Never really been a huge fan of Christmas. Something has always bugged me about it, but I've never been quite able to figure out what.

I've thought about all the reasons people - especially leftists - don't like Christmas. Like, the consumerism aspect can be annoying. But tbh I don't know anyone who actually is focused on spending money on people. I really only see people I know worry about gift-giving because they want to give something meaningful, myself included. It can be stressful and overall I kinda wish gift-giving wasn't a part of Christmas, but it doesn't really bother me. Stores obviously push you to buy stuff but really, when isn't that the case under capitalism?

There are other aspects of Christmas I really don't like - the music and how long the season drags out in particular. But those are admittedly just "me" things. There are a lot of people who like that part of Christmas, and I'm firmly in the "let people enjoy things" camp. So while these aspects might bug me personally, there is something else - something social - that feels off with Christmas.

But then a couple weeks ago, I was watching another "Christmas special" kids show that emphasized "Christmas is special time with the people we love" message, and I started thinking through something: I think what bothers me about Christmas is that it seems there is this massive social effort to resuscitate a sense of social belonging that capitalism itself has killed.

In order to survive, capitalism has completely and totally obliterated our social fabric and has turned us all into individualistic atoms. It had to do this. The social fabric is what allows us to experience not only common humanity, but common struggle. We are social creatures and we need some sort of social connection. But social connections are a threat to capitalism, so it must be destroyed. We need to be mobile workers who move away from the family and social connections we form. We spend all our time working so we can't form social bonds. The single family residence is considered the only way to live if you have the means. Unionizing or even just viewing our co-workers as group that should collectively act has been demolished.

So capitalism rips apart our social fabric in order to reproduce itself. But... we are social creatures. We all know something is missing. So to help assuage that angst, capitalism has "invented" modern Christmas. Modern Christmas involves telling people that for one day or one season, yes everything is totally fine. Having social connections is good. Of course, we are not actually given anything that helps improve our social connections. But our rulers deem that for a few weeks, we can have the vibes of a functioning social life, as a treat. They take the corpse of a healthy social fabric and prop it up and pretend it's alive, a la Weekend at Bernie's.

That's really the point of the Hallmark movies. That the point of the news highlighting feel-good stories about the holidays. Of every TV show having a "Christmas special" once a season that emphasizes that caring about others is what matters. I mean, of course those things are good. But it's an effort to create something artificial in place of something real.

Christmas is capitalism's social MacGuffin. We supposed to think about our loved ones this one time of year because it's Christmas and that's what Christmas is. But Christmas I think is just what's evolved into our release valve. Put all our energy in making one day matter so we don't think about the other 364 where we are alienated from each other. It's why every time we hear platitudes about "Christmas is a special time of the year" in the media, it rings hollow.

It seems highly regarded and well reviewed. Reading some synopses of it, seems like it would be something I’d be really interested in. However I’m also pretty allergic to philosophy, it usually goes over my head. But then again, a lot of reviewers say Mau keeps things very “practical”?

(Also, being respectful of my Danish comrades with the ø, which I have always liked anyway because I thought it looks cool).

I’m curious about the experience of reading Marx from our users for whom English is their second language. For me as a native English speaker… I love reading Marx but the language feels so arcane at times. I mean, he rarely uses words I don’t understand, but the context in which he uses them often eludes me. It’s almost like he uses to many words when a briefer sentence would be more effective, at least to a modern audience. It’s nowhere near the experience of say reading Shakespeare, which I can’t do without some sort of modern guide. But I feel like the language is challenging enough that it’s a barrier to some people.

So I’m curious if the experience is similar in other languages (especially curious about German).

I played DE for the first time a year ago. I played it pretty “straight” because I wanted to learn as much about the world of Revachol and it’s history as possible (I avoided most spoilers but I had some vague notions there was some sort of communist revolution in the past). So on my skills, I loaded up on Psyche and Intellect with a focus on Encyclopedia and Visual Calculus. I didn’t do a lot of drugs or drink, either.

So for my second play through, I’m looking for a different experience. I’m thinking about loading up on Physique and Motorics - Physique in particular. I’ve heard Shivers and Half Light can be fun. I kept Interfacing, Hand Eye Coordination, etc pretty low so I might want to try it with higher levels there.

But I wanted to ask you all and get your thoughts and suggestions.

Also, I’m torn if I should try the Moralist vision quest or go back to the Communist one. I didn’t have quite enough Communism points to get the “best” ending (didn’t internalize The Suicide of Kras Mazov) so I kinda want another shot. But the moralist one does seem kinda interesting and apparently you learn more about the Pale.

Anyway would love to hear your ideas.

