Regular Ol' Me
I have a wide range of interests like anyone else does.
Aside from my work here, I am a homesteader, with a love for raising my own livestock in a silvopasture setting. As an antapodist vegetarian, I eat a majority-vegan diet, though, and make 100% vegan purchases (outside of livestock themselves), having had been fully vegan for over a decade but having since taken up raising my own egg-laying fowl and dairy animals for ecological purposes, and eating lacto-ovo sourced from my own livestock raised on my own smallhold as a result. I continue to boycott the commercial meat, egg, and dairy industry, believing veganism to be the appropriate choice where ecology does not demand otherwise, such as in urban environments. But I also have to slaughter animals sometimes (such as an overpresence of roosters who leave the hens' backs bare, or dying suffering sheep), in which case my dog eats any usable meat as an alternative to the factory-farmed dogfood I otherwise (shamefully) purchase for him.
As well as abstaing from general aggressions like murder, rape, burglarly, robbery, needlessly slaughtering animals, and other such wrongs, I have also long abstained from television and radio programs, fictional literature, and other forms of passive entertainment (which becomes more difficult with the enshittification of seach engines), as well as hard drugs and cigarettes, only rarely drinking small amounts on social or special occasions (and usually not even then, because it makes me tired and unproductive).
I have been a drummer in a few local hardcore punk rock bands. Fun times. I also organized a couple of unincorporated associations, including a local branch of the IWW, a local mutual aid collective, and a peer-taught school of philosophy and mysticism. For federal notes, I have worked regular wage jobs at a vegan restaurant, a Vietnamese sandwich shop, a consumer-owned health food co-op, and a producer-owned urban farming co-op, but I am close to becoming self-employed, a dream come true, my escape from wagedom.
I like to draw from time-to-time-- those rare occassions of inspiration--, so some of the art here is mine, too.
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.
In my capacity as a fully-independent and unaffiliated lay philosopher, and an anti-establishmentarian with a loathing for credentialism and expertise (but a love of specialization) and for all political authority, I am a free thinking mutualist and a truth-seeking pantheist. I am willing to hear all sides and seek balance between all legitimate worldviews.
As an intellectual generalist, my studies are very multidisciplinary and the topics I cover similarly cross disciplines. I write about topics involving cosmology, biology, history, and social philosophy with an emphasis on the emerging capacity for humans to engage with one another voluntarily, consensually, and reciprocally.
I anchor my social philosophy in natural philosophy, and, in particular, the metaphysics of dualist pantheism or the perennial philosophy of ambitheism, as informed by perennialism and perennial heresy. You'll find that I have quite a bit of wisdom regarding our place in Nature, and that this gives rich insight to my social aspirations.
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.
Mutualist
I consider my views to be non-political and Far Center, taking insight from the Far Left, the Far Right, and everything in between. That is, after all, the very nature of a truth-seeking free thinker!
My genuine personal preference is that of mutualism, an anarchist society in which everyone has maximal freedom and equality. I want virtuous habits, self-determination, full transparency, reciprocity, mutual aid, voluntaryism, consensus, and the end of vices, secrecy, exploitation, greed, oppression, and domination. I want everyone to own their own or an equal share in the home they live in, the job they work at, and to democratically control the policies of community institutions, and to be self-sufficient, self-managing, and self-governing in a confederal, anarchist republic.
Paleo- and Geo-Mutualist
The problem is, the means for this is full class consciousness and economic class war, but various statisms and Bobo identity politics have disrupted class consciousness, denying class reductionism and ridiculing it as manarcho-brocialism. Well, I'm a manarcho-brocialist, I guess! As such, I have developed a personal preference for retroprogressive, remodernist, culturally moderate approaches, from which I have developed the concept of paleo-mutualism, which focuses on establishing a worthwhile tradition upon the efforts of the founding thinkers of mutualism-- such as Josiah Warren, Pierre Charnier, Pierre Proudhon, Herbert Spencer, and Benjamin Tucker--, while acknowledging shortcomings from lessons forgotten from out of modernism, the Radical Enlightenment, the Radical Reformation, and etc.
While I believe the mutualists were on the right track overall, I hold that they were not conscientious enough against the rise of postmodernism. I consider the reasons for this to largely be connected to lost and lacking radical tradition, too much acceptance of mechanistic, materialist philosophy (entropism), Romantic sentiments, apathy or antipathy toward polygenism, and pessimistic atheism.
Paleomutualism encourages mutualists to instead look back to pantheist and deist thinkers from the Radical Enlightenment, such as Baruch Spinoza, Matthew Tindal, John Toland, and the Radical Reformation and Renaissance, such as Nicholas of Cusa, Amalric of Bena, and Giordano Bruno, for natural "religious" sentiments. But the idea is not regression, but retroprogression and remodernism! As such, I also encourage mutualists to check out and build upon my own, new, synthetic approach to oscillating cosmology and geology and reticulate evolution based upon the new science of syntropy! Loads of new terrain is now opened to explore, and many hypotheses upon these foundations await new visionaries! Further, newer tools can be gained from out of non-mutualist ideologies, such as from market socialism, welfare economics, ParEcon, and agonism, and can be adapted for purposes of retroprogressing and remodernizing paleo- or geo-mutualism. Retroprogression and remodernization isn't just getting back to solid foundations, but also building on them!
Ambiarch
Ambiarchy includes both my genuine aspirations for society-- geo-mutualist panarchism developing toward full mutualism-- and a realpolitik for getting there; both my philosophy and a counter-sophistry necessary to combat postmodernism. Full, classical mutualism-- in which I include paleomutualism and geo-mutualism-- is the goal. Geo-mutualist panarchism is the agonistic interface between mutualism and false ideologies (including neo-mutualism or "neo-Proudhonianism"). The arrangement overall is Ambiarchy.
Ambiarchy includes a strange anarchistic "affirmation" of statism and neo-anarchism appropriate for conquering both of them gracefully, by also leveraging natural laws against them. Mutualism is expected to come out on top in its social Darwinistic agon of geo-mutualist panarchism. Acknowledging the postmodern dilemma we face, I envision Ambiarchy as a functional honeytrap, wieldable by mutualists against false ideologies, "trapping" them relentlessly into a an agonistic game on a fair playing field of evolutionary competition. That's right. "How manipulative! Trap liars, used to a rigged system, into a fair competition, using only the forces of Nature!? How terrible!" Oh, but so fun it could be! And it is a good and the right thing to do, as it will increase theirs and everyone else's wellbeing and flourishing.
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.
Closing
My ideological opponents are statists and neo-anarchists of all varieties, but perhaps especially neo-mutualists, cultural Marxists, adhocrats, ochlocrats, kakistocrats, technocrats, Zionists, and synarchists (including planism, etc.). They're all liars (often psychopathic, sociopathic, narcissistic, factitious, or histrionic). I want them in my Ambiarchy too, of course! These are lying Tricksters. But I'm the Trickster of Tricksters! And Ambiarchy is the Trick of Tricks.
But I'm not the true designer, as the design is inherent in Nature. I'm only a Realist "political" artist. Nature favors true mutualism (not neo- aka pseudomutualism). Thus, true mutualists are Morning Stars! And mutualism, accomplished, is Joachim's Age of the Holy Ghost. There is no danger in the trap's being known, because it is unable to be abused for nefarious ends, but is the very stuff of societal progress. Let a million traps be set, to drive price to cost! It's a necessity and an inevitability. And it's the Light of the World!