Pickaxe – The Cascadia Free State Story

Pickaxe – The Cascadia Free State Story

1999. Directed by Tim Lewis & Tim Ream. Pickaxe documents the struggle to halt logging at Warner Creek, a federally protected forest in Oregon. Following a suspicious fire in 1991 that cleared the land, Congress suspended environmental regulations to allow logging in the area. Since arson was determined to be the cause of the fire, however, activists argued that logging at Warner Creek was illegal and should be resisted with radical direct action. What followed was an 11-month battle complete with a 79-day hunger strike and a remarkable blockade of a remote logging road.

More documentaries and videos on FreeCascadia.org

Occupied Cascadia

Occupied Cascadia

By Cascadia Matters.
Occupied Cascadia is a documentary film both journalistic and expressionistic. Exploring the emerging understanding of bioregionalism within the lands and waters of the Northeast Pacific Rim, the filmmakers interweave intimate landscape portraits with human voices both ideological and indigenous. Stories from the land contrast critique of dominant culture, while an embrace of the radical unknown informs a re-birthed and growing culture of resistance. Filming began during the outset of the populist “Occupy” movement, and finished by joining the voices seeking to re-contextualize popular revolt within our life-world as a movement to decolonize, un-occupy, and re-inhabit the living Earth through deep understanding and identification with our specific bioregions (literally “Life-Place”).
More documentaries and videos on FreeCascadia.org

Do Trees Communicate?

Do Trees Communicate?

Copied from video description:
In this real-life model of forest resilience and regeneration, Professor Suzanne Simard shows that all trees in a forest ecosystem are interconnected, with the largest, oldest, “mother trees” serving as hubs. The underground exchange of nutrients increases the survival of younger trees linked into the network of old trees. Amazingly, we find that in a forest, 1+1 equals more than 2.

Dr. Suzanne Simard is a professor with the UBC Faculty of Forestry, where she lectures on and researches the role of mycorrhizae and mycorrhizal networks in tree species migrations with climate change disturbance. Networks of mycorrhizal fungal mycelium have recently been discovered by Professor Suzanne Simard and her graduate students to connect the roots of trees and facilitate the sharing of resources in Douglas-fir forests of interior British Columbia, thereby bolstering their resilience against disturbance or stress and facilitating the establishment of new regeneration.

Dr. Simard writes:

Mycorrhizal fungi form obligate symbioses with trees, where the tree supplies the fungus with carbohydrate energy in return for water and nutrients the fungal mycelia gather from the soil; mycorrhizal networks form when mycelia connect the roots of two or more plants of the same or different species. Graduate student Kevin Beiler has uncovered the extent and architecture of this network through the use of new molecular tools that can distinguish the DNA of one fungal individual from another, or of one tree’s roots from another. He has found that all trees in dry interior Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca) forests are interconnected, with the largest, oldest trees serving as hubs, much like the hub of a spoked wheel, where younger trees establish within the mycorrhizal network of the old trees. Through careful experimentation, recent graduate Francois Teste determined that survival of these establishing trees was greatly enhanced when they were linked into the network of the old trees.Through the use of stable isotope tracers, he and Amanda Schoonmaker, a recent undergraduate student in Forestry, found that increased survival was associated with belowground transfer of carbon, nitrogen and water from the old trees. This research provides strong evidence that maintaining forest resilience is dependent on conserving mycorrhizal links, and that removal of hub trees could unravel the network and compromise regenerative capacity of the forests.

In wetter, mixed-species interior Douglas-fir forests, graduate student Brendan Twieg also used molecular tools to discover that Douglas-fir and paper birch (Betula papyrifera) trees can be linked together by species-rich mycorrhizal networks. We found that the mycorrhizal network serves as a belowground pathway for transfer of carbon from the nutrient-rich deciduous trees to nearby regenerating Douglas-fir seedlings. Moreover, we found that carbon transfer was enhanced when Douglas-fir seedlings were shaded in mid-summer, providing a subsidy that may be important in Douglas-fir survival and growth, thus helping maintain a mixed forest community during early succession. This is not a one-way subsidy, however; graduate Leanne Philip discovered that Douglas-fir supported their birch neighbours in the spring and fall by sending back some of this carbon when the birch was leafless. This back-and-forth flux of resources according to need may be one process that maintains forest diversity and stability.

