Why the Cordyceps in the Last of Us is so terrifying

The Last of Us, made by Naughty Dog Studios, is one of the most critically acclaimed games of the past decade, if not the past century. It finished off the sixth generation of consoles, the PS3 and Xbox 360, along with GTA 5 and Minecraft, and is now widely regarded as one of the best games of all time, as well as a fitting send-off for the sixth generation.

It easily surpasses Uncharted as Naughty Dog’s best franchise and one of the best out there. I personally prefer Uncharted due to its lighter tone and more adventure-oriented gameplay, but The Last of Us is better in terms of story. I haven’t played the second one, as I can’t bring myself to do it emotionally due to the subject matter and violence in it.

With the release of The Last of Us Part II in 2020 and now the acclaimed 2023 HBO series starring Pedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey, the hype and talk around it are larger than ever.

While The Last of Us follows similar tropes to other zombie-based or end-of-the-world media, the monsters within its world and their origins set it apart. It’s cordyceps, and it is very much a real thing. So what is cordyceps, and what makes it so scary in the game?

Cordyceps is a type of fungus found mainly in humid and warm climates all over the world, but particularly in Asia, in places like Bhutan, China, Nepal, etc. It’s made up of 600 different subspecies. While most fungus is relatively harmless, cordyceps is particularly nasty as it acts like a parasite. It thankfully only attacks insects, but it does a horrifying job of wiping them out. The particular branch of Cordyceps we wish to look at is Ophiocordyceps unilateralis. This is the one responsible for the near extinction of humanity and the monsters in the game.

Cordyceps in the wild. Fun fact they are also edible and safe for human consumption.

For example, if you had a colony of ants and one of them came into contact with a cordyceps fungus, this is what would happen. It attaches itself to the host’s body and eventually replaces the tissue. It also directly attacks the brain, taking it over. It then changes its behavior, causing convulsions and usually killing the victim. Then, sprouting from its head, is a three-inch fungal cell collection, meant to spread to other potential hosts and victims for the fungi. It can also release spores to infect more ants. Whole ant colonies can be wiped out in weeks.

An infected ant

In layman’s terms, it basically turns any insect that comes into contact with it into a zombie. Transmission to humans is nonexistent, has never (thankfully) occurred, and is unlikely too.

In the world of The Last of Us, the cordyceps pandemic is believed to have started in South America from crops, but the true origin is never said. I will be discussing spoilers for the first two episodes of The Last of Us and the game, so skip ahead if you don’t wish for spoilers. In the TV show, it’s the same thing, but in the opening of the second episode, it suggests it started in Indonesia in a factory of some sort, with a woman being a potential patient Zero, but it’s unknown if that is really true. It also later went on to be referred to as the “cordyceps brain infection,” as it mainly attacks the brain.

In the opening of the first episode, a talk show from the 1970s is playing, and an expert talks about how if cordyceps was to spread to humans, we would have no chance against it. No vaccines or medicines would be effective, as it’s a fungus and not a virus or infection like other traditional illnesses. A now-infamous scene from the second episode is where they bring in a specialist in the field of studying fungi in Indonesia and ask if she can make a cure or a vaccine for it. She says no and suggests that they begin bombing cities to stop the spread, effectively condemning human civilization to extinction.

The infection is spread in “The Last of Us” through bites from infected people or by breathing in spores from infected people. The fungus infection also goes through four stages, according to the game. To quote directly from the Last of Us Wiki, this is how it occurs:

“The fungus grows while the host is still alive, with hosts undergoing four stages of infection.” Stage one begins within two days of infection, wherein the host loses their higher brain function (and, with it, their humanity), rendering them hyper-aggressive and incapable of reason or rational thought. Within two weeks, the host enters stage two of the infection, wherein the fungus begins altering their sight as a result of progressing fungal growth over the head and corruption of their visual cortex. After a year of infection, the infection enters stage three, scarring their faces and blinding them, resulting in their developing a primitive form of echolocation to compensate. In very rare cases, if the host survives for over a decade, they reach stage four. They develop hardened fungal plates over most of their bodies. When the fungus kills the host, the host’s body grows stalk-like fungal projections that release infectious spores. “Hosts can only be infected while alive because the fungus, due to its parasitic nature, is unable to infect dead bodies, though dead infected can release spores regardless of stage.”

Stages of infection as seen within the game

How the infected look is very different from your traditional zombie or monster in this type of media. Here are some images showing what happens to the human body over the course of an infection.

Stage one, known as runners

Stage Two, stalkers

Stage three, Clickers

Stage four, Bloaters

It’s said in the world of the game that 60% of the world’s population was killed or infected by the virus. The only immune shown in the game is Ellie, one of the main characters of the game. It’s unknown how many are immune, but it’s probably a very small number. If you look at a similar but different type of disease in another piece of media, the flare in The Maze Runner, it’s said that 0.5% of the population have a natural immunity to it. On that basis, immunity to a cordyceps brain infection can be assumed to be within the same margin or less.

The United States government and many other world governments have collapsed with the CDC and FEDRA being the only two departments to survive the fall of the U.S government. Uninfected live in tightly controlled quarantine zones where military rule occurs. Ration cards for goods and food are common and rights are non existent. There are also smugglers, such as Joel that seek people and goods in and out of these zones. The Fireflies also exist and are a paramilitary group dedicated to finding a vaccine and fighting the tyrannical rule of FEDRA. They have largely failed though.

But what makes the cordyceps brain infection so unique and different from other viruses or diseases portrayed in apocalyptic media is how inhuman those who are infected become. With The Walking Dead and other popular zombie media such as Shaun of the Dead or Night of the Living Dead, the zombies in them still look somewhat human. Sure, they may be decomposing, have lost limbs, or lack characteristics that would define humanity, but they still look recognizably human. However, in The Last of Us, they essentially turn into fungi and lose any physical characteristics of being human over time. They look so different from what we perceive human-like monsters to look like in the media that it really taps into the primal fear of the unknown.

Fungi, particularly cordyceps, is particularly gross and creepy-looking, especially with how the clickers and the bloaters look in the game. The way the fungi spread into their surroundings and infected others is unlike any traditional way we perceive viruses or diseases spreading. The other terrifying thing about the infected in The Last of Us is that they can run, unlike the Walking Dead zombies. This makes them even more deadly.

