⊹˚.࿐ ࿔ Avi ‧₊˚༉❀

﹒＋ Guten tag, buen dia, and good day! My name is Avi and I am a veritably autistic 15-year-old with a particular proclivity for philosophy and political theory. I am agender, using any/all pronouns, but I am biologically male--an important distinction within my political ideology; I am a Venezuelan Sephardic Jew (ethnically, not religiously) and can speak English (native), Spanish (native), and German (learner). ⋆°.

﹒＋ My political beliefs are dominated by Marxism first and foremost, but to list most of them: communism, xenofeminism/Marxist-feminism, leftism, dialectical materialism, anti-imperialism/colonialism, anti-zionism, anti-westernism, and critical theory. ⋆°.

﹒＋ On this blog I primarily post political or philosophical takes of mine, usually in the form of mini-essays or polemical rants, along with reblogs of politically motivated or miscellaneous content that I agree with. I am always open for debate on either politics or philosophy, and if you'd like to engage in one then send me an ask or dm prompting such! ⋆°.

•.¸¸.•´¨`•.¸¸.•´¨`•.¸¸.•´¨`•.¸¸.••´¨`•.¸¸.••.¸¸.•´¨`•.¸¸.•´¨`•.¸¸.•

I am agender because the conceived and societally concerted dogmas entailing what constitutes the essence of a male is strenuously distorted under the configuration of patriarchal norms. Society has imposed a rigorous and tantalizingly unachievable standard of what it is to exemplify the individual category of a characteristically superlative male onto me from my nascent years, and it has led to a grueling, convoluted complex of ambiguity that has left me rather perplexed and skeptical.

I have never found solace in conforming to the conventions of other males, for their blind adherence to this aforementioned construct profoundly unsettled me--it was striking to gander hordes of prospective patriarchs conglomerated into masses of analogous figures indistinguishable from one another, united under the apparatus of society's model of masculinity. Witnessing how the gender binary has stripped these victims of monolithic hierarchies oriented around structural misogyny of their intrinsic individuality provoked, and very much still does, a sense of disquiet; this is, consequently, also one of the foundations for my abolitionist perspective on gender.

It is the institution of gender, that patriarchal technology weaponized and pervaded throughout the very depths of society's corridors, that establishes and furthers the intensification of division between the sexes; molding females and males into intricate boxes delineated with binary-specific terminology such as "man" and "woman," "feminine" and "masculine," is a modality of expressing and popularizing a kind of systemic compartmentalization, one that has historically and contemporarily left behind surfeits of atrocities on behalf of the male class. One is socialized relative to these assigned constructs, and thenceforth a trajectory for you in society is outlined and consolidated by the reinforcement of this arbitrary distinction.

In an era of unprecedented material abundance paired with profound social fragmentation, polyamory--the practice of maintaining multiple consensual romantic or sexual relationships--emerges not as a kind of bold liberation but as a telling symptom of capitalist decadence. Late-stage capitalism, characterized by hyper-individualism, the commodification of all human relations, and the erosion of binding institutions, dissolves traditional monogamous norms in favor of fluid, market-like arrangements in intimacy; what presents itself as progressive self-actualization reflects deeper cultural degradation from the interior base. Capitalism prioritizes and excels at enabling and maximizing individual desire while undermining the preconditions for stable commitment--traditional monogamous relationships, with their emphasis on exclusivity, fidelity, and long-term investment, served as a foundation of fundamental social order at their core, such that they channeled sexual and reproductive energies into stable relations, fostered intergenerational transmission of belongings, and provided emotional solidarity amid economic volatility. Under advanced capitalism, however, economic pressures prioritize flexibility; dual-income households, geographic mobility for jobs, and the gig economy atomize individuals. With rising affluence (especially among educated urban classes), people gain the luxury to treat relationships like portfolio assets--diversifying emotional and sexual investments to hedge against dissatisfaction, much as one spreads financial risk.

This mirrors consumerism; just as capitalism requires perpetual novelty in goods to sustain growth--new commodities, experiences, identities--it extends this logic to partners. "Ethical non-monogamy" demands constant negotiation, mediums for scheduling interactions, and therapeutic, popularizing jargon around jealousy and satiety--it essentially transforms love from a vow of mutual sacrifice into an optimization problem, maximizing personal fulfillment with minimal long-term constraint. As it were, polyamory predominantly tends to appeal disproportionately to highly educated, higher-income demographics with the time and resources for such intricate complexity.

For the broader population, declining marriage rates and delayed childbearing create fertile ground for non-exclusive arrangements, as longer child-free adult spans reduce the practical need for stable pairing.

Decadence here reveals itself in the prioritization of immediate gratification over civilizational continuity. Anthropological records indicate strictly monogamous or polygynous structures dominated stable societies; fluid modern polyamory, conversely, correlates with relationship convolution and complexification, elevated covetousness management burdens, and challenges in child-rearing stability--outcomes ill-suited to the low-fertility, high-precarity environment capitalism already cultivates in its present manifestations.

Where pre-modern non-monogamy often served kin groups or resource needs, contemporary polyamory serves the autonomous self in a kind of marketplace. It aligns with neoliberal subjectivity, with the self as perpetual project, intimacy as self-expression rather than duty. This freedom thus often replicates market inequalities--high-status individuals accruing more partners--while demanding ever-greater emotional labor to sustain.

Never take antidepressants or seek psychiatric treatment if you are not rife with an actual neurological condition that inhibits daily functioning, as the detriments of taking them gradually begin to outweigh their perceptual benefits once you consume them for a long enough period of time. They're simply a modality of acquiring profit; falling into the trap of medicalization is a trajectory that only befalls you when you exist within a social structure that promotes discontentment and remedies such with treatment rather than cures; I fervently despise the psychiatric industry and the field of psychology in all of its manifestations regardless of the country in which it is exercised, but especially in the global north/free market nations.

A theorist whose name I have forgotten proposed that capitalism intentionally disables the population so as to prop up the medical field's monopolistic tendencies and uphold the generation of profit. The market needs a dependent stock to suckle off of as a means of maximizing the accumulation of capital.

The compartmentalization of the material world and the divinity of the pleroma, by virtue of the ontologically sacrilegious substance of the former in its initial conceptualization and subsequent substantial impositions on the synthesis of sacred modality, is functionally integrable into the framework of dialectical materialism.

The principle that tangible conditions are what drive the progression of all existent occurrences does not inherently contradict the dualism which Gnosticism encompasses, since such acknowledges the fallibility of the physical domain in accordance to the aforementioned deviance from sanctity which characterizes its essence;

Marxism postulates that the present material arrangement (capitalism) is an intrinsic indignity which entails alienation by the way of the unscrupulous organization that its descending societal structures engender. Through omitting the confines of matter and ushering consciousness toward a consecution of entrance into a state of divine equilibrium, in the attainment of gnosis, a figurative utopia thus would be able to viably come to fruition, as the foregoing effectuation would ameliorate the perpetually unstable dynamics which people have been mired in-within anachronistic and contemporary contexts-by perpetuating unwavering rectitude, allowing for unequivocal unionization among them.

Left accelerationism is the consequent stream of ideas which interprets this momentum not as inevitable ruin but as an opportunity for this period of destruction and eventual rebirth to be used to achieve the generation of an ideal post-capitalist, egalitarian society from among a populace ridden with an abolition of societal conditioning from the previous capitalistic consecution in which it was embedded, being thus liberated.