Wars inevitable? What if women controlled the world? Wars are completely avoidable by women’s values.
If women controlled the world, would war become obsolete? We examine why wars are inevitable only in a man-ruled world based on patriarchal principles.
Table of Contents
Is Death Something to Fear?
Is there any other matter as uncomfortable and equally pervading as War? Yes, it is death.
And the two are strictly related: we go to war to inflict death on our enemy.
But what about our own death? The mere fact of mentioning it scares us. If this is the impact of a simple reflection on the subject, we are indeed trying to keep real death as far away as possible. However, the day will come when we will no longer be here.
Could our negative attitude towards death come only from our instinct for self-preservation, that is, the flip side of the positive tendency to preserve our own life?
The best way to solve a problem is always to face it. How is it that in this case we pretend to solve a problem by closing our eyes?
And how is it that we speak as little as possible of our death when we speak more readily of the death of our enemies? This brings us back to our main topic: THE WAR.
Something more than the instinct of self-preservation has to be involved in the way we react, something cultural.
The Death of our Enemy
First of all, we notice how we go to war to kill our enemy while shying away from the idea that we might also die. A real paradox.
This tells us at what point our relationship with death and war is conflictual. The question to ask is: are wars inevitable?
To those who believe that conflict is inevitable because, since individuals are different, they are necessarily in conflict with each other, our response is that being different from someone does not mean being in conflict with them. Mother and son are different and yet, except in very special cases, they maintain a friendly relationship.
Indeed, human beings are different from each other, and yet to identify such a difference with an antagonistic difference, means to take our relation to the world as the only one possible. It means looking at the real world only from the point of view of the patriarchal man – for whom the supreme value is combat and war. In other words, it means destroying our freedom in one fell swoop, completely wiping out freedom of choice.
The human will is by definition free: it implies at least two alternatives, otherwise we would not speak of freedom. One goes towards war, the other towards peace.
Is War an Unavoidable Part of Human Nature?
A lot has been written about war, mostly without getting to the heart of the matter. Authors seem more concerned with following ideological principles than digging into reality.
A few major figures stand out, these are the ones we always refer to, when we look at the problem of war in general terms. First of all a German thinker of the 19th century: Carl von Clausewitz. He was sharp and incisive as is often the case with the Germans.
What did he say that went down in history? He simply maintains that war is the continuation of politics with other means.
Is this a cynical statement? Not really, you just have to open your eyes and observe what is going on in politics: war by fire or by any other means is the absolute rule. Clausewitz can neither be defined as a pessimist, nor accused of being a cynic simply because he is German. He actually finds a much more radical predecessor in the English thinker: Hobbes (17th century).
Thomas Hobbes, considered to be the most important English founder of political philosophy, thinks that the first status of human beings is: “the war of all against all.”
We observe how well the great intellectuals of all time are able to face reality while we tend to avoid the unpleasant. In other words, they have the courage to be realistic.
The question arises: are these facts immutable? Are we determined to act as we so often do by fighting against each other or do we have a choice of what we do?
Are Wars Inevitable?
No, wars are not inevitable. Those who believe that conflict is inevitable often base their arguments on observing what is happening in the animal world.
The answer to the question: “do animals go to war?” being “Yes” they infer that humans too, being part of nature, are bound to wage war against each other.
They forget that, first of all, animals only fight each other when their survival is in question. And then, second but not secondary, that humans are not completely the same as animals. They forget that animals by nature have only one pattern of behavior while we can, in accordance with nature, of which we are the highest expression, choose between several patterns of behavior.
Is War the Natural Status of Man?
To the question: “Is war the natural status of man?” we say, “No, it is not. War is the result of free choice.”
How is it that we are afflicted with continual wars and so far in time that we can think of? Because both the past and the present are inscribed in patriarchy.
And yet the patriarchal structure is not the only means available to shape a civilization, many more are possible. Patriarchy is a cultural choice, and wars waged by patriarchy are the result of free cultural choices
Is War Necessary to Peace?
If you help someone get up after knocking him over, you are commendable. You are much more commendable if you don’t knock him out.
We had two world wars, the term “world war” itself being of the utmost importance. If, in fact, we place the word “war” on the same level as the word “world,” the relationship between the two involves the potential annihilation of all that exists: the destruction of the entire planet by war.
If this did not actually happen in material terms, it is because the war could continue on another levels: it was not the end of the story.
what we have faced since the two world wars is a gradual dismantling of everything that belongs to human beings: their minds and their environment. The deconstruction of the spirit: of all the meatal structures on which it rests, and of the natural resources that allow life on earth. This is not happening because there is no alternative, but because the only possible alternative has been rejected: feminine values, highly sought after by both men and women. At the same time as we glorify the few remedies on offer – often worse than the evils themselves – we distract from the fact that the evil could have been avoided.