The fact that these monsters are also based on real-life science doesn’t mean they’re entirely out of the realm of possibility. The CDC in the United States has released guidelines in case a zombie apocalypse were to occur, but that would be thrown out the window with this. As stated in the game and the TV show, there is no cure or vaccine for this. If something like this were to happen, we would all be royally screwed. This is what, in my opinion, makes the cordyceps brain infection truly terrifying. But thankfully, something like this is truly unlikely to ever happen and could be very different from how it is portrayed in The Last of Us. Fungal infections can happen in humans, for example, warts, yeast infections, valley fever, etc.; they are common and can be treated. We just better pray to whatever gods we believe in and hope we don’t end up in a similar situation as Joel and Ellie.

Why Elon Musk buying Twitter is the greatest threat to democracy

$44 billion. Well, more than what Twitter is worth. This is what Elon Musk bought Twitter for. $54.20 per share, also as a joke referencing popular slang about cannabis. Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter is the greatest threat to our democracies around the world right now.

Starting, earlier this year, in January 2022, Elon Musk bought 9.5% of shares of twitter.com. For those who don’t know what Twitter is, Twitter is a microblogging platform where you can tweet up to 280 characters about anything. Twitter is also well known for being where a lot of breaking news first pops up and sort of acts like the front page of the internet (Reddit disputes this fact).

While, many celebrities and normal people are on Twitter, it’s much more well known for its political contributions, and pretty much any political figure, high or low, uses it to communicate with people. The most infamous Twitter user, former U.S President Donald Trump, used the platform to spread misinformation and enflame his supporters. He used to spread false information, encouraged violence against political opponents, disputed the 2020 election results, and spread racist and anti-LGBTQ memes and propaganda. All of which, led to the attempted insurrection by his supporters on January 6th, 2021. This happened when they stormed the U.S Capitol during the certification of Joe Biden winning the 2020 election.

He also regularly shamed people such as Rosie O’Donnell, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and much more. Donald Trump was also primarily responsible for spreading misinformation on the platform. When he was banned, along with other far-right figures, misinformation dropped massively.

This brings us to Elon Musk. Elon Musk has championed himself as a “free speech purist” and even supports those who criticize him and their right to speak. He has regularly criticized Twitter as a platform and believes it should wholly represent everyone’s views and allow for everyone to be able to speak. Basically, he wishes to create a digital version of Athenian democracy where everyone’s voice has equal weight and noise and everyone can speak.

After buying 9.5% of shares in Twitter, Musk was invited to sit on the Twitter Board of Directors. He accepted it at first, but later declined. It was widely believed this was seen as a larger ploy to buy all of Twitter down the line.

On April 14, 2022, Musk made a public deal of buying Twitter for $43 billion, at $54.20 per share. This offer was unsolicited, which allowed Twitter to adopt a “poison bill” strategy as Musk’s offer was seen as a hostile takeover. What a “poison bill” would do, would tank the company’s value to $0 if Musk did a hostile takeover.

But in the end, Twitter’s board of directors, unanimously accepted Musk’s offer with the promise of taking the company private.

In July 2022, Musk tried to abort the deal after concerns about the number of spam bot accounts on Twitter, which was believed to make it less valuable. This started a lawsuit by Twitter themselves because of breach of contract. Musk’s attempt to buy Twitter seemed dead in the water.

But in October 2022, Musk announced that he was going to go through with the original offer of $44 billion, if Twitter dropped their lawsuit. They did, and on October 27, 2022, Elon Musk officially became the owner and CEO of twitter.com.

Musk’s first order of business was to fire several top executives, such as the previous CEO, Parag Agrwal, and many more. He then laid off half of the workforce. Musk was also forced to sell off shares of Telsa to fund the deal, along with financing from the Saudis, hedge funds and other fellow billionaires.

Musk has promised to fight spam bots, allow for people to pay for a monthly service to be “verified” on the platform, and more. He also seeks to create a content moderation council to handle free speech and bring back banned people such as Donald Trump and other far-right figures. He would also seek to make it open source .

Immediately, with paid verified services, it backfired as many people started making parody accounts, making fun of Musk. My personal favorite is when someone tweeted as him: “My wife left me”. This caused Musk, in frustration, to tweet that accounts that didn’t mark themselves as parody would be banned, making him hypocritical. Musk even banned his ex, Canadian musician, Grimes from the platform shortly after the takeover.

The reaction to the buyout of Twitter has been mixed, with many on the left expressing concern about misinformation, harassment, disinformation and hate speech will be able to rise again because of lax enforcement. Many on the right were happy, such as Republicans and other far-right figures that had been banned, felt like they would be allowed back onto the platform, and that their freedom of speech wouldn’t be “unfairly targeted” again.

Major political figures such as Alexandria Oscaio Cortez, President Joe Biden, with Biden expressing, “Musk’s plans will allow lies to be spewed all around the world”. Other figures such as Stephen King and Mark Ruffalo have expressed concern over it. Many former employees have also expressed their concern and frustration about it, flooding an anonymous forum known as Blind with negative comments.

Twitter, despite being a cesspool, at least had some limited controls preventing the spread of misinformation, harassment, and hate speech. It banned far-right figures that were spreading this type of thing, and Twitter had improved as a platform since Trump was banned.

But with Musk, much of that is at risk. Facebook and Twitter essentially destroyed liberal democracy as we know it, allowing for extremist views to become part of the mainstream. Because you drive more clicks with outrage, both companies intentionally used this practice to make more profit and pushed far-right extremist views to the front of everyone’s page. This led to many becoming radicalized and such events as the turmoil of the Trump presidency and January 6th to occur. In the case of Myanmar, it even led to the genocide of the Rohyiga people, a Muslim minority within the country. Social media made everyone more angry with each other, unwilling to compromise on their differences and adopt a “us vs them.” Mentality with the world. Nobody is allowed to agree on anything together.

Despite the limited attempts at moderation, Twitter did, and it still led to deadly and gigantic consequences for everyone.. Imagine with Musk, no restraints and everything even turned up to 11. Despite the promise of Musk to protect everyone’s freedom of speech, given how these companies make money and drive more clicks from outrage, far-right voices will make the most of the platform. Musk’s outdated and technocratic outlook is a poison to our democracy. It will only lead to more culture wars, which take up important oxygen on critical issues we all really need to be focusing on. Protecting freedom of speech should not come at the expense of others, such as minorities.

