#preamble

- the eye

- the vast

- the lonely

- the web

- the hunt

- the flesh

- the slaughter

- the desolation

- the buried

- the stranger

- the spiral

- the dark

- the end

- the corruption

We also know the contentious suggestion of the existence of the extinction

These classifications are fun, but as from MAG200 and the events of protocol (which I haven’t listened to much btw so no spoilers plz) we know they aren’t a be all end all means of communicating the concepts of fear. Fear only has the power we give it, and by creating distinctions between different forms of fear it makes sense that we would start to see greater commonalities and themes occur between instances of each designation. Hence why statements like that of Tessa Winters’ Binary feel so disconcerting - it’s completely outside our typical means of classification. We can draw parallels to other powers of course, but none of them fit as neatly as they do in other statements.

Now, even from what little I’ve heard from protocol I understand that Binary is probably not a good example as Freddie might show context that I am unaware of.

And honestly most of this was just to try and Segway into what I hope isn’t too big of a stretch - I think it’s fair to say there’s an entirely separate fear that Sims writes but does not inherently recognise.

I think that over the next few posts I might be able to convince you of the existence of a currently uncategorised fear, but one that has existed for a long time. Before telling you what I’ve called it though I do want to say that I know what this fear covers is a VERY sensitive subject. It’s the fear of being othered. Not that you’re alone, or that you’re a stranger, or that you’re being perceived or judged. It’s that you exist in a world that hates you with every fibre. It’s the knowledge that you do not fit in and that this is a bad thing. You cannot be alone because that would be a comfort. You cannot be a stranger as that would give you power. You aren’t being beheld as that would imply that your discomfort brings these that view you satisfaction. No. This fear is that of being outcast and unwanted, seen as vermin, as a stain or as something to be wiped out. The fear is that you know this to be true, and you do not know who holds this perspective of you. It’s the knowledge that the means in which you exist are fundamentally against those in which others do, and that regardless of what you say or try to prove, you can never convince them that you are allowed to be as you are.

It’s a fear that is common amongst marginalised communities, but also those aggressing them. The fear of a trans woman knowing she may be harassed or killed if she goes in public. The fear of a right wing American that liberals will erode their way of life and force them to do things they don’t agree with. The fear of a Jewish child knowing they may endure the hatred of those around them for factors they do not understand. It’s the fear of being labelled as something to be eradicated and the combined terror of not knowing if you will face such a fate.

With that being said I want to quickly state my personal position in this. I do not follow standards of the gender norm for my sex at birth. I have no desire for a romantic or sexual relationship and as far as I know am literally incapable of experiencing feelings like lust or sexual desire. I am not of the native people in the country I was born in but I wish to help said indigenous population reclaim their lands and culture while allowing me to continue to enjoy living here. I have been diagnosed audhd and will likely discuss much of my experiences with this as it’s new to me and I like sharing my thoughts about life as a neurodivergent. I am a 2D and 3D Artist wishing to find my place in the animation industry, which is a terror in and of itself. And I apologise for being nondescript about myself. The internet is a terrifying place right now and I do not wish to give any information that may be identifying. Though I do want to ensure that any potential audience I create for myself regarding my discussions of TMA are going to be aware of my personal experiences and biases.

It does not seem to be a common practice in modern internet culture nowadays however I wish to quickly ask this:

If you do not agree with my perspectives on TMA, that’s fair. It’s a fictional narrative. I enjoy discussing differing perspectives in this media as it’s been a love of mine for several years. If you disagree with my personal life factors, I ask that you ignore me and continue with your own life. If you are intrigued about how I came to realise that I’m aro-ace, gender non-conforming or neurodivergent, I’d be happy to discuss this. I hope not to encounter intolerance against myself for what I say. Just because I post something does not mean that I agree with it. Narrative works and discussion surrounding them are an important means for people to understand and learn the context of behaviour that may not otherwise be portrayed. Many of the lessons we learn from stories are that the actions should not be repeated. It’s literally one of the oldest story structures - the cautionary tale.

With that, I do want to say that I am a legal adult. I will be posting for an adult and upper teenage audience. I will be discussing divisive topics and mature issues. My posts are not intended to be engaged with by children as tbh I think MAG is best enjoyed by those with the freedom to make decisions without parental supervision. This is because the powerlessness of the narrative is best felt when you personally have a sense of personal control and power to direct how you behave, what you wear, and what you do on the day-to-day (in the same way that dystopias only really hit when you’re used to individual freedoms).

This pre-amble is mostly to give you context and to give me peace of mind. Will it stop hatred and negativity towards me for my opinions about a fictional narrative that’s almost 10 years old? Hah! No. But at least I can say I tried.

