# American Californian Danzig/Christiania



## Pheonix (Feb 20, 2012)

I don't understand why the Anarchists are working to destroy the system? Don't they know a new system will be created after the collapse of the old system? Do they actually think the people that create this new system will give 2 shits about them and their beliefs? Do they think they will ever get the majority on their side?

I would rather see the Anarchists work to set up a Freetown in CA,USA. I think this goal is actually alot more realistic since the Powers that be and the Powers that will become already want to isolate us from their society. I think instead of working against the Powers that be, the 1%, the Republicans what ever you want to call them, we should be working to negotiate with them to get our own Anarchist Freetown. I also think negotiating with the current Powers that be will be more successful then negotiating with the next Powers that be for the simple fact that the current Powers are easy to persuade with their greed for money and power.
I think one of the main things the Powers that be want right now is to put an end to the Occupy Movement and we have the unique ability to do that faster and with less repercussions to them then if they use the police force. We all have a right to protest and we have a right to protest their protests an anti-protest if you will, I first thought of the Anti-protest idea when I heard about the Westboro Baptist Church.
Another negotiation strategy is to convince them that it would be in their best interest to create a Lawless Freetown. One way to do that is to show them how the Lawless Freetown will provide a much needed solution to their prison and corrections problems by providing a way to banish certain criminals to the Lawless Freetown giving them the chance to punish criminals without having to pay for the punishment and also giving them a way to keep control of prison inmate numbers.
If it is set up as a true Lawless Society then it will attract many unsavory fellows that they have been trying to get rid of for several decades and this is also in their best interest. The idea of a Lawless Freetown in CA will instantly become the meth capitol of California and all the tweakers will flock to their probable OD, same goes for all other drugs too. This removes the so-called scurge on society that they have been wasting so much money on trying to get rid of and provides the only way for them to fix the drug problem without ending it's prohibition. Also when these unwanted heathens leave society to chase the rabbit down the hole it will provide a tremendous relief to the local police force giving them a much better chance to keep the peace with their current depleting resources.

So in conclusion this plan can solve their war on drugs and bail out both the department of corrections and law enforcement agencies, and we can also provide an end to their little Occupy problem  . So am I crazy or am I a genius or am I a crazy genius? And regardless is this possible? Or more possible then the anarchistic collapse of society?


----------



## EphemeralStick (Feb 20, 2012)

I'd say crazy genius. the only major problem i can see with this Lawless Freetown would be that eventually it would probably end up destroying itself. as a town it will need resources, where would the food come from? power? what about water and waste disposal? trying to organize the unsavory to work together towards a common goal is kind of unrealistic. i don't think the government would be willing to provide a bunch of free services to an entire town's worth of people. people will obviously start pairing up and have kids too. what would become of them? will the receive an education there or will they be taken by the state? For the people who are willing to work for a completely self sustaining community it sounds ideal, but all the undesirable people that it will draw in will probably make it fall apart.


----------



## Pheonix (Feb 20, 2012)

NeoMaxxAKI said:


> I'd say crazy genius. the only major problem i can see with this Lawless Freetown would be that eventually it would probably end up destroying itself. as a town it will need resources, where would the food come from? power? what about water and waste disposal? trying to organize the unsavory to work together towards a common goal is kind of unrealistic. i don't think the government would be willing to provide a bunch of free services to an entire town's worth of people. people will obviously start pairing up and have kids too. what would become of them? will the receive an education there or will they be taken by the state? For the people who are willing to work for a completely self sustaining community it sounds ideal, but all the undesirable people that it will draw in will probably make it fall apart.


 

I've thought that too, but just like the current society it will end up being run by the top 1% richest most powerful people in the society. My fear is that this might become the Mexican Mafia since they already are the 1% that control the meth trade. But just like how Christiania was sustained by money from the weed trade this society will be funded with drug money from "tourist" that come in from society to buy and do drugs and then go back to their jobs in society to make more money to buy more drugs. I know I was talking about all of them ODing but that was just a pipe dream, they are actually going to be the reason the town survives. Not all drug addicts are unwanted heathen infact the unwanted heathens make up only a small fraction of drug users.

As long as they do their drugs in the Freetown and leave with no drugs then the police can't arrest them when they go back to society.


----------



## frzrbrnd (Feb 20, 2012)

how is this actually any different than an occupy


----------



## Pheonix (Feb 20, 2012)

because I'll be beating the protesters asses not the police


----------



## frzrbrnd (Feb 20, 2012)

wouldn't you be a protestor by virtue of the fact that you're living in "town" that claims to be autonomous from federal and state government rule?


----------



## Pheonix (Feb 20, 2012)

frzrbrnd said:


> wouldn't you be a protestor by virtue of the fact that you're living in "town" that claims to be autonomous from federal and state government rule?


 
Yes, the difference is that I will be protesting for me and my community not some whiny piss-ants and their community that will throw me and my community under the bus the first chance they get. We are all out for ourselves the only difference is I admit it.


----------



## frzrbrnd (Feb 20, 2012)

Oh. So you're not going to kick the protestors' asses, just the asses of the protestors you don't like. Gotcha.

Anyhow, I don't think federal and state governments would ever be down with this unless they could make money off of it. See: "Waco," "Ruby Ridge." 

also:


pheonix said:


> I don't understand why the Anarchists are working to destroy the system? Don't they know a new system will be created after the collapse of the old system? Do they actually think the people that create this new system will give 2 shits about them and their beliefs? Do they think they will ever get the majority on their side?