I hope I end up being alarmist and that Musk can maybe improve the platform and that all my concerns will be washed away. But I highly doubt it. Musk wants us to have a future like Star Trek, but by the way we’re going, we are going to end up like the Ferengi.

Iranian Revolution 2.0: Is it about to happen?

On September 16, 2022, the death of a single woman served as a major push for major protests in Iran, the largest since 2019. On September 13, 2022, Mahsa Amini was with her brother travelling into Tehran, the capital of Iran. She was from the Kurdish Province of Iran and was 22. On that fateful day, she was arrested by Iran’s morality police, the Guidance Patrol, a paramilitary force in charge of enforcing Sharia law and customs. It was believed she was not wearing or not properly wearing her hijab, which led to her arrest. A hijab is a form of head scarf worn by women in Islamic countries or by followers of Islam. This is different from a niqab, which covers a woman’s body completely.

The location of Amini’s hometown, Saqqez.

Mahsa Amini, date of photograph unknown

In Iran, it is compulsory for women to wear a hijab, along with an approved dress code. This was started right after the Islamic Revolution. Women are not allowed to enter a public place, workspace, or school without wearing one, deeming those that don’t “naked.”. Punishment for not wearing one would be 74 lashes or long jail time, as in the case of several women who rejected the laws and protested.

This led to cases of violence against women by the state and some men in Iranian society, with the Guidance Patrol itself launching several campaigns against women to enforce the law. This also led to many “re-education” campaigns, which forced women who didn’t wear the hijab to undergo mandatory state-sponsored classes, often marred by violence. They were frequently forced to sit for hours, listening to lessons and signing a pledge before being released back to their families. Ironically, a dress code for men was also introduced, which of course was much more liberal and not as strict as the women’s.

Agents of the Guidance Patrol

To show the state’s support for this policy, here’s a quote from Wikipedia:

“In 2020, Iran’s government leader Ali Khamenei was quoted as saying that “improperly veiled women should be made to feel unsafe,”  a statement that was supported by other officials and clerics and paved the way to more violence against women. Among the general population, however, an independent survey conducted in the same year showed that 58% of Iranians did not believe in hijab altogether, and 72% were against compulsory hijab rules. Only 15% insisted on the legal obligation to wear it in public.”

In the past two decades, the Iranian youth, especially women, supported more liberal policies, such as not having to wear a hijab by law. This no doubt had an influence on Amini herself.

On September 16, 2022, Amini was officially declared dead after experiencing a heart attack and seizure, according to the state, after being released by the Guidance Patrol. Her brother was told she was going to have to take classes for an hour and that she would be released. He waited two hours and nothing happened. He didn’t find out where she was until he was told to go to the hospital. What really happened to Amini was the following: After being detained, she was put into a van with other people who had violated the law of the Guidance Patrol and was beaten and tortured. When released to the hospital, her brother noticed many bruises and cuts on her in the hospital. She was in a coma for two days and died shortly afterwards.

The state’s official cause of death was untrue, and it was most likely she died from blunt trauma when she was tortured by the Guidance Patrol. According to brain scans, internal bleeding and bleeding of the ears, bruising under the eyes, and trauma to her brain were the clear signs of this. She was most likely beaten for resisting arrest and the curses and taunts the Guidance Patrol threw at her. The information about her injuries was leaked to the public by hacktivists when the protests started.

Also, her father claimed she was perfectly healthy and did not suffer from pre-existing medical conditions before her arrest. The Iranian government was also caught trying to create fake medical records, saying she had a heart condition. A medical doctor also said on state TV that he operated on her as a child, removing a tumour from her brain at the age of 8. This is false, however, along with heart problems. Shortly afterward, on the 17th, people gathered outside the hospital where she died to protest. In her hometown of Saqqez, protests also broke out. At this protest in Saqqez, some chanted “Death to the dictator,” which would become an important chant across protests across the nation. This refers to the current Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. The current state of the Supreme Leader’s health also spurred more protests, as he’s reported to be in grave condition.

As the news of her death and the circumstances surrounding it became more known to the wider public in Iran, protests soon spread to all of Iran’s 31 provinces. On social media, in the first few days after her death, #mahsaamini was trending widely on Iranian social media and worldwide, with over 5 million unique tweets about it. Evolving beyond a general protest calling for the abolishment of the Guidance Patrol and the ending of the mandatory hijab law, it soon turned into a larger anti-government protest. Protesters were now calling for an end to the Islamic Republican system that Iran runs on and for democracy and civil liberties to be restored to the people. In the ten days since her death, 75 people have died, 800 have been injured, and 1200 have been arrested. Thousands of people across the nation have joined in protesting. It’s highly likely that all of these numbers are much higher. Most of the deaths and injuries have come from protestors’ clashes with police and government paramilitaries. Reports of live ammunition being fired on crowds were made, along with the deaths of some security force officers.

Women in Iran and worldwide have cut their hair and burned their hijabs in protest, in a brave sign of defiance against the Iranian government.

Protests in support of the protestors occurred outside of Iran, in Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, and other Western countries. Clashes were even reported at the London protest outside the Iranian Embassy there.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has faced many protests since its inception in 1979, calling for the return of democracy. Protests in 2009, 2019, 2020, and even last year with protests related to food shortages calling for the restoration of democracy are the most noteworthy, but all of these protests were put down violently and quashed. But the state was never able to officially crush the democratic movement.

Social media within the country is heavily restricted, with Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Tik Tok being previously banned. Instagram and WhatsApp were blocked nationwide at the start of the protests in order to keep the protestors at bay. Across the nation, the Iranian government has blocked internet access in a curfew-like style, with it only being available at certain times and being gone for 12 hours at a time. Text messages are also being filtered, with mentions of Mahsa Amini in messages being blocked from being sent to the recipient. Despite all of this, some videos and photos are still coming out thanks to social media accounts run from outside Iran and the app Singal. Elon Musk, the owner of Starlink, has also provided free internet usage via his satellite, although the impact of this is likely to be minimal as you need a Starlink terminal to access the services. Because of current US sanctions and the income level of Iranians, they are unlikely to get their hands on a terminal to access it. The US government, in response to the protests, has lifted some internet sanctions in order to allow communication with the outside world to occur.

