Mutualism and the Illuminati
Both pantheism and mutualism– the most influential of views upon Ambiarchy– can be traced to the views of the Illuminati. No, not the Bavarian Illuminati of Adam Weishaupt, but to the Amalricians– who called themselves Illuminati long before Weishaupt–, and by extension the Gnostics and Greek philosophers, from whom the Amalricians take after. I discovered this by tracing predecessors of the most paramount of philosophers, Baruch Spinoza, the pantheist and democrat, and Proudhon, the mutualist and anarchist.
Pantheism
Spinoza was a pantheist who had been excommunicated from the Jewish faith. He had been influenced by Giordano Bruno, a Hermetic pantheist from decades earlier, who had been burned at the stake for heresy.
Giordano Bruno has no provable direct connection to prior pantheists that I have discovered. This may attest for the notion within perennial philosophy that the truth bubbles up in many places, or, alternately, it may be an indication that history simply does not leave evidence of every occurrence (and that Bruno indeed did receive influence from someone prior, but we just don’t know). Regardless, there were certainly pantheists before the time of Bruno– such as David of Dinant, a pantheist and follower of Amalric of Bena, another pantheist–, who shared influences with Bruno.
The work of Amalric of Bena is particularly important, because of the lay religious movements he inspired in France and throughout Europe. In particular, this included the Amalricians and the wider Brethren of the Free Sprit. Associated with the Free Spirit movement included the Beguines– feminist, pantheist Christian mystics– and Beghards, their male counterparts, often associated with the more humble craft guilds, such as the weavers. These movements were proto-socialist, if not outright communist at times. Later groups related to or inspired by the Free Spirit include the Ranters and the Diggers, or True Levellers. Peasant opinions were often influenced by groups of this sort.
Amalric, still not the first pantheist, had been preceded by John Scotus Eriugena. Eriugena’s nickname Scotus, or “the Scot,” refers to his Irish background. The Irish were referred to as “Scotti” by the Romans. This gives us the present moniker of Scottish. There is some indication that the Scottish have a Scythian background, which may help to explain John Eriugena’s inclination to Greek outlooks.
Of course, before Eriugena, we have notions of pantheism and illuminstion in Gnosticism and in older Greek philosophies, including some renditions of neo-Platonism and Aristotleanism, Stoicism, the Eleatics, and others. Plato, Aristotle, and/or Gnosticism seem to have been influential to all of the early pantheists, and may account for the similarities where there are no direct connections between them.
Mutualism
Interestingly enough, Pierre Proudhon had become a mutualist after exposure to the mutual societies that evolved also from the influence of groups such as the Brethren of the Free Spirit and the Beghards. In particular, Pierre Charnier, a weaver and reactionary royalist from Lyon, seems to have heavily participated in the founding of mutualism, which was highly meritocratic. Sects of persecuted Beghards, who had previously formed mutual aid associations, still survived at this time.
Following Charnier in his mutualism, Phillipe Buonarroti seems to have developed a mutualist plan to develop from a monarchy to liberalism, then to radicalism, and finally to communism. This is very similar in some respects to the idea promoted by Illuminati extraordinaire, Adam Weishaupt.
Pierre Proudhon would later adopt the views of the mutualists, and give them an anarchist bent. Bakunin would continue on Proudhon’s anarchism with a new economic proposal. Both had been Freemasons, and Bakunin had been charged with conspiracy in secret societies. This is no surprise, for after all, Pierre Charnier had intended to create a Freemasonry for workers, to stand opposed to bourgeois Freemasonry and their revolutions. Freemasonry had survived persecution of the bourgeois guilds, and itself is associated with the craft guilds (similar to the more lowly beghards) and the Knights Templar, as well as with neo-Platonic philosophy, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, and the Perennial Philosophy more widely. In short, pantheism.
It turns out, the world is composed of competing elites from different classes, who all draw from the same essential truth. The struggle of powers is between gnostics of different sorts: the bourgeois gnostics overthrew the noble gnostics, and now the peasant and worker gnostics are trying to do the same. But gnosticism– illuminism– is an underlying theme to great achievement in every step.
