Day Brown
daybrown.org> wrote> Bret Cahill wrote
>> "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the
>> fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first
>> existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher
>> consideration." -- Lincoln
> Well OK. But the relative price of each is dynamic.
Meaningless waffle.
> Archeology found the world's first industrial zone in Turkey,
Hardly industrial.
> where there was a deposit of obsidian (capital)
Thats not capital.
> that was flaked into two forms- one style for the Levant, where the land was drier, more open and another for the much
> wetter more wooded North.
> Nobody much valued the capital
Thats not capital, its just a resource.
> because there were so man deposits created by the vulcanism; Hodder, digging at Chatal Hoyuk, shows us a chart with a
> dozen cities that existed 10,000 years ago. He also shows us how each house left signs of some kind of industry-
Industry isnt industrial.
> pottery, basketry, weaving, and of course, knapping points. All of these required capital- clay, fiber, reeds,
> obsidian, etc.
Thats not capital, thats just what went into what was produced.
> and we see the labor that went into the result.
> But there's no palace for a "capitalist".
Because there is no 'capital'
> What we do see are communal houses like the Mosou of SW China still live in. They have the same system, each house is
> engaged in commercial activity, but there is no palace for a Mosou king. Which is because the Mosou are matriarchic.
And hardly any other society is. And those that are, can have queens instead.
> No king, means no harem. No harem means that nobody tries to exploit
> the schit out of the workers to have the resources to support one, or
> the palace to keep them in, or the castle to protect the palace.
Mindlessly superficial. There are plenty of kings that never had a harem.
> That's why modern Communism failed;
Nope.
> it was still run by men, who still used the system to acquire the status symbols of power and wealth in order to
> attract mistresses.
How odd that capitalism worked fine when run by men.
Quite a few of which didnt bother with mistresses.
> And who still used the state trying to control the flow of information to disguise that fact.
Corse nothing like that ever happened pre communism, eh ?
> It does not matter whether a system is capitalist, socialist or communist; men will find ways to exploit it to get
> more pussy.
And quite a few dont bother, like Henry Ford, Lincoln, Washington, Edison, Einstein etc.
Chaz Darwin has a hilarious bit in his diary where he lists
the advantages and disadvantages of a dog and a wife.
> The alternative is when women run things.
Have fun explaining Maggie Thatcher and Golda Meir.
> Where matriarchy failed is that it did not allocate enuf for national defense.
Mindlessly silly. Nothing Boudica could have done would have saved her bacon.
> The Mosou survived only because they are so far up in the Himalaya mtns in a resource base that lacks portable forms
> of wealth.
Gets sillier by the minute.
> But the women taking over business and government today have access to the historical record,
Fat lot of good that does them. Have fun listing even a single one
thats anything like Gates, Buffet, Rothschild, Souros, etc etc etc.
> and besides, the brave heart, strong right arm, sword in hand... no longer cuts it. Smith & Wesson guarantee equal
> rights for smart women,
Like hell it did. You still need the mentality behind it.
> while at the same time, many of them have seen how the cunt still works in the climb to power.
How odd that there are fuck all with any real power.
> But once they've replaced men,
They never do. Hitlary has been flushed down the tubes of history where she belongs.
> the women still climbing up will need to rely on other talents.
They dont have any of those.
> But in no case will they need to exploit men at the same level the alpha males they replace did.
And they hardly ever manage much at all. Maggie is now a drunk in the gutter.