Production of Starlink

What makes this protest different from the others is the length of it and the response of protesters to the use of violence by the state to crack down on it. Unlike previous protests, this has only emboldened protestors to continue their demonstrations and revolt against the Iranian security forces and government.One city fell briefly under the control of protesters early last week. When other dictatorships use violence to crush protests, it only emboldens protestors to protest more and more people to join their cause.This was also the case in 1979, when the first Iranian Revolution occurred. As seen with the 2019 protests, the government would have regained control of the situation by now, but they haven’t, as seen with the still-ongoing protests nationally ten days later.

International Woman’s Day Protest in 1979

Given the length of the current protests and how they don’t seem to be dying down, will this lead to another Iranian Revolution, aka “Revolution 2.0”? It ranges from unlikely to unknown. Given how little information, videos, and pictures are coming out of the country right now, it’s hard to tell what the current situation is on the ground right now. All we’re getting are snippets and pieces. But, given the length of the protests and the fact that they haven’t been put down, I’m inclined to believe that some sort of revolt or revolution will occur. Given my Western bias, though, this could also be wishful thinking on my part. In the coming days and weeks, we may be looking at a new crisis in the Middle East. Given how in Tunisia, the actions of one fruit stand led to the toppling of many regimes across the Middle East, this could lead to a similar situation. Never underestimate the actions of one person.

Should we abolish the monarchy?

Today, September 19th, 2022, was a historic day that was witnessed by billions of people around the globe. The funeral of the United Kingdom’s longest reigning and second-longest reigning monarch ever, Queen Elizabeth II. The legacy of Queen Elizabeth and her life could fill up whole biographies, movies, and TV shows, as seen with the five-season TV show, The Crown. But we’re focusing on a more narrow issue here today. Should Canada abolish the monarchy?

Ever since becoming a dominion in 1867,  has had the reigning British monarch as its head of state. While the reigning monarch has no real power and can’t physically come to Canada or always be here, they are represented by the Governor General. Then in the provinces and territories, they are represented by Lieutenant Governors and so on. Canada follows a system similar to that of the British parliamentary system, with a prime minister as the official head of the government and a parliament.

Portrait of the founding fathers of Canada

But we do not have a House of Lords; we instead have an unelected Senate, modelled on that of the United States senate system. Members of Parliament are elected by the general public in Canada in their ridings, and there are 338 of them in Canada. In the Canadian Senate, the prime minister chooses someone to become a senator to represent a particular part of the country, and the Queen swears them in. Canada’s electoral system is also first past the post, where whoever gets the most percentage of votes in a riding becomes the MP for that particular riding. Usually, whoever gets the most seats creates the government. If you get below 180 seats, it’s a minority government, and over 180 is a majority government.

Canadian paraliment

The current Prime Minister of Canada is Justin Trudeau, the son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and the current leader of the Liberal Party.

The current Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau (2015-present)

The reason why I gave you such a detailed overview of the Canadian political system is to give you an idea of how we function as a country. Canada is a constitutional monarchy and we have always been one. But with the recent passing of the Queen, recent revelations about residential schools, the legacy of the British Empire and colonialism, and if it’s still important and relevant in this day and age, have had people questioning it. Does Canada still need a monarch?

Canada is part of a larger system of nations, mostly made up of former British colonies, known as the Commonwealth of Nations. Other nations, such as New Zealand and Australia, have similar systems to that of Canada when it comes to government. However, countries such as South Africa and India, which are republics, are part of it and don’t have monarchs in their government in any way.

Current members of the Commonwealth

Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations

Countries such as Barbados recently cut ties with the monarchy and have turned into republics after 2020, with the George Floyd protests acting as a catalyst. Wishing to distance themselves from their colonial past and reckon with it, they transitioned into a republic. While Barbados is a minor island country, this pushed further along a conversation that had been happening for a long time in Canada. New Zealand, a staunch constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth itself, may transition to a republic in the next 20-30 years, according to its PM, Jacinda Adern.

Let’s talk about the arguments for it first, for abolishing the monarchy in Canada. The King and the royal family and the institution that is the monarch are outdated and racist and represent a dark past in the form of colonialism. So, therefore, because of this, we should ditch the monarch.

I find this to be a pretty sound and valid argument for abolishing the monarchy. Over the past year and a half, Canada has had a national reckoning with our former residential schools, and the monarchy played a huge role in it. Besides the Catholic and Anglican churches, they also mainly help set up the system of schools. Horrible physical, mental, and sexual abuse occurred at these schools. To quote the government itself, they sought to “kill the Indian in the child”. The Canadian government forcibly took away First Nations children from their parents to try “and make them more civilized and Christian,” which more or less was a form of cultural genocide. While the various churches have said sorry, the British monarchy never has itself.

When Canada was first settled, the British government, with the consent of the monarchy, signed various treaties that stole land from the First Nations. This forced them onto reserves where there was no chance of economic growth. The land was poor for farming and drinking water was hard to come by. After 155 years, there are still many reserves without proper access to drinking water.

A residential school with it’s staff and students.

This ties in with a wider problem with the legacy of British colonialism. Britain, throughout its history as a colonial empire, waged many wars and forced the assimilation of cultures they conquered. Millions died as a result of wars, diseases, and other causes. This more or less was a form of genocide. While this may be a problem for some, it’s the truth that Britain would send missionaries and people to colonize their conquered land, with resources and troops to acclimate the local culture to be more white, Christian, and British.

The legacy of British colonialism is still being reckoned with today, and within the Commonwealth nations, critical discussions about its legacy are occurring for the first time in the last 50 years or so. Given how Britain was the largest colonial empire and the victor in both world wars, and the horrible side effects of their empire, they wrote the history books. This allowed them to control the narrative and how people remembered them, as well as to hide their mistakes. While the world would be a very different place without the British Empire in World War II, they should not have done all the horrible things they did during colonialism.

The last argument really for getting rid of the monarchy is that it’s not relevant in today’s day and age. Ever since the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, the British monarch has been constitutional. With the Industrial Revolution, the expansion of the vote to women and minorities, and the rise of the labour movement, the British monarchy lost more and more power. Today, more or less, it functions as a figurehead, not having any real power. They can appoint the Prime Minister based on the vote, dissolve parliament on the request of the Prime Minister, give advice and give royal assent to bills. The Queen can’t block any bills or do anything that goes against the will of the people, such as dissolving parliament, appointing ministers without the advice of the PM, or blocking bills. The monarch also no longer retains absolute sovereignty, having distanced itself from being ordained and chosen by God.

