> our struggle is for everyone who can't just pack up walk away on their own. it was NEVER about abandoning people. walking away from the spiritual poisons and the culture that has put us in this place. we do not abandon the weak, you fucking pussy. > if you can live inna woods, you can live anywhere. walk. away.
we aspire to assemble a tesselation of fractal organizations that are capable of collaborating and operating independently as needed. we wish to avoid further subjugation to Ideas, Capital, and the Powers that Be. advanced technology is useful, but also binds us to the capital that it takes to produce it. we seek autonomy through knowledge, not a devotion to a particular practice.
i don't want to play your video game (i want to walk away)
nature is abundant, but within the context of modern industrial society there is very little nature left to work with. in a word, we are walking away from the dominator culture that birthed us to create something new. we are attempting something different because cyberpunk happened anyway, despite the struggle against it. we have hope still that our future is not one dominated by mega-corporations and oppressive socioeconomic conditions, but we do not believe that hope lies in default. if we are successful, we hope to invite our friends and family to join us. we hope to heal ravaged cityscapes and transform them into beautiful, productive, green spaces. we hope to inspire others to do the same.
we are willing to assist our comrades in their struggles as much as we are able, however, to put it plainly, we have little-to-no confidence in conventional leftist strategies to resist neoliberal capitalism. sometimes the correct tactical move is to step away and regroup. we walk away in order to find new ways to exist harmoniously with nature, to develop an alternative lifestyle which is deeply connected to the local ecology. more generally we wish to oppose the idea that "conventional tactics" are good things to have. we must integrate adaptive strategic thinking into leftist praxis.
envison an economic system based on cooperation and pluralism, not co-dependence
we also believe it is important to embrace pluralism. there are a lot of different ways to tackle the looming challenges before us. we must learn from nature to become robust, diverse, and cooperative. there isn't a single trick to fixing the world, we desperately need to figure out how to mesh a variety of approaches into a holistic alternative. we need to cultivate friendships and communities. we shouldn't stand in anyone's way. again, we wish to break away from the leftist tradition of constantly bickering over everything and try to do some good in the world.
we take special care to document our work. walkaway technology is entirely in the public domain, there are no strings attached. if you have a different idea of what walkaway should mean, please pursue it! settling on a single definition and agreeing on a standardized plan of action is not part of our ethos. we wish to inject massive amounts of chaotic goodness into this world. perhaps this is unsettling, you're welcome to agree or not, but i ask that you please don't try to stop what we are doing. it wouldn't make a difference anyway, the wheel is already turning..
Appendix I: eco-village and the dark forest
our use of chaotic licence is primarily an acceptance that rule of law isn’t a dependable way to control the application of informatics technology. there is no reason why we have to share everything we know with every person on earth, regardless of their goals. intentions matter. we stand defiant in the face of subjugation and authority to heal the world. use of intellectual property seems to represent an acceptance of statist authority in the matter. in practice, it seems to matter a lot who you share information with rather than how it is licensed. perhaps doing everything on a megaphone is unwise, who knows?
> by creating a viable prototype for opting out the default scarcity economy and documenting our work, we can inspire people to take what we've learned and run with it. we can share knowledge and build better, cheaper, and more reusable tech! the overall problem is absurdly complex, but if we can find a way to have a swarm of autonomous communities tackling different aspects of it in parallel, we have a much better chance of finding workable solutions. > the goals of the walkaway handbook are stated quite plainly. we believe that knowledge is power. in order to share the knowledge that can give people the tools to engineer their own liberation, we plan to construct a prototype eco-village to explore the practical issues of depending on DIY micro-infrastructure.
it has become apparent that tying a flagship project to this manifesto is problematic. folks are simply too willing to let someone lead them to a bright and secure future. remember that the concept is not abandoned, but the actual work will be done differently to avoid this unfortunate human tendency. we wish to avoid para-social relationships which are all too easy to create in the cyberspace that many of us inhabit and make this tag-along problem much worse. it isn't enough to follow. we must be intrepid leaders and visionaries.
Appendix II: Inverting Dynamics
Do not worry about territory
When has there been a free territory, such that a state did not wish to have it annexed? You cannot carve a place out for yourself, such that another entity will not desire it. You cannot exist, such that no one shall want power over you. In order to resist such hostile takeover, one must either be crafty (hiding one's existence, for instance) or powerful. Yet power does not come from nowhere. Power is of great import to empires, and they pour more resources into it than any sane society, trying to achieve other things, would. So it is that even if one wishes to contend via power, one must still be crafty. Under some scenarios, it may be possible to resist these hostile lands, but it is a matter of opportunism. To make the creation of a free territory - wherever one is - a main goal, is to foolishly surrender to whatever power comes first. Over time, intellectual pursuits (which under anarchism have been shown to progress more quickly) may become an alternative provider of sheer power. However, until that happens, we cannot presume that it shall - it remains in the field of opportunism. And so, you should not worry about territory, and focus instead on maintaining the life you desire, wherever you are, and under whatever circumstances, to the degree that is possible.
Know the enemy's desires in conflict, and know your strenths
Because of the overwhelming focus on power and force, your enemies prefer straightforward battlefields, simple messaging, and so on. They are typically extremely prone to confusion, harassment tactics and other methods of misdirection. Because it is difficult to put as many resources as an empire into force whilst not being a state, plainly overpowering them is not an option. Instead, they should be confused, harassed, tricked and broken. Their supply lines should be cut amid the treacherous terrain. They should never know from where strikes are incoming. Any information they find should have been planted. No knowledge they have should be accurate, nor predictable in its inaccuracy. There are better and more in-depth works upon informational warfare that one should consult.
