Welcome to Ambiarchy, a blog by William Schnack (that’s me, a classical mutualist and pantheist). This blog used to becalled The Evolution of Consent, because my work focused, and still focuses, on voluntary and consensual human relationships, including the current though surpassable), limitations imposed on it, and what consent has to do with evolutionary processes and cosmology, among other things! Here you will learn about ambiarchy, which is the rhetorical synthesis of good government and anarchy (which you may recognize as the project of Proudhon’s federalism), along with topics of interest to classical mutualism and pantheism. These topics are wide-ranging, indeed, and include matters of cosmology and metaphysics, geology, biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, political philosophy, history, and religion.
Ambiarchy was formerly geo-mutualist panarchism, which synthesized mutualism, especially, with geoanarchism and panarchism. It maintains those same basic elements as before, but with more original thought and even wider syntheses. Already, geo-mutualist panarchism was not only a mouthful, but incomplete, because I had already added my own elements to the synthesis as well as combining insights from related philosophies, such as syndicalism and agorism, especially. Ambiarchy goes further than this, in combining elements also from Lange-model market socialism, welfare economics (especially Pigou and Kaldor-Hicks), synarchism, and agonism. Elements from these are all worked into an ultimately mutualist framework. These, along with my own insights, have established something that stands on its own, though it still fits within the range allowed by classical anarchism and mutualism more specifically. Ambiarchy is a social volutionary approach to mutualist anarchism, and a form of crypto-mutualism that assimilates statist and supposed anti-statist views into itself. This is useful for combating the postmodern dissensus that has allowed anarchism to become equated with chaos and identarian witchhunts, even among some so-called “anarchists,” and which as a result pits reasonable people against anarchists (who end up being unreasonable people, in accepting chaos or egalitarian identarianism as a political ideal!).
Ambiarchy is laid upon the foundation of ambitheism, formerly dualist pantheism, which is explored in less detail, though is of fundamental importance. Ambitheism ultimately maintains the character of dualist pantheism, while affirming theistic and non-theistic interpretations from different angles within the Universe as valid expressions from that angle. Ambitheism may be considered to be a cryto-pantheism, as it assimilates theistic and atheistic views ultimately into a pantheist framework, similar to ambiarchy.
Ambiarchy and ambitheism are developments from historical mutualism and pantheism, as covered in paleomutualism. The historical background of pantheism and mutualism play a significant role in ambitheism and ambiarchy, and much of this historical background is explored on this site, as well as various sciences, philosophies, and even religious interpretations. Together, Ambiarchy and Ambitheism are my contemporary philosophies carrying on the traditions of mutualism and pantheism in my own way, with contemporary insights added, and they compose a comprehensive worldview that could find some application in the real world.
Some of the important background topics that I write about include matters relating to the theory of time, oscillating or cyclic cosmology, expanding-and-contracting Earth geology, convergent volution and henogenesis, history of human and societal development, physical economics, and so on. Ultimately, mutualism and pantheism come from out of tendencies balancing insights during the Renaissance and Radical Reformation, Radical Enlightenment, and early modernism associated with Common Sense Realism and rationalism, and paleo-mutualism. These have tended to be thematically preternatural, mundane, convivial, moderately radical, and retroprogressive, finding in Nature, by way of Reason, the perennial answers relating to her permanent change.
Unfortunately, you may find some views in some of my works that are outdated for me. For instance, I know of at least one instance—*cringe*— where I suggested that “trans” individuals should be called what they want to. This wasn’t something I supported as law, of course, but supporting lies, for any reason, is culturally toxic, so it is something I am ashamed for having ever agreed with. I was being moved externally by sensibilities at the time—“anarchists” were almost unanimous about it—, and my conscience has since corrected it. You may also find general support of postmodernism, mainstream “science,” and other garbage that I no longer support. Further, you might find some positive remarks of certain dark figures or affirmation of their being mutualists, most particularly Shawn Wilbur and the Center for a Stateless Society. As with transgenderism, I was under the influence of postmodern sensibilities and was not being critical enough in my examination when this was expressed. I have since learned that certain individuals tend to express sentiments that do not match their actual beliefs, with various wicked motives for doing so. I believe strongly that Shawn Wilbur is one of these individuals and that there are leading elements within the Center for a Stateless society that are similarly vile. This is not necessarily to detract from the merits of the legitimate work on mutualism and market anarchism of particular authors affiliated with Center for a Stateless Society, but it does call into question their allegiances to egalitarian identarianism and forced cominations, and whether their legitimate writings are the stuff of a Trojan Horse. I hereby rebuke the motives and intentions of Shawn Wilbur and the Center for a Stateless Society, and of all neo-mutualists of any type, and affirm that there are only two sexes, the biological male and female, that transgenderism is a vile and absurd sophistry, that scientists are the new priesthood, and also that all forced combinations, whatever their justification, are vaccuous and bitter enemies of freedom.
For whatever flaws I have had in the past, and probably have at current, I would like the reader to be mindful of something: Beyond simple grade school, I am fully self-educated. There are a few reasons I want you to keep this in mind, and it has nothing to do with my cultural blunders early in life. Firstly, because you need to be aware of my Notice and Disclaimer, posted in the widget to the right of the page. Secondly, with those in mind, I would like for you to consider whether or not you think I am an educated man, worthy of respect and consideration. I have chosen not to pursue state-sanctioned education for a number of reasons, among them that I wanted to be an example of a strongly self-educated and self-directing individual, so as to be an example of a model mutualist, however far I may succeed. I could not do this as a formally-educated man under the present conditions, wherein degrees bestow one a monopolistic status. This would be an inauthentic and ingenuine career path for me, and does not suit my prefigurative value, which demand that the means be the ends in development, being also repulsive to my conscience.
If you think that I have succeeded in my endeavor to become highly self-educated, please consider whether you think that individuals such as myself should be given more credit. Currently, I am censored, blacklisted, shadowbanned, deplatformed, cancelled, and etc. Further, I face constant barriers to entry due to the culture of credentialism. But my cultural concerns are earnest and valid, and my not having been formally educated is what has allowed for the cross-disciplinary richness of my works, which you do not find in the academic sphere where knowledge is compartmentalized and so-called “experts”– specialists with legal privileges– are expected to stay in their own lanes. Here, you find a working synthesis of the full scope and span of my knowledge as arranged rationally by my conscience and according to common sense. But, beyond that, you see what a self-educated individual is– and by extension, what people are– capable of with the right emphases in life and without artificial restrictions imposed on their learning by external authority. With the appropriate approach, my level of education could be achieved by a wide range of the population. Would that be a good or a bad thing? Please consider this as you read my blog.
If you have any questions or would like to talk, visit the forum! I’d be happy to answer questions, to chat, or even to make new friends.