Our beloved Large Adult Son went on the Age of Napoleon podcast and gave his thoughts about Marx’s The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, which I saw somewhere that Matt said it was his favorite book.

It’s a pretty great rundown of the book; I especially enjoyed the insight he had into Marx’s “sack of potatoes” comment.

Happy Eighteenth Brumaire, comrades!

While I’m generally skeptical of boycotts, BDS scares the shit out of Israel. Because I do believe if BDS becomes a global movement it really could change things. I’ll start with the list from bdsmovement.net and then add to the list as people list other companies to boycott in the comments:

Hewlett-Packard (computer hardware)

Siemens (tech conglomerate)

AXA (banking & insurance)

Puma (clothing)

Israeli fruits and vegetables (usually labeled)

SodaStream (idk that garbage home soda)

Ahava (cosmetics)

Sabra (hummus)

And you know who I also don’t condemn?

The IRA

The Viet Minh

John Brown

Haitian slaves who revolted

Native American fighters

Black Panthers

National Liberation Front (Algeria)

Nelson Mandela

The 26th of July Movement

Every one of them were called “terrorists” or something equivalent at some point. Now think about who’s on the opposite of this list. Apartied South Africa, slavers, settlers, Zionists, the US government… There is only one moral and just side to be on and it’s not even a discussion.

First 13 minutes is the introduction. From about 13:00 to 23:00 they cover the extensive bibliography, discussion follows after that. More about the economics of the USSR in the 1920s than just the NEP.

Trying to find evidence that the IOF has done bad things is anti-Semitic.

I think I’ve finally figured out her deal. You know how there are people who say “if you don’t support Israel, you are anti-Semitic”? It’s a terrible, bad-faith argument; and obviously just used as a cudgel to silence any legit criticism of Israel.

Fartlow actually takes it one step further. She thinks that it’s anti-Semitic to not support Zionism. If you think Palestinians have any right to live in Palestine, you’re anti-Semitic. I have never once seen her actually state what she think should happen to the Palestinian people. I have no doubt she would be fine if the IOF killed every Palestinian. She’s an absolute monster, but I do take a little comfort in the fact that appears to be absolutely miserable and lives in a hell of her own making - where she has a breakdown every time she hears about someone in the world chanting “free Palestine”.

If you grew up in the United States, it's likely that you have often heard Americans - when referring to conflict in Palestine - say something to the effect of:

"Well, Jews and Muslims have fighting over that land for thousands of years. They hate each other and there's no way we'll ever have peace there."

I think you all be surprised to learn that Americans are complete dumbasses when it comes to history, because this notion of Jews and Muslims struggling in eternal conflict over a piece of land is an absolute myth.

Up until the last hundred years or so, then stretching back to Roman Empire times, Jews and Muslims (and Christians) have lived together in Palestine. From the third or fourth century CE until the emergence of Islam, Jews and Christians both lived there (oftentimes it was Jewish people who converted to Christianity). After Islam emerges then you had three groups living there, in various proportions, with the Muslim proportion steadily getting larger over the centuries; and there really doesn’t seem to be intra-group conflict beyond a sort of baseline for humans.

Of course there was conflict and war. You had Turks and Crusaders and others fighting plenty of wars in the area. But it doesn't seem to me like there was any more amount of war in Palestine during that time than there was, say, in the Rhine Valley. And also, just because there are wars doesn't mean that there is conflict between groups of people. In general, it seems like for centuries, Jews, Muslims and Christians occupying the same space in relative peace seems to be the norm. Even up until before the Balfour declaration, there were a number of Jewish people living alongside Muslims in Palestine. But importantly, the Jewish people in Palestine didn't seek to dominate, but to either mind their own business quietly in their community, or even with a sort of shared Palestinian identity with their Muslim neighbors.

Co-existence has been the historical norm there, not conflict.

As best as I can tell, this whole notion of "they've been fighting forever" comes from one specific source: Evangelical Christians. It's because that group believes that roughly 4,000 years ago, the only humans alive were Noah and his family. Then in a few generations, Jacob and Esau fought over a birthright and then those two literally became the first ancestors of Jews and Muslims, respectively. There's some verse in there about "always struggling against each other" or something. These Evangelicals then go on to believe everything else in the Old Testament - despite the overwhelming historical evidence - is literally true. That the Jewish people were slaves in Egypt and then conquered Palestine (there's no evidence for Jews being slaves in Egypt and most historians believe the Jewish people emerged out of the larger Canaanite people, not as something separate from them). These Evangelicals can then excuse genocide if not encourage it since it’s inevitable anyway (and in that they side with Israel, because they’re all racist pieces of shit).

Once again, Evangelicals making the world worse for everyone.