As the current British monarchy is over 1000 years old, and most countries today have transitioned to some form of republican government, it’s time for it to catch up. With Meghan and Harry’s departure from the royal family because of claims of racism, there have been more calls for the monarchy to reform or be done away with.

I see this argument as less valid than the other, as it wouldn’t make much difference, as the monarchy holds no real power.

The main reasons for keeping the monarch are that it’s an excellent source of tourism revenue, it acts as a stable figure in international and domestic politics, and it’s important to honour its traditions.

I find these to be good arguments to support keeping the monarchy, but it needs major reform. Despite the Queen not actively playing a role in colonialism, as the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, she is the figurehead. She oversaw the last 70 years of British history, including decolonization and the horrible aftermath of that. She represents the old, colonial imperial class of Britain and represents Britain’s colonial history, and therefore the monarchy should be held accountable for that.

So, if Canada wants to replace the monarchy, what would have to be done? Well, the house, the senate, and the ten provinces would all have to agree unanimously to abolish the monarchy. Good luck with this, as it’s likely that conservative provinces such as Alberta would block such a thing. This includes every Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Green, and Bloc Quebecois MP in parliament having to agree to do such a thing, which is impossible. The monarchy would have to do such a terrible thing, or the Canadian people would willingly elect politicians that wish to abolish the monarchy. This makes the challenge of getting rid of the monarchy next to impossible.

According to polls and an article from the Guardian, 50–60% of the Canadian population wishes to abolish or hold a referendum on Canada’s ties to the monarchy.

If Canada somehow managed to abolish the monarchy, we would most likely transition to a republic. Instead of a Governor General, we would have an elected president that would fulfil the role of the GG. They would hold no real power, remaining largely in a ceremonial role and fulfilling many of the duties of the GG and representing Canada aboard. Canada would still have a prime minister and you could see a republic similar to that of France or Germany. In France and Germany, though, the president and prime minister each have different levels of power. The levels of responsibility that the president and prime minister would have are a discussion for another day.

My thoughts on abolishing the monarchy? I don’t think it would make any meaningful difference in my life. It has no real effect on my life. Sure, it would change how Canada is governed, but it wouldn’t really change the day-to-day lives of most people.

I’m personally more in favour of keeping it as it’s a stabilizing influence and can act as a rallying point for Canadians. But the monarchy needs major reform and needs to say sorry for its colonial past, especially in relation to First Nations peoples in Canada.

Hopefully, under King Charles ( can’t believe I’m saying that), he seeks to change the image of the monarchy, and hopefully, this is for the better. I hope he is able to acknowledge the role the monarchy played in colonialism and the horrible consequences of that. Only time will tell.

Partisanism in the United Supreme Court: How to stop it

Despite Donald Trump losing the 2020 election, the United States is more divided than ever. Extremely polarizing social issues such as abortion, gun rights, race relations are still very much at the forefront of people’s minds. However, the one that is the most important ones right now is abortion and same sex marriage. A woman’s right to an abortion being protected by the constitution and the federal right is no longer a thing, and the issue has been tossed to the states themselves. The majority of red or Republican states have banned or limited abortion to extreme cases such as in the threat to the mother’s health, rape, incest or within six weeks. Some have outright banned it, as in the case with Oklahoma, Missouri and many more red states. Even some blue states as Michigan have experienced some backsliding in regards to abortion rights. Same sex marriage could have also possibly faced the same fate as abortion, but thanks to the backlash against the overturning of Roe v. Wade and Democrat’s attempts to codify it in the constitution, this seems have been to stopped for now. But how did we come to face this current situation with the U.S Supreme Court and what can be done to fix it?

In 2016, the world was forever changed with the election of Donald Trump. Riding on a far right populist wave of support, Donald Trump took the Republican party by storm and then the country. Wanting to repeal all of Obama’s accomplishments and get rid of what was seen as socially progressive, Donald Trump nearly succeeded in doing so. But Obamacare was saved by one vote by John Mccain and a supreme court ruling, DACA (otherwise known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) survived and being part of the Paris Climate Accord. Despite the US technically leaving, they soon quickly rejoined under Joe Biden when he was sworn into office.

Trump’s biggest and most lasting legacy in is the Supreme Court. With the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the balance of the Supreme Court forever tilted into that of the Republicans with the nomination of Amy Comey Barrett. Any hope for socially progressive rulings in the near future to be passed were tossed out the window.

Earlier this year in 2022, a memo ruling that the Supreme Court had ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade, causing widespread outrage and protests among the US public, and even globally. Despite, the fact this wasn’t the technical final ruling, the writing was on the wall; Roe v. Wade would no longer exist soon.

On June 24, 2022, Roe v. Wade was fully overruled and the abortion rights women had across the United States, disappeared overnight.

Because of Donald Trump’s actions, the extreme polarization of US politics and Democrat’s inaction to do anything to codify abortion, we are here.

I’ve talked many times on here about the polarization of US politics and the extremely destructive impact that it’s had on US society and the world at large. But one side, that’s extremely far right and doesn’t reflect the public’s view on large on political issues is incredibly dangerous to democracy. Consistently, in public polls, an overwhelming amount of Americans support important social issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, protection of LGBTQ+ rights, affirmative action and climate change action. A small minority that holds views that are going against than those of the majority should not have that much power.

An idea, I’ve rummaging around in my head is the idea to make the Supreme Court, a non-partisan body much like that of the Canadian Supreme Court and Senate. I’m no legal scholar, but it’s prevented Canada from being wrapped in these polarizing cultural wars and not having to rely upon the Supreme Court it’s self to constantly having to pass important rulings. The ruling government should be able to pass important bills without having to go to the courts all the time. It’s an ineffective form of governance and time is lost. While, American democracy as a whole needs immediate major reform such as abolishing the Electoral College, getting rid of Gerrymandering, ensuring the protection of voter rights, ensuring fair and equal access to ballot, and getting rid of the two party system, getting rid of the partisan element of the Supreme Court would hopefully help.

In Canada, we don’t elect judges and they are expected to be impartial and give fair rulings, not allowing personal or partisan bias to affect their rulings. While trial by jury is still incredibly important in the states, the idea you elect a judge is incredibly stupid to me. By nominating people that don’t belong to a particular political party, you remove that hyper partisan element. This would allow for more socially progressive issues to be addressed properly and would free up the Supreme Court.

