The male need for war
A number of times on this blog the putridity of men has been discussed. Besides numerous unsavoury activities against the female fraternity there is doubtless considerable destruction and genocide, as well as men imposing what can only be nefarious doctrines. The male species seems to like the deeply destructive in whatever form it happens to be made possible – and and particulalry impresses upon the minority, the disaffected, the disposed, the disabled, the ethnic, the feminine.
If little impression is made upon these others then often is a case of the bombs must fall.
War is invariably tied up with sexual violence yet so many seem to forget that – or overlook it becase they do not want war to be despoiled in any way or form. Its no historic thing for its current in countless locations across the world thanks to the militarised might that extolls its supremacy throughout the globe.
A certain number of reports emanating from a number of sources – such as The Independent, or Ian Visits, My London, Sky News, The BBC, The Guardian, The Mirror and The Times, have inadvertently divulged that preparations for war at a certain London tube station doubtless reinforces the notion humanity has a deep-seated need for conflict.
The question that must be asked is – when have humans NOT prepared for war?
The fact is the world can be blown up several times over appears to be no concern for the minds that are inherently bent on developing better weaponry and far worse civilian casualties. Isn’t history a thing to be learnt from? Evidently its not even now – and it wont be in 2030 either. It seems things like ‘Peace in our Time’ and the Holocaust being two prime examples of humanity’s, indeed men’s, abject failures to understand the foibles of conflict and far truer ways of undertaking negotiation – and that because war appears to be a necessity that must be exercised because violence services agendas.
Tanks, bombs and missiles are the very tools which extend the male’s subjective boundaries in the world. Its not even a reality but what one can describe as a necessary reification, a make believe, a chimera far beyond the realms of what is very sensibly possible in terms of the world that has been built by Mother nature.
The holocaust involved considerable sexual violence (the railways were vital to what can only be an abject violence and sexual horror). To that end there’s no doubt war attacks the very femininity of the planet – simply because its Mother Earth.
Its the rape of the planet that carries pretty much the same modus as raping women on trains, in the streets, in the woods, in the home etc. To take an example, the war in Sudan ( 1, 2 , 3 , 4) amounts to a sexual festival of sorts for the military.
Voltaire had said “It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets”. 5 There’s no doubt the same logic applies to the numerous rapists who use the cover of militarism to conduct sordid activities. In the same sense, those reporting the news about a certain rail based military exercise are no doubt alluding to the trumpeters’ tune also – but most have a perverse notion that the whole sordid scenario seem somehow okay – and its largely driven by men who have of course historically perpetuated the idea of war.
Men simply do not seem to realise the brevity of the actions they undertake. Such endeavours are without doubt questionable – and regularly laden with an intent towards destruction. In terms of the news an entire London Underground station was taken over for war games, the endeavour itself smacks of a crass insensibility.
The result is to perpetuate a vicious circle that results in what can only be ‘better’ wars which are more destructive. War IS ‘peace’ no doubt.
Albert Einstein famously said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” 6 He viewed the human desire for war as a sheer stupidity. Einstein was a pacifist who saw conflict as both a disease and a degradation of humanity, including the morality of it and the inherent destructiveness of militarism. Einstein argued national sovereignty, arms races, and the glorification of war had inherently driven global conflict (7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11). And this is still the case to this day.
Hu-MANs simply cant get away from any necessity of having war – this guy clearly extols that trains have a vital role in war!
Its no surprise that men have been in charge for centuries in most areas of society including its political and economical aspects. Sadly the the idea of war has never faded and that is because its a vital part of the life-blood of those very systems invented by men.
As a result little improves but everything worsens, and we now have other political parties that look admirably towards the even worser end of the scale. ‘Worst’ seems to be the operative mode. This is the problem for what are clearly stumbling ancient political systems are practically stuck in monobloc.
Not everyone wants an overbearing ideology that forces its way through communities like a Biblical flood.
As for other countries such as Russia, there’s a similar ideal with what can only be ‘worser’ too. In other words its a strongly polarised worldview that continues to prosper. The present Russian incumbent seems unable to realise he too holds an old fashioned view of the world – its what can only be a hegemony too that’s backed up by a ‘need’ for war.
