It’s a broader term that is no less accurate. But it is also one more removed from political connotations since this is not just about using the term ‘Canaanite’ as it is also changing it from ‘Palestinian.’

Changing ‘Palestinian’ to ‘Canaanite’ in 2026 specifically means something more given the Israelite-Canaanite context.

It’s either malicious or stupid, and evidence is tending to the former for the group that sought the change and the latter for the museum.

Not disputing that, but even in that section of explanatory text it uses ‘Levantine peoples’.

Yes, it is a good thing. But the rat won’t drown itself, so it’s looking for any line to safety.

‘Levantine’ would have been a more accurate term. The ‘Canaanite’ term is specifically what’s used to differentiate from ‘Hebrews’ in zionism, both before and after Israel was created. Biblically Canaanites are Phoenecians, which are one of many Levantine tribes and city states of the Bronze and Biblical eras.

MTG represents the post-Epstein MAGA movement. All the fascist policy, none of the Epstein baggage. She is extremely valuable to the movement pivoting around the pedophilia.

Looks to me like that warehouse went up on its own.

The other Libertarian, Massie, ranks a bit higher, if only for Junkyard Wars.

If the concept is lost that wage earning to survive is not freedom, then yes this meme does not appear to communicate it well enough. The use of bread and baker would be an attempt to draw the connection, but then again it is also a meme using a picture of Felix the Cat.

The premise of Felix being read on theory is more an opening to engagement than a strict political art critique, imo.

I am consistently referring to ‘wages’ which is a word you’ve now categorically refused to use so far. If I am to avoid anything it is further perversing a discussion on whether Felix the Cat is out of his element here.

It is true that land is not obtained by labor, but it is still a limited resource needed for production, so if someone owns it, that someone will most of the time only agree other people use it in exchange for part of the final product.

in exchange for part of the final product.

If that final product is ‘money’ then I understand your logic and also why this comic exists. At the most minimalist interpretation that inherent rentierism is an example of an unnecessary extraction of the value of labor from those who produce it.

But again, this is about wages. You can’t slide between ‘wage earners’ and ‘owners’ any more than you can define ‘land’ and ‘landowners’ interchangeably.

If a farmer can’t buy the amount of grain he produces

That’s not the premise at all. This isn’t about the ability to extract a 1-1 ratio. It’s not about extraction at all. It is posing that the wage earner is not free despite the value they produce.

They’re producing products that increase that value. Grain into flour, flour into bread. Each phase of that labor is commodified around a wage which does not increase in value based on their produced value. Those wages earned are a portion of extracted value.

The wage earner that produced the machinery was not paid a wage based on the value of grain produced. It’s something different. And that difference is where the wage earner is not free.

To your credit you have posed scenarios where the farmers and laborers are also the owners of the operation, which is a big piece of this puzzle. But something of note:

Same goes for whoever owns the land

What is the productive labor that is ownership of land? What value has the landowner produced in the bread?

The point is the baker is not free when they must buy back the fruits of their labor with their wages.

Neither is the farmer, if you’re adding it in. The farmer that harvests the fields for the money to buy a sack of grain is not free. Nor is a miller working to buy a sack of flour.

Each produces more than they receive. The currency they recieve for their production is inadequate to enable their freedom.

So if a farmer didn’t need to buy their grain back, or a baker their baked bread, then perhaps the fruits of their labor would be more effectively shared, instead of commodified and so attached to currency. (This is the concept known as labor owning the means of production.)

You can argue about how currencies and commodification of labor is handled, but then we’re already on the right track, so to speak.

They’re not thinking that far ahead and likely give zero shits either way.

I bet they chose to tell this guy they support Russia just to make arresting this guy more abusive.

Working Families ran a poll on candidates and ‘placeholder’ won over Delgado and Hochul.

Mamdani isn’t taking a risk nor making a mistake here.

I mean they sort of did. The church never wavered from ‘approved list only’ but the vernacular question of teachings definitely lightened up. However, that also didn’t prevent or undo centuries of bloodshed and misery. It’s all very ‘proper channels for that’ to arrive at the same conclusions anyway.

Why didn’t Mamdani attach himself to a sinking ship? The people want to know!

The basis of the issue had much to do with vernacular translations themselves. The practice of using various vernaculars overall meant different sermons, parables, lessons, etc. Fundamentally this meant churches were not considered in communion if they weren’t using Latin, and especially not if they weren’t using a Church approved Bible.

So ultimately a monarch, the English king, specifically commissioning a vernacular Bible, was acting in direct defiance to the church and throwing fuel into that fire.

I don’t think the Catholic church ever ‘accepted’ or ‘approved’ that version, or would.

I get you, but I mean the grand alliance scheme to be including what ultimately became the Quadruple Alliance/Central Powers. The Kaiser’s bellicose disposition is noteworthy but doesn’t mean he wasn’t strategizing around the Entente any less.

The thing about World War 1 is that it was inevitable in the sense the grand alliance scheme demanded total conflict. The sphere of influence approach to peace and balancing powera militarily itself provoked worldwide conflict. Most of World War 1 was a detached elite refusing to recognize reality as they sent wave after wave of people into machinegun fire.

By the time you’re going back to the root of it all you find yourself stabbing Caesar along with the rest of the time travellers.

A group of fighters is actually not a half bad setup, but requires a group that enjoys a focus on combat tactics. I played a few bits of a no magic campaign before. We all started with shields and spears as a military unit and then were allowed to multiclass from there without penalty into another martial class.

It was all agreed upon beforehand though.