Mycorrhizal networks may be critical in helping forest ecosystems deal with climate change. Maintaining the biological webs that stabilize forests may help conserve genetic resources for future tree migrations, ensure that forest carbon stocks remain intact on the landscape, and conserve species diversity. UBC graduate student Marcus Bingham is finding that maintaining mycorrhizal webs may be more important for the regeneration and stability of the dry than wet interior Douglas-fir forests, where resources are more limited and climate change is expected to have greater impacts. Helping the landscape adapt to climate change will require more than keeping existing forests intact, however. Many scientists are concerned that species will need to migrate at a profoundly more rapid rate than they have in the past, and that humans can facilitate this migration by planting tree species adapted to warm climates in new areas. UBC graduate student Brendan Twieg is starting new research to help us understand whether the presence of appropriate mycorrhizal symbionts in foreign soils may limit the success of tree migrations, and if so, to help us design practices that increase our success at facilitating changes in these forests.

Click for more documentaries and videos on FreeCascadia.org

Zapatista (1999)

On January 1st 1994, Chiapas (an occupied state by the Mexican federal government) erupted into rebellion after the government officials of US, Canada and Mexico signed into law NAFTA. The Zapatista movement was fully born as an indigenous resistance movement against neoliberal economics and its neo-colonialism.

As a bioregional movement, which at its roots is a decolonization movement, we should be in solidarity with our siblings in Chiapas. We stand today at the edge of another signing of an unfair “Free Trade Agreement”, one of many, called the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement.


Click for more documentaries and videos on FreeCascadia.org

Episode 1 – Introduction to Cascadia – 12/21/14

Alexander gives an introduction to Cascadia and Bioregionalism, and how and why he designed the Cascadian flag, among other topics.


Song: Fallen Giants by Kithkin

I woke to the smell of fire,
Nestled in my oracle’s ear,
I dreamt of the sound of a tree falling down,
That no one else could hear,
I was a celibate prostitute,
I was a zebra with bleached blonde hair,
I wrenched my rusted knees from the twisted sheets,
And rose into the autumn air

I felt the end was near
(I don’t want to die for this)

Trees will overtake
This choking cityscape,
Floods will wash away
All these unnatural shapes,
And I will celebrate,
I won’t belong to this broken ghost anymore

We can sail away
Atop impending waves,
We don’t have to stay
To greet the end of days,
We can start anew,
Us kids are fated to build it better than before

I walked to the fractured sidewalk
Where the dandelions grow,
In the shadows of vacant palaces
Consumed by vines and mold

I felt the end was here
(I don’t want to die for this)

Free Cascadia Radio – Main Page

Cascadian History


In Chinook Jargon (Chinuk Wawa) this region is called “Chinook Ilahaee” which means “land of the Chinook speakers” and now perfectly matches the demarcated “borders” of the bioregion called Cascadia. J.M.R. Le Jeune’s “Chinook Rudiments” published on May 3rd 1924 describes the geographical placement of the use of Chinook Jargon and a partial glimpse of the demographics of who were the Chinook Jargon speakers of the time:

“Chinook, for a century the International Language of the Pacific Coast, from Northern California to Alaska, from the Pacific Ocean to the Rocky Mountains.”

“Gradually took shape between 1790 and 1810, becoming t(h)e necessary means of intercourse between natives of twenty-seven different tribes speaking as many different langauges, as well as between natives, whites and orientals.”


