World War Zero

After decades in which sexual politics was the central politics, it's actually not surprising that the conflict escalated to violent dimensions. After all, sexual terrorism had existed long before

Why did the war break out? - The Neuro-Historical School versus the Historians of Consciousness (Source)

The first war of the next century was unprecedented, and yet the oldest war in the world. Many historians argued that it was the most artificial of all world wars, but many politicians claim it was the most natural, and that the great wonder is that it didn't happen before, because it was conducted between two groups whose division is more fundamental than any national or religious or tribal or economic division, truly two types of human beings, almost two different animals, as the fighting proved: men and women.

According to them, the moment physical technology eliminated the male physical advantage in combat, it was only a matter of time before thousands of generations of hostility between the two genders would erupt. Of course, there were families torn between the two camps, and as in any war, not everyone participated, but the displays of violence were widespread, sometimes within the same family, and the global killing field that was created turned the whole world into a front.

Some see the basis for the war in the formation of areas and countries with a defined sexual character, feminine countries and masculine countries, which experimented with different types of regimes, from control by one sex, to various preferences and discriminations, and sometimes even slavery and apartheid. People of past centuries could not imagine how millions of men would live and even immigrate to countries where male inferiority is institutionalized, and claim themselves their sexual, emotional, and cultural inferiority and sometimes even intellectual inferiority to the female class - or in certain places race - superior. How these men would declare that history distorted the natural place of man at the bottom of the social ladder, and would derive great satisfaction from their new status, and declare that they are happier and even more sexually satisfied in a matriarchy.

How millions of women and men disappointed in each other, and hating each other, would move to countries where only same-sex relations are legal, or satisfaction from robotic dolls and prostitutes of the opposite sex. How the divorce rate that reached almost 100% and the enormous rate of sexual assaults and the absolute distrust in the opposite sex, along with the death of love, the invention of sexual substitutes, and the destruction of the institution of the family, would bring billions of people into the arms of charismatic leaders feeding on and spreading sexual hatred, and even gender fascists, including those calling for the total extermination of the opposite sex, since technology no longer needs it for reproduction.

Of course, there were egalitarian societies or strange queer policies that were neutral in the conflict, but after decades in which sexual politics was the central politics, it's actually not surprising that the conflict escalated to violent dimensions. After all, sexual terrorism had existed long before, in extremist cells, and the choice of their provocative targets incited the genders against each other. Women who castrated men, and men who raped women - these were acts of terror whose videos were published every day and inflamed passions for years. The women's movement that was willing to give birth only to daughters, or the men's movement that replaced women with an artificial womb and gave birth only to men - these were the buds of the new-ancient division of human society.

Female historians argued that the hostility is a product of thousands of years of oppression and male historians argued that it was precisely the counter-oppression that gave birth to the hatred, and especially female incitement. Historians of ideas claim that gender hostility is rooted even earlier, in the division of human culture into two de facto cultures: female culture and male culture. They point to the moment in history when women's literature was read and written mainly by women and men's literature was read and written mainly by men, until two parallel and largely hostile cultural traditions were created, and all areas of art, interest, and even popular culture split into two spiritual genders that despised each other. The few and fragile cultural bridges built between them gradually collapsed. Even the language already sounded different.

In fact, the neurological difference between the two sexes created two alternative realities, once the press and culture adapted themselves so closely and personally to the consumer's brain, and the naturally conflicting sexual interests (yes, nature created this inherent mismatch) were the root of the abhorrence - according to the school of neuro-historians. The male and female religions that painted the opposite sex in demonic colors and attributed impurity and abomination to it were also blamed, especially by a stream of historians of consciousness. From the moment Christianity split between the Christianity of Mary and that of Jesus, and from the moment many believers claimed that God is a woman, this school claimed, the seed of calamity was sown.

And after Western philosophy split into male philosophy and female philosophy (as in the past there were the Continental and Analytical traditions) whose concepts are different and there is no bridging discourse between them, the physical confrontation was only a distant result of the spiritual confrontation, which can be seen in the ancient conflict between God and the Shekhinah [Translator's note: Divine feminine presence in Judaism], or between Zeus and Hera, or in any other primordial mythology. The world war that destroyed the human species was the fulfillment of a prophecy as old as sex itself.