Know to hide and to integrate
If a free territory is impractical (and it often is), then we must know how to maximally make livable other societies. Societies do not tolerate people trying to live upon their own rules, even if such a community is insular - they demand adherence. Consequently, even the existence of any systems you create must be unofficial, hidden, or disguised.
Systems based upon power dynamics have predictable characteristics. When they are unstable (to any degree), they work to increase stability. When they are stable, they work to solidify their dominance. The latter is much worse for you than the former, and so it is advantageous to keep these systems unstable (within reason).
Know who your friends are
Those who are dear to you are your friends, and should have your upmost priority, after all others. However, you do not know who may end up being your friend, so your default attitude towards others shoul be similarly friendly. This is not the same thing as being a friend. On the other hand, if you identify someone as inherently incompatible (which may be for a variety of reasons), they need not be part of your concerns. Similarly, remember that your allies are not your friends - they are your allies. Allies are temporary, and based upon opportunism.
To keep track of who is a friend and who is not, you may establish a lodge. In this context, a lodge need not be a place, or even extant outside of your mind (though there are advantages to having them be somewhat defined, to be spoken of later). Those within your lodge are your friends. Those within other lodges yours is friendly with are good allies, likely with similar social goals (in this context, we speak of lodges based upon this document, and not those of other ideologies). Those outside other lodges are outsiders, and not to be trusted by default (which does not mean they are to be mistreated, necessarily). Note that due to what the lodges are, they must necessarily be invite-only. Anyone trying to join a given lodge therefore must necessarily be a bad actor, and is to be distrusted.
Keep the lodges secret
Since societies are not tolerant of non-adherence to their ideals, the lodges must be kept secret. In a currently friendly society, their existence may be public. In any other, even that must be hidden. Communication channels must be limited and secure, readily broken on the first sign of trouble (to two degrees of adjacency). Without explicit lodges, communication is limited to word of mouth, and past the second degree of proximity, organization is impossible. With explicit lodges, by way of multiple membership, communication may be expanded, and organization within an entire society becomes feasible.
Spread the ideas
With explicit lodges, there is always the risk of the whole network becoming compromised, even with the breakage of communication, and a lack of physical locations. However, even were this to happen, it is not the end. There will never be a lack of people that are willing to listen and understand. The limiting factor, therefore, is outreach and explanation. So long as outreach is done, appropriately, even a full network compromise will not result in extermination of the idea. Furthermore, non-members that notice an extermination of the network will remember it, as we remember Catalonia and Makhnovia.
Lead by example
The things a society will say of anarchy are born from two places. The first is slander, they will say that which they think the people will believe, such that it will damage perception. The easiest way to break this is to be kind and helpful to those who are yet undecided. Those who are decided have chosen to oppose you at all turns (which does not necessarily mean that you should hurt them, merely that it is unlikely tha they will ever be a friend, and therefore not at the top of your list of considerations), and will not change their minds, lest they are themselves willing to do so already, and are thus undecided. Those that are undecided, meanwhile, will recognize what you do, and will thus recognize the slander as being such. Therefore, you should be kind to people you have not identified as enemies. Offer them help, no strings attached. Do not hide who you are, unless it is required for safety.
Embody their nightmares
The other category of things that a society will share of anarchy is the realization of their fears. To a central, statist society, the very thought of anarchy and anarchists is terrifying. The lack of control, the lack of rock-solid footing. And so it is that their feverish nightmares obsess them whenever they think of the subject. They decry their fears as to make them lesser in sharing. In this process, however, they reveal what they are to you. Take advantage of this knowledge.
Be maximally self-sufficient
Since destabilizing (within reason) a society is a prerequisite to keeping it from becoming all-controlling, there is always the risk of destabilizing it too far, effectively crippling existing channels for necessary resources for life, without gaining the access required to create them on your own. Consequently, and endeavor that leads to the ability to produce these necessities on your own, even within a hostile society, even in secret, is of great import. Know to grow food, especially mushrooms and potatoes. Know to make your own pharmaceuticals, by hand if needed. Know to make your own arms. You would not need this knowledge under ideal circumstances, but it will necessarily come in handy. Furthermore, if you ever do get to the point where freeing a territory becomes feasible, widespread availability of this knowledge within members will be an enormous advantage.
Oppose pure ideology
Ideology neither feeds nor arms. While it provides the ability to organize in a coherent way, it should never take priority. Your priorities should be the well-being on your friends first, practical matters second, and ideology third. Questions of ideological purity, when the results have little negative effects, are merely psychological bait, created to keep one in inaction.
While other, statist sects will stab you when the time comes (Makhnovia remains unforgotten), keep in mind. If you are closer to them than you are to the current state of society, then they remain your allies, until they are close to victory. If they are not, but also not fundamentally incompatible, then they remain your allies, so long as the actions help bring about instability (moreso than their victory). Do help your allies in earnest, simply keeping in mind. They must not have information that would allow them to take you over, were they to win. If they are closer to you than the current society, helping them win is acceptable. Even if they are not, helping them destabilize the current system is acceptable, so long as it does not result in their victory.