This mentioning by Le Jeune of who spoke Chinook Jargon also reflects the ethnic diversity in the region that is usually “white-washed” in US American history as just a territory colonized by Anglo-Americans in the name of the imperial expansionism later called “Manifest Destiny”. Chinook Ilahee (Cascadia) was a land where Asian cultures, European cultures, Black cultures and Pacific Islander cultures came together, often mingled and even merged with the cultures of the Native Peoples. The ethnologist Hortatio Hale of the US Exploring Expedition of 1841 described the use of Chinook Jargon during his stay at Fort Vancouver by a new emerging culture of Chinook Illahee in the 1840s:

“These are Canadians and half-breeds married to Chinook women, who can only converse with their wives in this speech, and it is the fact, strange as it may seem, that many young children are growing up to whom this factitious language is really the mother tongue, and who speak it with more readiness and perfection than any other.”

Many of these new multicultural families would eventually resettle in the French Prairie in the Willamette Valley after the fathers of the families would terminate their employment with the Hudson’s Bay Company so as to stay with their families. But it would be wrong to assume all the men employed by the Hudson’s Bay Company or spoke Chinook Jargon were either British Canadian or French Canadian. Though many Hudson’s Bay employees were French Canadians there was also Hawai’ians and other British subjects who worked under the employment of the company and at the outposts. Sir James Douglas, the first govenor of both the Colony of Vancouver Island and the Colony of British Columbia, for example was the son of a Scottish sugar planter and a “free coloured woman” in Demerara, New Guiana (Guyana), was stationed at Fort Vancouver in the 1830s before eventually being reposted farther north to foritify the north for the British Crown. Many of the “half-breeds” Horatio Hale referred to were the Metis who themselves were a merger of French, Gaelic (Scottish) and various Native Peoples in Canada and the Louisana. Purchase. Hawai’ian islanders made up a large part of the non-Native People to resettle in Chinook Illahee even with a large settlement on Vancouver Island. Asian settlers specifically many Chinese would settle in the Chinook Illahee in search of gold and later to be hired as the “cooleys” (cheap labourers) for building the intercontental railroads. Among the various Native Peoples the evolution of Chinook Jargon would lead to it becoming the mother tongue of the generations of different tribes forced to live together on the same reservations. During the 1800 and 1900s Chinook Jargon was the Lingua Franca of the reservation, because different Native groups were often forced to live in the same reservation even though they may have been of different linguistic groups or even had historical conflicts the Jargon became the means to survive and build a new multinational culture. Chinook Jargon usually used on the reservation when English was not imposed in the boarding schools. Chinook Jargon also would be the language in the logging camps, the Willamette hop industry and the Yukon Gold Rush where international cultures would communicate in the Jargon for profit and survival. These confluents of cultures can still be seen in today’s Cascadia though often as a hidden history.

The region as a whole has been historically called Oregon. At various times a region called Oregon has included the American states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Northern California, Western Montana, a western portion of Wyoming up to the continental divide, the Alaskan panhandle and the Canadian province of British Columbia as well as portions of the Yukon and Alberta west of the continental divide. The descriptive name “Pacific Northwest” comes out of Anglo-American centered maps which displays the region in the northwest corner of the map. The region can easily be called the NorthEast Pacific from Pacific oriented maps. Historically the whole NorthEast Pacific was the “Oregon Country” and then became the “Oregon Territory” as it was annexed into the Atlantic Empires of Canada and the United States of America. Eventually the name Oregon has been widdled down to one current political entity south of the Columbia River and north of California. Some theories suggest that the name “Oregon” maybe be for the great river west of the continental divide. A river that some Europeans thought maybe actually a “Northwest Passage” connecting the North Atlantic with the Pacific Ocean. Some historians believe that “Oregon” was a name for the Columbia River dating back to 1765 in written accounts from the English Army officer Major Robert Rogers. Rogers’ verion of the Columbia was the Ouragon or Ourigan River in a failed written petition in London to explore the region of the Ouragon. Some have believed this was a mistake confusing the Ouisconsink (Wisconsin River) with the Columbia. A few historians believe “Ouragon” is from the French word for hurricane or storm. Some historians claim “Oregon” comes from the Spanish words of oregano, oreja, and orejon or from the French word Aragon. Other theories claim it is a name from Native people east of the Rockies.