Take the Marshall Plan as an example, programmed shortly after the end of World War II, to rebuild what had been destroyed. It would have been better to prevent the destruction.
Does Human Nature make Wars Inevitable?
After the two world wars, the “hot wars“: wars by fire, the cold war began. The expression COLD WAR is, in fact, a contradiction in terms: in war, you fight. Yet, if you fight, you are bound to be “hot”, not “cold”.
Patriarchy does not lack the means to create war and even where it cannot be.
Since war could only be fought in the presence of two conflicting forces, the world after WWII was intentionally, in other words, artificially divided into two opposing zones of influence: the United States of America. . . on one side and the Soviet Union. on the other side, with their allies.
Imagine two enemies sitting together and fully agreeing that they must find a way to fight each other. If we look beyond the superficial appearances, we will see that this has really happened. The world has been split in two. In perfect agreement, on top of that, that the “battle” will not be fought hot but cold, hence the Cold War.
How to call it: “human nature”? Rather the will of man.
Only in Patriarchy Wars are Inevitable.
This brings us to the deepest heart of patriarchal relations. When patriarchal forces are at play, there are endless possibilities that vary them, but one constant is always there: they must be in conflict.
All revolve around this major ax, as massive energy, time and money are invested in destroying each other.
Ideologies are only an instrument of combat, a screen to hide underground forces: the goal being the combat itself.
Contemporary Times: Any Change?
We find confirmation in contemporary history of the extent to which patriarchy is faithful to its “principles”, the most fundamental being that real peace must be excluded. It became transparent at the end of the cold war with the fall of communism.
In 1989 the Soviet Union, in other words Russia, became ipso facto non-Communist. If, as it is claimed, the reason for opposing Russia had really been the conflict between capitalism in the West and communism in the East, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and with it the fall of communism, the conflict would have ended. It is a fact that Russia was on the verge of implementing capitalism, after the Soviet supreme leader officially admitted that communism had failed.
Nevertheless, Russia continued to be seen as an enemy. Why? It had to be like that just for the war to continue. You can only have war if you have antagonism: a conflict between two opposing forces.
In other words, two frontal enemies still had to exist for the war to continue, of course under a different banner. This time it wasn’t a world war by fire, it wasn’t even a cold war. Both being exhausted. This time it was an economic and cultural war.
Patriarchy will never change: a leopard can’t change its spots.
Are the Opposing Forces really Different?
We have spoken so far of wars between enemies officially recognized as such: who openly declare their intention to fight in war. What about the realm of the enemies of war itself?
Well, surprising as it may sound, the two protagonists of the Cold War, which continues today under a different name, both claimed to be fighting to extend peace to the whole world.
How did they plan to do it? The answer is simple: by violence of all kinds, in short: by war.
I will first mention communism because the communists offer us the advantage of not hiding the means they intend to use to achieve their objective. Their brilliant result is: 94 million people dead.
We will only observe that had they gone just a little further, peace would have been assured forever. The eternal peace of a world cemetery.
Why all of this? Because the only way to maintain coherence within communism was the so-called permanent “revolution”: a permanent war against the enemies of communism. Enemies? Yes, if it is not the external enemies, then, of course, the internal enemies: the critical voices of communism. Although not officially recognized as such, internal warfare is still war.
Two Sides of the Same Coin. Communism or Capitalism? Both: Patriarchal.
What about the other side of the coin, what about capitalism? Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction asserts that in capitalism creativity arises from destruction.
Communism and capitalism must, from this point of view, be grouped together: they are part of the same line of thought: the patriarchal one.
We live in patriarchy under constant threat, we live in fear of being attacked. By who?
While it is very easy to wonder who feels assaulted, it is the most difficult to answer such a question. Why? Because every human being claims to be the victim, not the aggressor.
To find a realistic answer to the question, we need to understand the problem at its root. Where is the first seed of antagonism? In the very first relationship between human beings: in the family.
The Reason why Wars are Inevitable.
Something within the family must have been twisted at the very beginning, artificially turning a state of peace into a state of war. Where exactly is the turning point? It is surely in the man-woman relationship because that is where the very foundation of the family lies.
.Of course, there is nothing natural in it like there is nothing natural in war.
The permanent state of war in which we live and our constant fear of aggression are completely unnatural: they are artificially induced and completely irrational.
To the objection: this has been going on for millennia, why change it? We answer: the fact that something artificial has been going on for a long time does not take away its artificial character.
Slavery lasted for several thousand years, which did not make the phenomenon any less serious, on the contrary it aggravated it.
To pretend to justify the use of violence to “impose”, as it is claimed, something natural, is a contradiction in terms. To pretend to justify the use of violence to “impose”, as it is claimed, something natural, is a contradiction in terms. Common sense tells us: if it is natural, it is done without recourse to violence.
