major cities and townships would flee from the destruction or become part of it, so for a time, Cascadia was cityless. But Seattle in particular has completely and utterly vanished off the face of the earth.

Ask any Washingtonian like myself and you'll find that everyone hates Seattle, even those that were born and raised there. Its a pit of degeneracy and despair, its concrete roots grasping everything else around it like a concrete tumor, any law passed there eventually becomes law of the land, expecting its outsiders to conform to its ways. Its become a land where an addiction is encouraged, while self defense is discouraged. A land that stands on its former glory, but has not sought to earn more. A land which has done more to suppress its native inhabitants, its first people, than to help them in any way, whilst stealing their aesthetics and their art and their language for its own branding. You may feel free in the plentiful forests, free as a Cascadian, but you're to abide by Seattle or abide in its justice system, where its governor cherry picks each and every judge who will act according to the way his wallet speaks as opposed to the way lady Justice speaks. Here, it is a land of natural beauty, but its people are ugly down to their corrupt hearts.

So when I hear talk of making Seattle the potential capitol of Cascadia were we to become independent, I know these people merely jump on the bandwagon and have no interest in actually changing things for the better. Seattle is and almost always will be the source of Cascadia's problems. But I also know that even if it was destroyed, something utterly different will instead take its place. The unsustainable practice of a large city, complete with its labyrinth of freeways and tall glass towers coupled with the squared miles of unused blacktop scorching in the sun, should end with a free Cascadia. But like cancer these tumors are terminal, so we would simply have to make do and contend with these unfortunate concrete circumstances, hopefully in a better way than they would be left behind.


I've hardly known a time in my life where I haven't smelled the ocean air, heard the whistle of wind through the evergreen trees, or seen towering mountains off the horizon, within it laying numerous rivers and groves oft untouched. The moss and the lichen dominate the landscape as much as the trees do, I'd have to try especially hard to try and see anything that wasn't a shade of green. And when the rains fall, and its as sure as death and taxes rain falls in Cascadia, its like the land is taking a deep sigh, everything becomes lush and alive, the salty air now alive with sound. I've stood on its miles of coastline, the waves of the pacific crashing against seastacks, washing over the stony beach sand, before receding back to the mysteries of the deep.

This is my home, and I'd hope to see it become soverign in my lifetime. This land is too rich and diverse, and should be left untainted by the slimy hands of consumers and businessmen, untouched by its suzerian overlords who time and time again have neglected this place and many others to fund other places on the opposite end of Cascadia's shores. Cascadia should be free, but deep down I know this dream won't be a reality, not even in the lifetimes of my descendants.

I'll start off by saying any Cascadian worth their salt is good in my book, but we're all going to have disagreements on how an actual soverign Cascadia should be ran, operated, what its national outlook should be, how we carry ourselves, how its military will carry itself, if we should even have a military, et cetera et al. Every Cascadian is going to be different, but diversity should not just be limited to whats outside, but inside as well. I've come across many who demands for Cascadia to be a communist, socialist, collectivist, whatever-ist republic; come across many who wants a rebranded United States, with certain rights given and taken depending on their outlook; even come across several who suggest that Cascadia be Absolutist, a King or Queen of Moss, a crown of driftwood and a slew of royal servants who toil the forests and mountainsides for their share of a heel of bread.

Whatever their belief may be on how a soverign Cascadia should be ruled, the fact that we live in an age of no compromise, no debate, "my way or the highway" kind of thinking hampers the unity needed to get anything rolling toward independence. And if we do manage to become free, either through diplomacy, force, or by taking advantage of a world-ending event, we've all seen the damage that political parties of any kind will do to a nation; deadlocked, held back by decades, trivial decisions which would benefit people as a whole interspersed with caveats and backhanded additions which gets the whole affair removed, and decisions which affect hundreds of millions having no room for debate in a stacked assembly who dig their heels in their decision to ban abortion, weapons, gay marriage, gay people in general, free speech, et cetera et al. Cascadia would not benefit from internal factions vying for control over the nation and its people to line their pockets. I see no way out of this unfortunate set of circumstances in which we have to constantly bicker over matters aligning to a party's set of ideals. George Washington, the only president of the United States who did not belong to a party, even stated in his farewell address that:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

If we as Cascadians agreed to call this land our home and declare it independent, we should be able to firmly agree to permanently remove any such political party from our land; our only candidates for leadership, our only councilmen, our only states, should be free from the yoke of red or blue or yellow, swearing no allegiance or fealty to any group of people, only the one who has earned the right to lead our people.

Anyway, enough doom and gloom, I'll try and find something happier to talk about next time.