04/03/2024
Finally finished Owarimonogatari part 3, and while there is still Zoku Owari and the various seasons that came after the "Final" Season, I feel satisified largely as an ending to Araragi's wild ride.
To be honest, I was a little shocked at how well they tied everything up so cleanly - even if some characters like Nadeko were barely in it, they felt like they had finished whatever arcs they'd been going on. I liked how she quoted Kaiki towards the end of her conversation with Tsukihi, too - really made it clear he rubbed of on her for the better.
I'm not good - despite having taken English up to A-Level at summarising and analysing texts - especially, oddly enough, the stuff I enjoy - so I'm going to be brief in my discussion of the ending.
It felt like somewhat of a circular ending for the Series - ending with a story (Ougi Dark) about saving yourself - here meaning coming to grips with the emotional issues said abberation represents. Just like Senjougahara had to accept her emotions over her mother to deal with the Weight Crab, Araragi had to accept his self-criticising nature to deal with Ougi. And then Meme deals with whatever supernatural elements exist. This isn't really analysis so much as the literal text - because I am bad at analysis - but I enjoyed seeing the series paying off on something that - while never a focus - was everpresent (I'm refering to how hard Araragi is in himself in his narration) both through Mayoi and his trip through Hell where he basically affirms his choices in life, for better or worse and through his literal manifestation of that as a person. With the latter tying it all the way back to Meme.
Owari 3 really did feel like a vindication of Araragi and his way of doing thigs - especially after the trouncing they got back in Part 1, and I feel that - actual ending or otherwise - that type of thing, where you vindicate one of the "central pillars" of the series like that and claim there is a meaning to it - and presumably therefore the series - works well as an ending. It's the same reason why, despite knowing there were later Light Novels in the series, the Disappearence of Haruhi Suzamiya felt like a great ending for the series.
It's something that, if I were ever to write creatively in any long term project, I'd likely try (and probably fail) to pull of in the ending of it.
All in all, it's the best book in the series so far and a 10/10 in my book. Absolute masterpiece, Ougi best Girl Boy Girl Boy whatever. My preference for crossdressers makes me want to call them a boy and claim I'm actually basing it on stuff like them being an offshoot of Araragi and them dressing like a Boy in Hana - their chronologically last (of what I read) appearence.
I wonder where Meme went right after acknowleding Ougi, though. I do feel it was a bit of a shame we got to see all the specialists interacting. All the yaoi art of Meme and Kaiki I've seen really had me excited to see them on the same page.
02/03/2024
Just saw a "VN Iceberg" on Reddit. Clannad and Fate/SN were both fairly low, and Tsukihime was in the second from bottom tier. This is really pissing me off. If it weren't for the fact that I don't have any social media really, I'd make my own just out of spite for how insane it is to claim that stuff like Clannad and Fate are obscure.
Just kidding, I'm making one out of spite anyway. Doesn't really have all too much done by this point, and I realise I'm just adding yet another WIP to my pile but IDC.
In other news, nothing. At least not personally.
I suppose one thing is that somebody in one of the seminars said something very strange, that Hamas' charter contains no reference to Palestine and is all about how they plan to massacre the Jews in Israel. The second section after the Preamble is literally called "the land of Palestine" and states "Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity." - in other words, it explicitly gives the borders they want (back). While it's true there is a heavy religious element, that is in Islamicism ("Palestine is an Arab Islamic land. It is a blessed sacred land that has a special place in the heart of every Arab and every Muslim.") and not so much in reference to the Jews.
In fact, they explicitly deny that they want to kill the Jews, saying "Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity." While it seems obvious to me a "reverse-Nakba" or a massacre is the only feasible way to (re)gain the borders they want from Israel, I think it is clear they would accept some sort of diplomatic solution that gave them these borders - not that it would ever happen.
So, why the not-quite-defense of Hamas from this person? It's relevant in terms of something that was being discussed in the Seminar - would we have anything to worry about from a nuclear-armed Hamas? Here, whether or not Hamas is a nationalist (my belief) terror group or a religious one is key. My argument was that Israel at least wouldn't - as in they wouldn't need to worry about being nuked - because what good would it be for Hamas to get the borders they want if it's largely an unusable wasteland? The same thing applies to Israel attacking Gaza - they want the land, and while you can rebuild what's been bombed with conventional weaponry reasonably easily, you can't do that with a nuclear wasteland.
The "Hamas just want genocide" argument therefore was in counter to mine.
I never had a chance to say this yesterday because we ran out of time before I could double-check the Hamas charter, but because I can't let things go, I'm whining about it here.
I'm curious as to why he believed something that was - as far as I knew obviously false - to the point I began to doubt it myself. But it turns out, that if the source (see the footer) was a reliable one, I was right. As to why someone so confidently - who claimed to have read it themselves (and someone I trust not lie) - seemed to get things wrong.
The obvious culprit seems to be the fact that Hamas has had two charters over time, an earlier one containing such lines as "'The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.' (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)." Which implies genocidal intent.
Assuming that he simply believed this was their current charter, the issue becomes, again, why?
I see no reason why anyone knowledgeable enough about Hamas would mistake their old charter for their current one.
If I had to guess, I would lay the blame on the fact that Hamas has not officially revoked this charter. The issue here is simple, 'If they have not revoked their old one - despite their new one contradicting it - why should we believe their new charter?' The logic here relies on due to Hamas being a terrorist organisation you can't just take them at their word.
On the one hand, it's right to be sceptical of anything any political actor says (including randos writing about politics on the internet), but on the other - their current charter lines up with their current demands and when we can't 100% tell what people's intent actually is, their stated one is often all we have to really go off.
In conclusion, I have no conclusion. I'm not close enough to the issue to tell what Hamas wants 100%, and cautiously suggest taking Hamas at their words. There's no point in committing terrorism with explicit demands to be met if you don't actually want those demands to be met.
Sadly, it doesn't seem anything is going to get any better in the region.
In fact, it seems in terms of the news that the Israel/Gaza war and the Ukraine War are both getting pretty dire. At least dire enough in Gaza that it really seems that the USA won't be able to justify supporting Israel to their populace after that attack on the food queue and dire enough in Ukraine that Macron won't rule out sending French troops.
Looking at stuff like Ukraine, I'm warming up to the idea of NATO (which I'm going to completely shoot in the foot whatever ""Leftist"" credentials I have left - not that I have any with how often I shit on them - by saying I like in principle - as in I like defensive alliances - even if I've never really liked their conduct) having its own army if only to use in a hyper restricted defensive sense.
I mean, with MAD and all - it's not like Putin will ever attack anyone nuclear-armed - he's not stupid. Getting nuclear nations' on the ground against another nuclear nation seems to me like something that escalates the stakes to the point where you'd be suicidal not to get to negotiation.
(If you couldn't tell the Seminar was largely about nuclear weapons - and largely about MAD at that.)