Welcome to William Schnack's Ambiarchy site, a collection of my philosophical articles about and supporting a new theoretical approach toward society that I envision. This blog used to be called The Evolution of Consent, because my work focused, and still focuses, on voluntary and consensual human relationships, limitations imposed on them, 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. Some of the important background or peripheral 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.
What is Ambiarchy?
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" (my alternative to evolution) 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. 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.
A Lay, Folk Philosopher?
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. Firstly, because you need to be aware of my Notice and Disclaimer, posted in the widget to the left 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 values, which demand that the means be the ends in development, being also repulsive to my conscience.
As a lay philosopher I am caught between a rock and a hard place. Academics have a tendency to downplay the importance of my work due to my lacking a title of nobility (accredited degree). Meanwhile, my peers in the laity have a tendency to prefer to meet at the lowest common denominator, their own lack of wisdom, and so also to disregard my wisdom. They treat my efforts as if they are those of the academy, an attempt to get one up on them classwise and establish a hierarchy between us. But the purpose of my works is not to become anyone's leader, but to put an end to hierarchy through widespread knowledge. By learning what I have to share, fully and deeply, and by contributing your own thought to it, you become my equal, capable of deliberation and associative relations. And that is the purpose of my work, to have a leveling effect.
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.
Conscientious or Just Controversial?
Since having started to promote mutualism to others in writing, oration, and action, I have come to find myself a focus of some controversy, which has led to censorship beyond credentialism. This has resulted from my conscientious expression, conscientiousness always coming up against sensibilities, since conscience is unpopular and sensibility is popular. History is moved by conscience, and is maintained, but sometimes also slowed, by sensibilities.
My conscientious objection began when I noticed that my criticisms of usury-- criticisms which are fundamental to mutualist philosophy-- would be readily equated to anti-Semitism. I found this odd, since it seemed to equate Jews biologically to usury, something I reject to this day. But it did get me curious about the connections and started to wake me up to the fact that morally sound and ethically cogent views that progress society forward will be chastized if they are seen to come up against the interests of Jews. I saw what was spouted everywhere about Proudhon, that “terrible anti-Semite!” That merely drew my curiosity further: Proudhon is one of my favorites. Being equally enamored by Baruch Spinoza, the Jewish heretic and pantheist, who was also critical of Jewish power, I was destined from both angles, Gentile mutualism and ex-Jewish pantheism, to take the Jewish Question seriously.
Another inspiration for my drift toward culturally controversial issues was my rejection of compulsory speech, particularly with regard to “transgender” individuals. I originally held that it was okay for individuals to self-identify however they wanted, but that this did not impose an obligation upon others to identify them the same way. That is, that transgender claims could be made, but did not have to be accomodated by others. This position lost me a lot of “friends,” which ultimately served the positive role of-- what Herbert Spencer referred to as-- maintaing good social hygiene. I have since found that conscientious speech is an important filter: those who cannot tolerate it are not worth having relationships with.
Further inspiration was drawn from the pushback I would receive in trying to establish nonpartisan and cross-ideological dialogue. This was seen as especially problematic when I started to engage with pan-secessionist philosophy, which I found to be of pragmatic interest. Being a pantheist, I tend to have a humanistic perspective whereby all human achievements are of interest to me and are seen to be driven by some good, however misunderstood or even mistaken. As such, I have been published or given a platform by libertarians, Marxists, and national anarchists, alike. Strangely, it has been the so-called libertarians who have been strongest in censoring me for my comparative approach to philosophy.
While I am today, and primarily as a result of censorship, anti-Semitism (the ideology that Jews are a superior race or must be enmeshed with) and a civic Anglo-Saxonist, I am not anti-Semitic (opposed to Semites), or a white supremacist in any legalistic sense. I believe that Ashkenzai Jews, at least-- who are predominantly white--, are a derivative of the larger Goth/Jat complex, which has had considerable mixing with all of the peoples of Europe, and that races evolve through such hybridizations, such that Jews cannot be considered racially distinct, only ethnically distinct, from others of the "white race" or "white races" (Indo-Eurafricanoids, as I call them collectively, or Caucasoids as commonly identified). As such, my criticisms of Jews, which have developed since being censored in their name, are cultural and economic criticisms rather than racial criticisms. While I acknowledge hermaphroditism or intersex individuals, I do not affirm transgender. To do so would be “calling a deer a horse,” as Zhao Gao forced of his inferiors to prove their loyality. I believe that misidentifying one's gender is a felonious mala in se crime, indeed a crime against humanity (crimen contra humanitatem), much like usury, considering the havoc it has wreaked on society. I will not be calling a deer a "horse," at least not where I can avoid it. End of story. Those who would force me into philo-Semitism, transphilia, or ideological pillarization are doomed to fail. Free thought and truth-seeking are here to stay, as is my conscience.
Reach Out!
I am not trying too hard to popularize this site, and it is not designed to appeal to the multitude. If you like what you see here, bookmark it and revisit it often, because, also owing to censorship, you probably won't come across it again and it's the only place you'll get this powerful, new, theoretical worldview based in mutualism. 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. Oh, and because I'm going oldskool, consider this site to be under permanent construction and keep your security settings high. Okay? Righteous! Let's do some philosophizing!