In the 1790s, over a decade before the Lewis and Clark’s expedition, the Scottish explorer Alexander Mackenzie had crossed the North American continent north of Mexico in search of the Northwest Passage. The US President Thomas Jefferson originally envisioned the land west of the Lousiana Purchase as a Republic of the Pacific. In Jefferson’s original vision this Republic of the Pacific or Pacific Republic was not to be part of the United States, but eventually a great trading partner separate and exploring its own democratic experiment. Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark out as ambassadors to the people west of the Rockies. When the Corps of Discovery (the original name of the Lewis and Clark expedition) reached the Pacific Ocean there had already been European contact and even some settlement in the region. This is not to downplay the Corp of Discovery’s epic voyage, but to put it in proper perceptive as a peace-making mission, a scientific expedition and as a trade-seeking venture. The Corp of Discovery in its brief existence perfectly represented one interpetation of the Jeffersonian ideal. All its members including the Native American woman Sacagwea and the former slave York had equal say in the decision making process and the right of vote. The Jeffersonian journey was one that reflected the ideals of Enlightenment with its mission of discovery and quest for knowledge.

The following is a corrispondence from Thomas Jefferson to John Jacob Astor (whose name was used for the colony at Astoria) on the founding of a “free and independent empire”:

“To John Jacob Astor, Esq.
Monticello, November 9, 1813.

Dear Sir,—Your favor of October 18th has been duly received, and I learn with great pleasure the progress you have made towards an establishment on Columbia river. I view it as the germ of a great, free and independent empire on that side of our continent, and that liberty and self-government spreading from that as well as this side, will ensure their complete establishment over the whole. It must be still more gratifying to yourself to foresee that your name will be handed down with that of Columbus and Raleigh, as the father of the establishment and founder of such an empire. It would be an afflicting thing indeed, should the English be able to break up the settlement. Their bigotry to the bastard liberty of their own country, and habitual hostility to every degree of freedom in any other, will induce the attempt ; they would not lose the sale of a bale of furs for the freedom of the whole world. But I hope your party will be able to maintain themselves. If they have assiduously cultivated the interests and affections of the natives, these will enable them to defend themselves against the English, and furnish them an asylum even if their fort be lost. I hope, and have no doubt our government will do for its success whatever they have power to do, and especially that at the negotiations for peace, they will provide, by convention with the English, for the safety and independence of that country, and an acknowledgment of our right of patronizing them in all cases of injury from foreign nations. But no patronage or protection from this quarter can secure the settlement if it does not cherish the affections of the natives and make it their interest to uphold it. While you are doing so much for future generations of men, I sincerely wish you may find a present account in the just profits you are entitled to expect peace_freindhipmetalfrom the enterprise. I will ask of the President permission to read Mr. Stuart’s journal. With fervent wishes for a happy issue to this great undertaking, which promises to form a remarkable epoch in the history of mankind, I tender you the assurance of my great esteem and respect.”

Note Jefferson did not say kill the native people or steal their lands. Instead Jefferson recommended ” If they have assiduously cultivated the interests and affections of the natives, these will enable them to defend themselves” … “But no patronage or protection from this quarter can secure the settlement if it does not cherish the affections of the natives and make it their interest to uphold it.”