No One will deny that Westerners live, in the East and in the West under great anxiety: we fear our inner world as well as we fear the outer world: war inside and war outside.
And yet, war is not a natural status, and even if it has lasted so long, it is a civilizational illness.
Are Wars Decreasing?
No, they are not, on the opposite, they are increasing. The absence of a single enemy in front of you, which was the case during the Cold War, makes each a potential enemy.
It is the war of all against all, as Hobbes saw it. In order for the war to continue unabated, it must put on new masks so as not to be recognized as a war.
The patriarchal system, like a chameleon, takes on the most diverse appearances. It’s very “creative”: now it’s climate war, then the war on viruses and so on. What makes it harmful, and therefore recognizable as war, is a characteristic patriarchal sign: claiming to build through destruction. This is the fondamental patriarchal contradiction.
Once we see that war is the pedestal of both capitalism and communism, we are forced to ask the question again: Are wars inevitable? The answer is once again: NO.
War is the fruit of a choice, of a cultural choice.
The Gender Divide
Culture, social and political phenomena, especially relationships between human beings, inevitably draw inspiration from the very first relationship in which we participate: that between family members.
Let us examine whether there is a direct impact on social and political events of the way in which men and women interact within the family circle.
The news we hear in the media almost every day is about terrorist attacks by Islamists. It is certainly no coincidence that this is happening. Terrorists are inspired by a religion which makes the submission of woman to man its milestone. It is, for example, the precondition for the woman to enter paradise. Man is paying dearly because there is a boomerang return. Men who subscribe to this type of thinking behave most aggressively in private as well as in public life and even in international relations. Their objective is indeed to conquer the whole world and to subject all women to this same law.
We often wonder: where does all this come from? Think about it carefully and common sense will lead you to the right answer, which is also the most realistic.
We ask ourselves: how is it possible for someone to blow themselves up, to get rid of their own life and the lives of others? This person must be really desperate.
Think deeply and you will find the answer. What can life be worth for someone who has seen his mother – source of life – covered from head to toe since childhood as if she were an impure and untouchable being?
Deprived of the protective figure that is the woman, the only relation to the world that they know is that of the destruction of everything that surrounds them.
Or they want to submit everything to their laws, so that we don’t see what they have lost: their own mind. They are like blind people ready to blind everyone so that they are not the only ones suffering from blindness.
These types of men first wage a war against the women in the family and then spread it everywhere.
This gives us the answer to the question: are wars inevitable? If human beings were all of the type just discussed, wars would be fatally inevitable anytime, anywhere.
No wonder a man like this is willing to blow himself up taking as many lives as possible with him. Why? Because woman, the true source of life, both materially and spiritually, has become something like a dry source.
Eternal Discontent
If in the West we don’t reach such an extreme, if we don’t see things tangibly and visibly, are we totally immune to this disease? Do women and men feel content, at peace with themselves and the world around them?
Our suffering, the permanent state of aggression that we feel in and around us, tells us that there is something completely unnatural in the relationship that we have established between human beings, the first model being the man-woman relation.
We must not forget that the society of which we are a part, its laws were made by men who pride themselves on fighting and killing. All the while getting the woman into the role of fixing what they are doing wrong.
They traditionally urge women to replace the deaths they cause by creating new lives. They do not respect nature, rather they despise what is natural as they despise woman. Their main honor is to win by force over life.
We Have a Choice
If, as is the case, our daily room for maneuver is limited and we inevitably jump to the conclusion that it cannot be otherwise, we are wrong. Is such a judgment realistic? No, its opposite is realism.
Wars are not inevitable. If it seems to be so, it is only because a warrior is in charge of political affairs. He won’t come down without a fight. If he lets women into the system he created for himself, it is only to weaken them by making them bad copies of himself. Surely not to leave them free to follow their own values, their own nature which is the very nature of life.
In other words, once the woman has entered the male system – created by the man to meet his own needs – if she simply asks to be a part of it, the system cannot change. If she just wants to share power, nothing will change substantially, because the rules of the game will remain the same. Whether one or the other is driving the train, nothing changes for travelers. If the woman follows exactly in the man’s footsteps without a radical change in values, business will be business as usual.
Wars will remain “inevitable” until woman finds her own path and discovers what has been artificially concealed for millennia: her own nature. To find out who she is, she has to go her own way with men of a different type than the Warrior. They will then be able to shape a new world.
21st century feminism wants to be revolutionary by being against everything that is only “against”: just destructive. The latter precisely follows the patriarchal logic, that of war: the major patriarchal contribution to life is the destruction of the same life.
Like what you see ? Join the conversation ! Details can be found by clicking here https://wonoman.com/contact/