While, I’m presenting an incredibly simplistic understanding of the idea, I hope I’m getting my idea across. It would simply be one cog in the greater machine that needs to be fixed. American democracy is a shining example for the rest of the world, but it threatens to destroy it’s self if it doesn’t get it’s shit together. Wider conservations about reforming the U.S political system to make it more democratic is best suited for another day and for someone much more qualified for me.

While, making the Supreme Court, a more neutral body might not solve everything, it’s a step hopefully in the right direction. This can be achieved simply in the future by nominating judges that don’t have a partisan leaning or beliefs. Potentially passing a statue or bill calling for judges to not affiliate with one party, although I do not know the legality of this. Also, it’s impossible to remove personal bias and beliefs from the situation, if you at least have the veneer of impartiality and neutrality, it’s better than nothing.

Democracies are always a work in progress and the US is a prime example of that. Democracies need to grow and reflect the wider wishes and beliefs of the public, and not just a minority. Majority rule tempered by minority rights is one motto I’ve heard for US democracy. I hope we can see a more reflective version of that soon.

My Thoughts on the Ontario Election

Two blog posts in a week. A rare occurrence for me. Thankfully, I’ve felt the desire to start writing more again.

It’s been a week since the Ontario election, and I couldn’t find the results more depressing. It’s not the fact that Doug Ford won again but the way he did it. Only 43% of the electorate in Ontario ( a total of 10 million) came out and voted, and 18% of that elected a larger majority government than in 2018 for the PCs. This equalled about 4 million people that ended up voting.

To be honest with you, I thought more people have been motivated to vote because of Doug Ford’s response to the pandemic. But the two greatest things that go in Doug Ford’s favour were a disunited opposition and the way our electoral system works.

The NDP were the only ones who really would stand any sort of chance at defeating Doug Ford. They had the most seats and were the official opposition. The polls had been more in the Liberal’s favour, but that didn’t translate to an accurate seat count. With the NDP, their vote is more centralized in urban areas, while the Liberals are much spread out across the province. While the Liberals may have gotten slightly more votes than the NDP at 1,116,000 versus the NDP’s 1,110,000 votes, the NDP was able to gain more seats because of their urban advantage. 

The vote broken down across the province

The biggest reason why both opposition parties lost was mainly due to leadership. The Greens were the exception to this, as I view Mike Schreiner as the most competent of all the leaders at the provincial level.

With the NDP, Andrea Horwath had been there for four different elections, having been the leader of the Ontario NDP since 2009. While I applaud her for staying on for so long and being the only woman leader during this election, she had been there too long. She should have left after 2018, as usually if you try something three times, it usually doesn’t work. For most NDP voters and other voters, just grew tired of her but they did far better than the Liberals.

Photos of the various leaders

With the Liberals, it’s an entirely different story. As a Liberal supporter, I didn’t expect the Liberals to collapse as much as they did last Thursday night. It was a brutal wipeout, with even the leader, Steven Del Duca not being able to win his old riding back. While my candidate won in my riding and I was pleased when she did, I wasn’t very surprised about Del Duca not winning because of several factors. 

The biggest problem Del Duca faced was a lack of public recognition. It wasn’t attacked ads by the NDP and the PCs, it was just a lack of recognition from the greater wider public. Del Duca was a nobody and a non-household name, unlike Ford or Horwath. 

Del Duca was also seen as unlikable and pompous to some people I talked to at the door when I was going door-knocking. I personally also found him to be like that and was never a fan of him to begin with. The Liberal party needed someone young and progressive, not someone with major ties and major money backing them. It was just another continuation of the Mcguinty and Wynne years to some and I can’t blame them for that comparison. 

The second biggest thing that ruled in Doug Ford’s favor was the electoral system. With Canada and across all the provinces, we use something called first past the post voting system. How this works is, whichever candidate, regardless of the amount of the vote, wins the seat if they have the most amount of votes over the other candidates. It’s a system that sounds good on paper and has provided stable government over the 155 years of Canada’s existence, but it’s not truly representative of the people’s vote. 

Because of strong support in rural ridings and in the 905 region, Doug Ford was able to win another majority government. He was able to do this with as little as 10,000 votes in some ridings, which is unfair.

I always took calls for electoral reform as the NDP and other minor parties cried about not being able to gain more seats. But I didn’t realize how truly undemocratic it was and how I was wrong. The fact that only 18% of the people who voted, out of the 43% elected a majority government, is just bonkers to me. That is incredibly undemocratic and unfair. 

Why there was also such little voter turnout is beyond me also. Maybe people assumed Ford would win, and just didn’t feel the need to vote. Maybe, the party leaders and platforms didn’t appeal to people. It could be a number of factors. 

This election was a wake-up call for democracy in Ontario, but also in Canada. While we in Canada laud ourselves for having a better and more fair electoral system in Canada than in the States, we don’t in some cases. This is where the idea of ranked-choice voting and mixed proportional voting would come in.

Ranked-choice voting works like this. It’s basically like you would rank the candidates you would vote for, going from 1 to 5, or however many candidates are in your riding. Whoever is ranked 1 or 2 the most goes into a runoff round. This could be representative of people’s views and allow for greater unity in a sense. 

With mixed proportional voting, whatever percentage of the vote the party gets in the election, is the number of seats they’ll get in parliament. This can lead to a more fair and diverse representation of people’s votes and represents it better than the current voting system we have. My biggest concern is how regional representation will work with this system in place and how do you stop extremist minor parties from hijacking it.

The other big problem is that this type of system can lead to coalition governments. The coalition is a dirty word in Canadian politics as most rely upon getting a majority government or a confidence and supply deal to stay in power. With a coalition, you’ll have to staff cabinet positions with opposition figures, but this system has worked in other parts of the world. This type of voting system is fairly common around the world if you look at Europe, particularly Germany, Portugal and other European countries. If you team up with a like minded party, anything is possible.

In the end, these were my thoughts on the Ontario election. I was very disappointed with the turnout and Doug Ford is going to do nothing about the cost of living. He will only line the pockets of his and his buddy’s friends with money, while looking over the little guy. Hopefully he wakes up soon.