The Jeffersonian exploration gave way to the Jacksonian reality of a vision of expansion and the pursuit of rags to riches imagery for those lucky enough to be born of Anglo-American heritage. The British Crown and the United States jointly occupied the Oregon Country at first. A series of meetings in Champoeg (just south of modern Wilsonville, Oregon) called the Wolf Meetings were arranged to focus on “vermin” and pests as well as an inheritance case. The meetings eventually made US American settlers realize that their rights were not covered by any of the judicial systems that protected British subjects and used for Native Peoples. The growing number of US American settlers applied pressure to form a government that represented American citizens and protected their property. There was fear by non-US citizens that US American settlers would push for territorial annexation to the United States. Non-US residents in the Oregon Territory had lots of reasons to be concerned about US expansion with sentiments and rhetoric similar to journalist John O’Sullivan that publicly voicied anti-European presence in the Western Hemisphere, racial chauvinism and plenty of examples of American expansionist policies using emigration as a method. At the same time there was pressure by Hudson’s Bay Company (the British representation in the region) to block such a vote using French Canadian and British settlers in the region. In May of 1843 the European settlers in the Oregon Country created their first “western style” government as a Provisional Government. Several months later the Organic Act (5th of July 1843) was drawn up to create a legislature, an executive committee, a judicial system and a system of subscriptions to defray expenses. Members of the ultra-American party insisted that the final lines of the Organic Act would be “until such time as the USA extend their jurisdiction over us” to try to end the Oregon independence movement. George Abernethy was elected its first and only Provisional Governor, but the opposing “party” led by Osborne Russell favored independence. Russell proposed that the Oregon Country not join the United States, but instead become a Pacific Republic that stretched from the Pacific Ocean to the Continental Divide. Many favored the idea of independence (especially north of the Columbia River).


The American National Mythology and Young America

The US presidential race of 1844 was filled discussion about annexation of the Republic of Texas along with talk about annexation of the Oregon Country and California loomed over the race for presidency. Eventually the Democratic Convention spring of 1844 put the “dark horse” candidate James Knox Polk as the party presidential candidate. Polk, who was the Speaker of the House, ran on the campaign slogan “Fifty-four Forty or Fight!” refering to the latitude of the most northern extent of the Oregon Country at the time. The message behind “Fifty-four Forty or Fight!” was the push for US annexation of all of the Oregon Country or the willingness to go to war with the British for the control of the region.


The land west of the Rockies became part of US American national mythology as a territoy the US was entitled to control and even annex. The American newspaper, journalist John Louis O’Sullivan, was fundmental in pushing American expansionism. His idea a divine providence of American expansionism or imperialism (later called “Manifest Destiny”) was originally written about in 1839 in his “The Great Nation of Futurity” published in the magazine The United States Democratic Review, but would become American political rhetoric in the coming years under an expansionist president. Later O’Sullivan in the “Annexation” (United States Magazine and Democratic Review, 1845) projects a national vision of an expansionist United States:

“Why, were other reasoning wanting, in favor of now elevating this question of the reception of Texas into the Union, out of the lower region of our past party dissensions, up to its proper level of a high and broad nationality, it surely is to be found, found abundantly, in the manner in which other nations have undertaken to intrude themselves into it, between us and the proper parties to the case, in a spirit of hostile interference against us, for the avowed object of thwarting our policy and hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.”

O’Sullivan’s vision of Anglo-Saxon American expansionism envisioned a demographic take over of Mexican California. His racist and chauvinistic vision of an Anglo-Saxon dominance over North America is clearly reflected in his vision of an Anglo-Saxon take over of the Spanish territory of California:

“California probably, next fall away from the loose adhesion which, in such a country as Mexico, holds a remote province in a slight equivocal kind of dependence on the metropolis. Imbecile and distracted, Mexico never can exert any real governmental authority over such a country. The impotence of the one and the distance of the other, must make the relation one of virtual independence; unless, by stunting the province of all natural growth, and forbidding that immigration which can alone develop its capabilities and fulfil the purposes of its creation, tyranny may retain a military dominion, which is no government in the, legitimate sense of the term. In the case of California this is now impossible. The Anglo-Saxon foot is already on its borders. Already the advance guard of the irresistible army of Anglo-Saxon emigration has begun to pour down upon it, armed with the plough and the rifle, and marking its trail with schools and colleges, courts and representative halls, mills and meeting-houses. A population will soon be in actual occupation of California, over which it will be idle for Mexico to dream of dominion. They will necessarily become independent. All this without agency of our government, without responsibility of our people — in the natural flow of events, the spontaneous working of principles, and the adaptation of the tendencies and wants of the human race to the elemental circumstances in the midst of which they find themselves placed. And they will have a right to independence –to self-government– to the possession of the homes conquered from the wilderness by their own labors and dangers, sufferings and sacrifices-a better and a truer right than the artificial tide of sovereignty in Mexico, a thousand miles distant, inheriting from Spain a title good only against those who have none better. Their right to independence will be the natural right of self-government belonging to any community strong enough to maintain it — distinct in position, origin and character, and free from any mutual obligations of membership of a common political body, binding it to others by the duty of loyalty and compact of public faith. This will be their title to independence; and by this title, there can be no doubt that the population now fast streaming down upon California win both assert and maintain that independence. Whether they will then attach themselves to our Union or not, is not to be predicted with any certainty.”