Buonarroti’s Plan
I have not been able to find Phillipe Buonarroti’s original proposal or revolutionary strategy, but I am quite intrigued by its description, which mirrors some of my own thoughts when regarding the need for stages of development. It’s understood in biology that different stages are passed through, and that this demonstrates itself not only between organisms, but also in the stages of the individual organism. For instance, the human fetus goes through stages of something like a tadpole, to a reptile-like creature with a tail, and so on. Many commonalities are found in stages of mammalian fetal development. It’s not strange to think that a metaphysician might consider that societies, too, must go through their primitive phases before advancing in their unique qualities.
It seems necessary, as both Charnier and Buonarroti supposed, to begin with a monarchy or, more appropriately, a trusteeship of a founding individual. Great democracies– Athens and the Mondragon Cooperative for instances– have often demanded an individual founder who relinquished power or guided things along voluntarily.
The reason that founders are so crucial is that gnosis cannot be given to someone like a material object can; it comes from within. One has to be receptive to information to be compelled by it. One has to seek the kind of truth one finds for it to do any good. That said, the artifacts of gnosis can be handed down and studied by those who know what to look for, and this is the importance of a founder. If a person is not already searching for the knowledge you share with them, their first response will be defensive. Those who know, however– with gnosis–, always tend to find one another and affiliate. They reach down to the Source and reflect it in their own way. And they are receptive to the artifacts of others’ illumination.
People demand a posteriori material proof, but the project of mutualism firstly depends on faith in and love of freedom and equality, which are immaterial. Similar faith and love has necessarily resulted in conspiratorial or esoteric leadership on behalf of socialism throughout history, such as that of Babeuf, Buonarroti, Blanqui, Bakunin, or the FAI of the CNT-FAI. The blind must still be led, and the ignorance of the masses leads to leadership groups or esoteric inner-circles with secret memberships. Anarchists and the socialist mutual societies have always seemed to mirror the structures of the guilds and mystery schools, from which it is apparent their inspiration comes.
Fanarchy and the Philosopher Kings
I once thought that anarchist circles were different, but I have come to find that anarchist circles simply reflect the larger society. There are a few rare legitimate anarchists, and a plethora of fanarchists behind them, who talk but don’t act. Even more strange is the fact that being assertive is unwelcome in anarchist circles. If anything isn’t welcome in anarchist circles, it is being assertive. Being assertive among a group that has no idea what it really wants looks too much like authority to the anarchist. That is, unless you are state-accredited, like Noam Chomsky or David Graeber. Then you get fanarchists of your assertions. Meanwhile real, working class anarchists are unable to build association because of factionalism over the talking heads, and fear of the assertive. There is need for a founding trusteeship.
It appears that only individuals inclined to the self-annihilating and sacrificial love spoken of by the Beguine, Marguerite Porete, could ever jumpstart something like anarchy or mutualism to being. This is because, for most, to dedicate fully to mutualism is to be hated or ignored by the larger society, for the benefit of their freedom. One gives oneself up entirely from the mainstream in pursuing such an end. This is Christ-like, mystical. But it is practical between those who can hang, as rare as they are, and leads to material benefits for them. Unfortunately, this places a lot of importance on the self-sacrifice and demonstrations of a small number of founders and early participants.
Mutualism can work with people who want it enough. It’s unfortunate nobody does. Those who do would do best to associate and rule the rest (statists, fanarchists, etc.), rather than be ruled by those less capable. I think mutualists must admit this at some point, and stop standing down on their natural place on the throne of man, which was very clear to Pierre Charnier. Plato suggested that the most suited to rule would be the Philosopher King, a philosopher who actually wished not to rule. Today’s mutualists– those who are genuine and informed– seem to be Philosopher Kings in waiting; waiting for paleo-mutualism, or Ambiarchy. The world suffers from waiting. It is waiting for illumination, but the real illuminati– mutualists– refuse to shine. They don’t even know their origins, and refuse to provide leadership where it is desperately needed. They are the self-limiting elites, who currently confuse elitism for classism. The whole world suffers from their refusal of the call, and is waiting for a crossing of the threshold into the Hero’s Journey, and atonement with the father.