Breakdown: pre- (Latin prefix) + ambulare (Latin verb)

PIE Roots

pre- From Latin prae- = "before" ← from Proto-Indo-European root *per- = "forward, through, in front of" Related PIE-derived words:

prepare ("make ready before")

presume ("take beforehand")

peril ("trial, danger" → "go through a risk")

permanent ("remaining through time")

ambulare Latin = "to walk, go" ← from Proto-Indo-European root *ambhi- = "around, about" ← often linked to *bhel- = "to blow, swell" → metaphoric expansion Related PIE-derived words:

ambulance ("walking/stretcher vehicle")

perambulate ("walk through")

amble ("walk slowly")

somnambulist ("sleepwalker")

Literal Meaning

“...it is quite possible in a country like India – where democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as something quite new – there is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite possible for this newborn democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact.” These lines are excerpted from Dr Ambedkar’s famous speech “The Grammar of Anarchy”, delivered on November 25th 1949, the eve of the adoption of the Indian Constitution. In this address, Babasaheb defined the difference between a real democracy and a facile one and laid down certain principles that he expected the future generations to adhere to, if they wished for the Indian constitutional democracy to coincide in form and in fact.

It was indeed amid much pomp and publicity that in 2015, the 125th birth anniversary of Dr Ambedkar, the current government decided to attest the tag of National Constitution Day to November 26th. It was just one of the many ways in which governments, over the years, have tried to appropriate the idea of Ambedkar for their vested interests without giving any thought to his ideals. Seen in this context, it becomes important to analyse whether today’s democratic India has lived up to the expectations of the architect of its constitution.

The first principle that Ambedkar mentioned in his speech was that in a real democracy, progress should be brought about only through constitutional methods. He sought an end to methods of Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience which, unless restricted, could paralyze development and saw protests as a symbol of facile democracies. Today’s India is far from realising that goal. We are a country that protests at the drop of a hat. However, more often than not, these protests, far from stifling development, have been used to coerce those in power to take the right step. Be it the 2011 anti-corruption dharnas pushing for passage of appropriate legislations or the CAA-NRC protests or the more recent anti-farm law sit-ins appealing for retraction of unpopular legislations, agitations against the ruling dispensations have been the guiding light of our democracy, seeking adherence to the constitution. So does this mean Ambedkar was wrong in his assessment of protests? No. In his speech, Babasaheb, while advocating for an end to unconstitutional protests, specifically spelled out that when there is no possibility of achieving change through constitutional means, resorting to unconstitutional methods was the only way forward. When constitutionally elected governments show apathy towards the needs or worse, go against the wishes of the very people who put them in power and constitutionally established courts and politically established opposition also leave people in the lurch, the only recourse left for the people is to mobilise and swerve those in power in the right direction. Thus, the very fact that today mass mobilisations and protests are needed to exhort governments to do what they’re elected to do, points towards the disuse and misuse of constitutional machinery.

His second prescription of eschewing the deification of leaders, is perhaps also the most pertinent advice in contemporary times. Today we have downgraded ourselves into a nation of hero-worshipping fanatics, divinizing our political leaders to the point where we fail to accept that they can ever err and ignore them when they actually do so. Living in times when being anti-Modi is routinely equated to being anti-India, Babasaheb’s warning that in politics Bhakti is a sure road to eventual dictatorship rings truer than ever.

Finally, Ambedkar in his speech, recommends us to evolve into a social democracy i.e., we mustn’t be content with the mere political sanction of liberty, equality and fraternity, but should strive to make these ideals, a way of life. Acknowledging the chasm between ‘constitutional guarantees’ and ‘social realities’, Babasaheb had famously remarked that India would, on January 26th 1950, enter into a life of contradictions where political equality would stand in contrast with socioeconomic inequalities. In calling for a social democracy, it was this gap that he sought to bridge. However, it is the sad reality of our times that, even in this aspect we have failed him. 70 more 26th Januarys have passed since that observation was made and still, we find ourselves stuck in the same quagmire. Obdurate lines of caste, class and religious inequalities have been redrawn by politically motivated leaders who find benefit in refusing to let these lines fade; Sectarian affiliations continue to override national unity, crumpling up the ideal of fraternity. And liberty, attacked by both state and non-state actors, has become a mere chimaera.

Happy Republic Day!

🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳

প্রজাতন্ত্র দিবসের শুভেচ্ছা!🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳

Here's the preamble to the Indian Constitution, to remind you what the constitution is all about:

It's sad how we've been unable to fulfill these ideals, and have let down our ancestors. But there's still time and things can change... And, I believe, therein lies the essence of Indian democracy.