O’Sullivan continues in his “Annexation” by focusing his geopolitical hunger for securing the Oregon Country and California by using the new innovations of commerce and communications of the era in the forms of the railroad and telegraph:

“Unless the projected railroad across the continent to the Pacific be carried into effect, perhaps they may not; though even in that case, the day is not distant when the Empires of the Atlantic and Pacific would again flow together into one, as soon as their inland border should approach each other. But that great work, colossal as appears the plan on its first suggestion, cannot remain long unbuilt. Its necessity for this very purpose of binding and holding together in its iron clasp our fast-settling Pacific region with that of the Mississippi valley — the natural facility of the route — the ease with which any amount of labor for the construction can be drawn in from the overcrowded populations of Europe, to be paid in die lands made valuable by the progress of the work itself — and its immense utility to the commerce of the world with the whole eastern Asia, alone almost sufficient for the support of such a road — these coast of considerations give assurance that the day cannot be distant which shall witness the conveyance of the representatives from Oregon and California to Washington within less time than a few years ago was devoted to a similar journey by those from Ohio; while the magnetic telegraph will enable the editors of the “San Francisco Union,” the “Astoria Evening Post,” or the “Nootka Morning News,” to set up in type the first half of the President’s Inaugural before the echoes of the latter half shall have died away beneath the lofty porch of the Capitol, as spoken from his lips.”

Simbolismo de Nuestra Bandera Cascadesa

Simbolismo de Nuestra Bandera Cascadesa

(Click here for the English version)