Grand Duchess Olga: The Romanov who made Toronto their home

I have always been extremely interested in the Romanovs. The Romanovs were such an interesting family in the history of Europe, dating all the way back to the early 17th century and had a profound impact. But their fate is what the most tragic thing is about them. Because of the two subsequent Russian Revolutions, the family was removed from power in February 1917 (or March 1917, as Russia did not use the Georgian calendar yet) and placed under house arrest. They were moved several times across the country. Finally, when the second revolution occurred, the October Revolution, where the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government, they were forced to Yekaterinburg, into the Ipatiev House. Nicholas the II, his wife and his five children, along with some servants were murdered by Bolshevik revolutionaries on the night of July 16-17th, 1918. This was done on the personal orders of Vladimir Lenin. For decades afterwards, rumours persisted that it was possible that members of the main ruling Romanov family survived, particularly young Anastasia, with many prominent fakes appearing over the years.

The rumours of Anastasia living though were later disproven when the bodies of the Romanovs were found in a pit outside the woods of Yekaterinburg. While a lot of focus is placed upon the main ruling Romanov family, many relatives managed to escape Russia and their various descendants are still alive today.

The head of the current house of Romanov is under dispute as different branches have different claims. One of the leading heirs of the house just passed away in 2021.

However, today I wish to focus on one Romanov who has a connection to my beloved hometown of Toronto, Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia.

Olga at the age of 28 in 1910

Olga was born on June 12, 1882 in Saint Petersburg, Russia being the youngest child of Emperor Alexander the III and the younger sister of Nicholas the II. Her mother was Empress Marie, the daughter of King Christian IX of Denmark. She had a very strained relationship with her mother, remaining distant. However, her and her father were close. Her father would often take her and her siblings on hikes and hunting trips in the woods. To quote Olga’s relationship with her father:

“My father was everything to me. Immersed in work as he was, he always spared that daily half-hour. … once my father showed me a very old album full of most exciting pen and ink sketches of an imaginary city called Mopsopolis, inhabited by Mopses [pug dogs]. He showed it to me in secret, and I was thrilled to have him share his own childhood secrets with me.”

Olga, front and centre with her family as a child

Growing up, she later married Duke Peter Alexandrovich of Oldenburg. It was not a marriage of love, as Peter was secretly rumoured to be gay. Olga asked several times to divorce but he said no each time. Their marriage was finally annulled by Emperor Nicholas in October 1916. She later married a cavalry officer, named Nikolai Kulikovsky. Things would change dramatically for Olga come 1917 though.

With the outset of the Russian Revolution, Olga travelled to Crimea with her husband, her mother, Marie and her sister Xenia. When they arrived there, they were placed under house arrest and she later gave birth to her first son in August 1917 at Ay-Todor, an estate located 19 KM from Yalta. This town is where the famous Yalta conference would take place 28 years later that would decide the fate of Europe and Japan after the Second World War. Her mother and sister were later snuck out of Crimea, on the HMS Marlborough, at the request of the British royal family. They had been under the watch of Russian guards, then German guards when they controlled Crimea and finally Allied ones once the war ended. The entire royal family in Crimea had been condemned to death in Yalta by the Bolsheviks, but the order was delayed on account of political tensions between the local Soviets in Yalta and at the national level.

Her family was isolated from the outside world, and did not know the final fate of Nicholas the II and his family, beyond that of Nicholas himself. They knew that he had been killed, and correctly assumed that his wife and children had been killed. They did not learn the truth until they left Russia.

After the escape of her mother and sister, Olga and her husband briefly moved to the Caucasus. They stayed there under the watch of a local Cossack named Timofei Yatchik, an imperial bodyguard. They stayed in a local village called Novominskaya and she gave birth to her second son there. They later escaped to the Danish consul in Novorossiysk. She later escaped via Turkey to Yugoslavia and finally to her ancestral homeland of Denmark, where her mother had summoned her there.

Her mother, Marie died ten years after the Revolution occurred. In 1925, she met the famous Anastasia imposter, Anna Anderson, being the only true Romanov to do so in Berlin. Olga believed her to be a fake and was heartbroken when she discovered the truth about her lying.

In exile in Denmark, Olga lived on a farm in Ballerup, about 24 KM outside of Copenhagen and it became a major centre of the Russian immigrant community and the Russian monarchy movement. Her sons later served in World War II, on the side of the Danish and were briefly imprisoned. With the end of World War II, the Soviets occupied the Danish island of Bornholm, causing a problem for her. The Soviet government wrote to the Danish government trying to frame Olga and a Danish Catholic bishop for a conspiracy against the Soviet government in 1948. Joseph Stalin had a role in this personally as well, as he forged the orders to accuse Olga of being part of it.

A painting made in Denmark by Olga in exile

Olga, fearing for her and her family’s safety, decided to make the move across the Atlantic, to the relative safety of rural Canada.

Her future home at 2130 Camilla Road in Cooksville

Olga and her husband later settled on a 200-acre farm they bought in Campbellville, Ontario with her husband, her sons and her grandchildren. By 1952, due to her health and her husband’s health, taking care of the farm became too much to bear. They were very old at this point, their sons had moved away and Nikolai was nearing his death. She later moved into a smaller home in Cooksville, Ontario at 2130 Camilla Road, which you can still visit today. However, it’s a private residence. She lived here with her beloved servant, but she passed away in 1954. Finally, in 1958, her husband passed away.

A painting of her farm in Denmark

Many people were very interested in Olga, especially foreign heads of state. She was visited many times by ambassadors and dignarties. She was visited by her extended family, Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent and Louis Mountbatten in 1959. In June 1959, she met with Queen Elizabeth the II and Prince Phillip aboard the Royal Yacht, HMS. Britannia. Her home was also a magnet for Romanov imposters, which drove her family crazy.

Olga at home in 1959 in Cooksville, Ontario

In 1959, she became more and more infirm after the death of her husband and moved into a small apartment above 716 Gerrard Street in Toronto. During her lifetime, she had taken up a hobby of painting, which provided most of her income until she died in 1960. She was also unaware of or not told about the death of her sister, Xenia in London in April 1960. She would later herself slip into a coma on November 21, 1960 and would later die at Toronto General Hosptial at the age of 78. She only had a net worth of $350 when she died, along with only a few items such as a photo of her husband, a saucer and a Faberge Dog. Her estate was worth $200,000 which was split up among her sons.