 
It seems there's actually two kinds of anarchists: there's a type of anarchist that is essentially a socialist who also believes in personal liberty, then there's the other kind that's basically yr standard "tear everything down" anarchist. Historically, the philosophy of anarchism has been more "socialism + personal liberty" than "tear everything down" (I read an interesting article by Luigi Fabbri the other day about how the "tear everything down" branch of anarchism is mostly attributable bourgeois influences -- philosophers and artists that aestheticize chaos -- the pamphlet was written around the time of World War I, though, so it shows that anarchism has had this problem for a long time). The smart anarchists don't just want to "destroy the system" -- they want to create a new system to follow. I consider myself one of the "socialism + personal liberty" anarchists, because I want uniformed men and women with guns and batons out of my life, and I want a world without bosses. I abhor the anarchists that just want to "destroy the system," though, because they give a bad name to the rest of us and I often want to call myself a libertarian socialist instead, but then ignorant people who don't know the history of anarchism tell me that that's a contradiction in terms when it very well is not.  

Overall, I would be nominally supportive of "Freetown" or whatever the fuck, though I don't see the point in having it contained to a small location in California.


----------



## Pheonix (Feb 20, 2012)

frzrbrnd said:


> Anyhow, I don't think federal and state governments would ever be down with this unless they could make money off of it. See: "Waco," "Ruby Ridge."


 
I already explained that it's not that they will be making money it's that they will be saving money, maybe save enough money that they will be able to afford some more million dollar bonuses.



frzrbrnd said:


> The smart anarchists don't just want to "destroy the system" -- they want to create a new system to follow.


 
Baby steps, my young grasshopper, the majority will not be down with "destroying the system" until they are comfortable that the new system will be better. The Occupiers can't give them that but when they start to see a better system of order and personal liberty coming out of the chaos of the "freetown" then and only then will they be willing to let go of the only system they know. Then my young grasshopper, then we strike.


----------



## frzrbrnd (Feb 20, 2012)

Nah, brah, you ain't gotta be tellin' me 'bout baby steps -- I understand that shit. It's the other kids that don't. But as far as Freetown actually saving the government money -- you'd need a pretty big town to put all of America's inmates in there.


----------



## Pheonix (Feb 20, 2012)

Not all the inmates just enough for the prison system to be the most productive, but all the tips and tricks are in the details. The government can and will figure out how to make money of off it. Yes a big town, do you think they will miss Stockton,CA it's already the asshole of California and centrally located.


----------



## Pheonix (Feb 21, 2012)

frzrbrnd said:


> The smart anarchists don't just want to "destroy the system" -- they want to create a new system to follow.


 
you actually think the anarchists are going to create this change? I think the change will be made by people that don't give a shit about anarchist and homeless and other traveling dirt bags, and thus the new change that comes will still discriminate against us. For the general public just does not and will not ever understand why we do the things we do, instead they think we are broken and they will make new changes that will attempt the "fix us" witch means the will try to convert you to their way of looking at the world cause they think our way of looking at things are wrong. Society will always make changes for the forced conversion of the popular opinions.
example, they always talk about eradicating HATRED, but do they really want to eradicate all hatred or just hatred against woman, minorities, and gays. I ask them how they plan on eradicating hatred against gang-bangers, murderers and rapist and they get offended and try to tell me they don't have hatred for them but I know they are liars for hatred is a human emotion that cannot be eradicated without the genetic mutation of the human brain leading to the evolution of the human race.
maybe that was a bad example lets try this, the reason there will never be separation between church and state is because the church gives people their opinions and the state gives people the way to force the popular opinions (witch right now are the churches opinions) on all in the inherent interest of the majority of the population. Since anarchy and being a hobo will never become acceptable, the laws and changes made by the masses will never be to our favor. and thus we will always be the target of forced conversion.


----------



## frzrbrnd (Feb 21, 2012)

i don't really care if anarchists create the change they want in the way they want. i'm more interested in the fact that there is a voice of dissent; i doubt that i will ever live to see anarchy come to be, and i don't really care if i do. in the end, all i really want to see is people come together and help each other, which isn't to say that doesn't already happen, but that i'd like to see it happen a lot more. when i see people do whatever little things they can to make the world a marginally better place, that makes me happy; when i see people criticizing the wrongs in the world, that makes me happy, too. in fact, it probably won't be the anarchists who create whatever changes come, because anarchists have a tendency to be obstinate and incapable of compromise. i don't really have answers to any questions and i wouldn't really want to, anyway. i'm not an absolutist in my beliefs. with me, i think you are barking up the wrong tree because i don't really care if people look down on me. actually, i get myself in trouble a lot, because when people start to realize i'm weirdo and get weirded out by it, i tend to rub it in their face that i'm a weirdo. every society will always have its share of weirdos and fuckups; i like that, and i like that i number as one of the world's weirdos. 

idunno, man. i have hope for the future, but i'm a pessimist about it. i agree though, there can't actually be a separation between church and state -- because they're both things made up by people. idunno. don't really have much to say. don't really have any strong beliefs either way except that i abhor cruelty, you know? which is something i don't think can be totally eradicated from the world, though it can be fought against.


----------