Instead of evolving out war its clear there are vested interests that want to see war becomes a highly evolved and sustained doctrine. Let’s not forget that in history the quest to develop the nuclear bomb involved the employment of countless women whose valuable skills were extracted for an evil most had no idea of (12 , 13). The riding on the backs of these unfortunate women is not so terribly different from men doing the same upon the back of Mother Earth.
Whether its Mother Earth or women, the male quest is undoubtedly one of bringing an apocalyptic world to full realisation. And that can only be achieved by way of developing more portent and destructive toys that the military can play with. And of course the military is man’s very own creation.
Einstein, despite his famous E=mc2 having alas contributed to the Manhattan Project – eg Oppenheimer’s quest to develop the most destructive weapon so far known – Einstein had bitterly rejected the vulgar exploitation his highly esteemed equation was being used for. 14 Not just women but sincere scientists with their eye on the good (15) were to be exploited for what can only be a sheer evil. The future showed their fears were essentially right – nuclear warfare in the eyes of military men was merely conventional war. 16
Humanity harps on about the global crisis and ecocide. But war is a massive part of that and we must not overlook the fact that the greatness of what it means to be hu-MAN basically sets men as the dominant paradigm. To that end, whether its Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine or any other wars currently underway there’s no doubt the impact on the environment is enormous. Its not just pollution and trash, but also bombs, tanks, missiles, extensive destruction.
Sadly what had been so much land that once belonged to the animal kingdom now belongs to humans – and homo sapiens fights for these stolen enclaves as if there was no tomorrow. When humans claim there are ‘shark infested waters,’ they seem to forget that sharks live in the sea. Its their home and definitely not that of humanity. Its the humans that infest the waters in which the sharks live (not forgetting all the other marine life too). This is endemic of the assumed ownership of the animal kingdom and their lands that humans have. In similar ways the male idea of the world is to dominate the female and to place women in a totally negative light. Basically the quest is to all but destroy the motherly side that nature bequeathed.
Stop! Stop! But it can’t be stopped! There’s no doubt hu-MANs are Doctor Morbius, ensuring the existence of a monstrous destruction. And it being war, it becomes a thing that simply can’t be stopped, just like the Krell in the 1956 film Forbidden Planet. Scene from Youtube.
Some will point out that women were involved in this military exercise on London’s underground. Its what is called equality. Unfortunately some of those will not even discern properly the word ‘equality’ in terms of how it transpires in the eyes of men. Equality is problematic (we have not yet devolved something that could constitute a more practical and truer equality) thus in many ways its much the same as “no means yes” (which is why men rape women even in times of war). Remember no-one shall kill unless one can hear “the sound of trumpets.” Instead of protesting against militarism, some women instead choose to join this deeply insidious and godforsaken male fraternity because there is some sort of dubious honour or pride that comes with having achieved that very status.
References:
- Sudan’s war on women: The number of people in need of sexual violence support quadruples ↩︎
- Sudan war: Women endure starvation, rape and bombs ↩︎
- MSF report finds there are no safe places for women and girls in Darfur ↩︎
- Sudan: Rapid Support Forces’ horrific and widespread use of sexual violence leaves lives in tatters ↩︎
- Deciphering the Hypocrisy of Morality ↩︎
- Why did Einstein say that if there is World War IV people will fight with sticks and stones? ↩︎
- Einstein’s Pacifism: A Conversation with Wolfram Wette ↩︎
- Albert Einstein and the problem of war ↩︎
- The Men who said no – People for peace ↩︎
- Instinct and survival: an exchange of letters between Einstein and Freud ↩︎
- Albert Einstein and the Problem of War – Peace & Disarmament ↩︎
- The young women who unknowingly helped create the atomic bomb ↩︎
- What the Film Oppenheimer Probably Will Not Talk About ↩︎
- The letter from Einstein that ushered in the age of the atomic bomb ↩︎
- The Scientists Who Opposed the Manhattan Project ↩︎
- A Child of the Manhattan Project Discusses Complex Legacy of the Bomb ↩︎
