East & West Amazia
In the era before Amazia's ascendancy, the nation was a mosaic of ideologies and beliefs, brimming with the vibrant discourse and diversity that defined its democratic roots. However, as Amazia grew from a powerful corporation into the singular ruling entity, it faced mounting civil unrest. The diversity that once enriched the country now fueled division, as differing beliefs clashed under the strain of increasing corporate control.
Amazia's leadership, committed to maintaining order and consolidating its power, devised a radical solution to quell the unrest: the division of the nation into East and West Amazia. The division was ideologically driven, designed under the guise of creating harmony and reducing conflict. East Amazia was designated for those who upheld conservative values—individuals who valued tradition, structure, and alignment with Amazia’s vision of a tightly controlled society. West Amazia, on the other hand, became a haven for the more liberal-minded, those who championed progressive ideals and innovation, albeit under the watchful eyes of the same authoritarian regime.
This division was executed with surgical precision. Families found themselves torn apart by their beliefs; parents separated from children, siblings from each other. The criteria were rigid: allegiance to the ideological doctrine of one's designated half. Communication across the divide was forbidden, and attempts to cross the boundaries without authorization were met with severe penalties. Amazia implemented this strategy under the belief that segregating ideological differences would lead to a more manageable population, reducing the chances of coordinated revolt and maintaining a facade of peace.
Surprisingly, Amazia’s gamble yielded the tranquility it sought, but at a steep cost to the social fabric of the nation. In East Amazia, the conservative population, while less prone to challenge Amazia’s authority, simmered with the undercurrents of repression and loss. West Amazia, despite its liberal leanings, grappled with the paradox of advocating for freedom under an omnipresent corporate surveillance state.
Over time, the separation policy crystallized into a new normal. The initial pain of separation dulled into a persistent ache of resignation, as people adapted to their constrained realities. Yet, beneath this surface calm, the division sowed seeds of dissent. The separation of families and the suppression of free exchange across ideological lines did not eradicate the human desire for connection and understanding; instead, it drove these yearnings underground.
As years turned into decades, Amazia maintained its grip, but the forced division of East and West became a focal point of historical pain and injustice. Memories of separated families turned into stories, stories into legends, and legends into the fuel for a new generation of resistance. What Amazia had divided in an effort to control, began to unite in whispers and covert meetings, as people on both sides of the ideological expanse began to question and challenge the barriers that had been so artificially imposed upon them. Thus, the stage was set for an emerging confrontation, not just over territory or ideology, but over the very essence of human connection and freedom.