Escrito por Alexander Baretich

Traducción de Ildefonso de Haro y Tamariz

Diseñé la bandera cascadesa, en inglés “The Doug”, allá por los noventa cuando terminaba los estudios en Europa Oriental. Aunque me enamoré de la gente, cultura y paisaje de esa Europa del Este, me sentía profundamente melancólico, especialmente por los bosques de Cascadia, los árboles que crecen en el valle de Guillameta donde crecí. Un día, al sentarme en una loma con un compañero, tuve una epifanía: la bandera que representaba el paisaje cascadés. Anteriormente al diseño y su creciente popularidad, la idea de Cascadia –especialmente el biorregionalismo- era más bien un concepto abstracto que se reservaban los cartógrafos especializados y los sociólogos progresistas. La bandera lleva más allá de lo tangible, hacia una perspectiva de la demarcación de nuestro espacio; la Bandera captura el amor de las comunidades de Nuestra biorregión. Distinta a todas las demás, ésta no es una bandera forjada en sangre o en la gloria de una nación, sino en el amor por una Región, nuestra Familia ecológica y sus límites naturales; el lugar donde se vive y se ama. El azul representa el siempre húmedo cielo, el Pacífico ondulante, el mar Sálisce, los lagos, los ríos y toda el agua sin derrotero. Nuestro hogar es una continuidad de aguas cascantes desde el cielo hacia las montañas y profundizando en el mar. Cascadia, tierra del agua que cae desde el Océano Pacífico a la faz poniente de las Rocallosas, donde el ciclo hídrico, sea vapor, sea lluvia, sea hielo o nieve, corre en arroyuelos y ríos después para dar vida al color siguiente. El verde, de bosque y campo que alimentan la vida con el agua santa de la Región. El Abeto Oregonés simboliza la fortaleza, el aguante, la persistencia al fuego, al azogue, a la catástrofe, incluso al hombre necio. Éste simbolismo de colores e imágenes se funden en el ser cascadés, en su significado como hombre.
Cascadia puede definirse por su gran ciclo hidrológico en lo que se llama comúnmente el Noroeste del Pacífico. Como demarcación natural de la biorregión cascadesa, el ciclo comienza con la evaporación del océano. El agua venida del Pacífico en forma de neblina, vapor, nubosidad y humedad en general, se condensa en lluvia, granizo o nieve, llegando hasta las cumbres más alejadas de las Rocallosas. Y por ultimo éstas escapan por la pendiente natural de nuevo al océano. El Océano Pacífico es la cuna del ciclo de la vida. Las Sierras Cascantes, Olímpicas, la Sierra Costera o los Montes Caribú son el catalizador de éste proceso de eterna mutación. Las Rocallosas son la muralla y compuertas que mantienen éste imperio del agua cascante. Éste agua vital gradualmente regresa de donde salió mutando de ser glaciar a simples y hermosos arroyos, corrientes y ríos, todos, fuentes de la vida como son las venas y las arterias. Finalmente éste ciclo no es otra cosa que el ciclo de la vida misma. La esencia de ser cascadés es saberse ser Cascadia. Ser Cascadia es la conciencia total de éste flujo vital, de trascendencia acuática, de ciclos. Y ser Cascadia es respeto al ciclo y a la vida.
Y por lo tanto, ¿qué es el biorregionalismo? Es la conciencia de comunidad con el agua de la región propia, la sangre de la tierra. Incluso el más seco de los desiertos tiene es biorregional, pues el ciclo está presente, no importa qué tan diminuto o imperceptible sea. Así que cada biorregión es un sistema de vida de comunidades interconectadas y movimiento de energía. La filosofía del Tao atribuye el flujo de energía en el cuerpo y los sistemas, es decir, el quí, traducido a menudo como fuerza vital o nombrado como chí, ya muchos lo hemos oído nombrar. El agua que es vida en su ciclo es como el quí dentro de la biomasa de la Tierra. Es un constante flujo de energía y, como seres vivos que dependemos de estos ciclos, es crucial que sostengamos, mantengamos y preservemos estos ciclos de manera sana. Así lo hizo Atlas en la Grecia Clásica también. Como biorregionalistas despertamos al conocimiento de la importancia de estos ciclos y regiones de la Tierra, los convertimos en parte de quién y qué somos. La biorregión impregna el alma misma del habitante despierto. Por lo tanto, un biorregionalista es el que aboga por el despertar de la conciencia y la protección del ciclo de vida del agua.
Un biorregionalista cascadés es el que despierta y hace despertar los sistemas vivos que nos rodean en Cascadia y ve que lo que está siendo causado en la biorregión (envenenamiento por mercurio, la radiación sea de Hanford o Fucuschima, la deforestación, los pesticidas, los cultivos transgénicos, la plaga suburbana, la destrucción de los mercados por el esquema Walmart y tantos otros factores que reducen nuestra existencia como biorregión) se inflige inherentemente en sí mismo, lo que pasa alrededor es lo que pasa dentro de nosotros. Esto significa que la explotación de la biorregión es la explotación de sí mismo del hombre por el hombre. Esto significa que el activismo no es sólo algo que se hace para salvar a un panda en el otro lado del planeta, el activismo biorregional es una forma personal de preservación. Biorregionalismo es también el sostén de lo local. Lo ideal es que el empoderamiento sea horizontal e inclusivo para todas las comunidades (humanidad y naturaleza). Nosotros como biorregionalistas no vivimos en ámbitos aislados, sino en comunidades interconectadas y entrelazadas donde lo local es el punto focal.
La bandera es una declaración imponente «¡Esta es Cascadia y somos Casacadia!»

A Place for Cascadian Bioregionalists