716 Gerrard Street where she spent her final days.

She would later be buried in York Ceteremy next to her husband on November 30, 1960. For most of her life, she was considered the last true Grand Duchess of Russia.

Olga’s tomb in York Ceteremy

It’s amazing to think, not too far from where I live in Toronto, that one of the oldest and most famous ruling dystanies in the world, came to an end. Olga, herself traumatized by her family’s murder, was never sour or sullen. To quote an article from T.V.O:

“

Despite the bloody murder of her family and the forced estrangement from her country, Olga never appeared dour or sullen. She joked often, and in her old age, her face was furrowed with deep wrinkles and laughter lines.

“I always laugh,” she said, “for if I ever start crying I will never stop.”

After the fall of the U.S.S.R, there could have a been very small chance that the monarchy could have returned, but it did not happen. Many people in Russia blamed the Romanovs for the rise of the communists, but they were allowed to return and become citizens again.

Today, the Romanovs are reduced to a squabbling royal house with no real power or influence anywhere. It’s a damn shame Olga never got to return home or experience the return of the monarchy in Russia. Her legacy is best preserved in her paintings.

“Her paintings, vivid and sensitive, are immersed in the subdued light of her beloved Russia. Besides her numerous landscapes and flower pictures that reveal her inherent love for nature, she often also dwells on scenes from simple daily life … executed with a sensitive eye for composition, expression and detail. Her work exudes peace, serenity and a spirit of love that mirror her own character, in total contrast to the suffering she experienced through most of her life”

Aftermath: The Freedom Convoy and Moving Ahead

2022 has been a wild year nonetheless. Still reeling with COVID, the discovery of the variant Omicron in late November 2021 changed the game. While there was a record number of cases, thanks to high rates of vaccinations, ICU capacity and hospitalizations in Canada were lower than they were in previous waves. While Ontario saw record numbers of hospitalizations due to COVID-19 at over 4000, stays were much shorter, and the ICU peaked around the mid 600s, compared to over nearly 1,000 during the third wave. Ontario also didn’t face as much of a punishing lockdown as it did, with only indoor dining, gyms, cinemas, and other high-risk indoor settings closed for three weeks while most of the economy was open. Compared to previous waves and lockdowns, it wasn’t that bad.

People will remember the most from this period is not the new lockdowns. No, it had to do with a small group of truckers fed up with the rules. This group was known as the Freedom Convoy.

In late 2021, both Canada and the United States mandated that truck drivers driving across the border needed to be vaccinated. It’s estimated that over 90% of truckers in Canada were fully vaccinated at this point. They were given a four-month grace period to get vaccinated before the deadline of January 25h, 2022. They wished not to disrupt supply chain lines any more than they had during the pandemic due to illness and burnout in the industry and lack of higher wages. This is not an issue for most truckers, as, again, 90% of them are fully vaccinated. But one small group of truckers was upset by this.

Starting on January 222, 2022, a group of truckers located in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, departed for the capital of Ottawa. The protest started against the mandatory vaccine mandate for cross-border truck drivers, but it soon evolved into something else.

There is where Pat King and Tarama Linch came in. Belonging to far-right and Western separatist groups individually, they helped organize the convoy. It soon turned into a more comprehensive, anti-vaccine, anti-restriction, and more or less an anti-Trudeau movement. They even sought to force the Trudeau government to resign, installing themselves as the leaders of Canada, undemocratically. We don’t have to go over the events that preceded the following three weeks.

Pat King and Tamara Lich

A brief summary of the events that followed, for those who may not know what happened. The city of Ottawa being held hostage, pooping and peeing on the War Memorial, the incompetence of Ottawa police in handling the situation, and the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge and other border crossings across the nation. And finally, the calling of the Emergencies Act by the federal government for the first time in history and its quick removal. Also, another critical thing to remember is that most of the COVID restrictions in Canada are provincial-based, and the federal government has no real power to revoke them. Today, we are focusing on the aftermath and moving forward as a nation.

Some of the flags seen at the occupation, weekend of January 27th-29th, 2022

COVID mandates and restrictions have become very polarizing for some. The majority of Canadians, according to polls, still support vaccine mandates and regulations such as the vaccine passport and masking rules to protect themselves from COVID-19. I personally, in the start, was against the idea of mandatory vaccines and still believed it should be a choice. But as time went on and COVID cases started to rise, I found myself increasingly supporting them. After getting COVID myself in late December 2021, I became even more supportive. Thankfully, I’ve fully recovered since. According to science, vaccine passports are the best way to keep businesses open, boost vaccine rates and give people peace of mind when they go out.

By ensuring everyone who enters a place of business is vaccinated, spreading COVID is lower.

How do we move forward as a nation after the events of the past two months and vaccine passports? The answer is; it’s complicated. As more and more provinces remove the vaccine passport and masking rules, the fervor behind the anti-vax and mandate crowd will die down. They will be still be protesting for sure, but they’ll find the new outrage of the week to protest against. People forget and move on to whatever new story dominates the airwaves. As we move into the endemic stage of COVID and new variants, the possibility of some mandates returning is possible. But nothing will be as widespread as March 2020 in terms of restrictions.

The most crucial thing is the Emergencies Act in this situation. Personally, I believe it was the right move. Given how the residents of Ottawa were being terrorized and harassed for three weeks, unable to go about their lives, I think it was the right thing to do. Unlike the Occupy Movement, which only occupied parks and other places, this occupied a significant downtown core and streets. Businesses couldn’t run, people were being harassed and bullied by protesters, and protesters employed psychological warfare with honking. The city’s capital was completely shut down, and these people being there long-term was not going to happen. Due to the incompetence of Ottawa police, lack of resources with policing, and other factors, the federal government did have to get involved.

Given the fact that the protestors also sought to occupy major routes and crossings of commerce and transportation at the border, it was needed. Even though Windsor police cleared the blockade at the Ambassador Bridge, it was still needed a few days before the act was called. The threat of more blockades and copycat strikes was still a strong possibility at the time. After the weekend of Feb 15-17th, protestors were cleared from the downtown core of Ottawa, the act’s use came into question.

Trudeau was required of him in the Charter of Freedom and Rights, consulting leaders of the provinces and opposition parties in Parliament. It passed 181-151 in the House of Commons. It managed to part with the reluctant support of the NDP, given the Liberal’s minority government status. Any attempted lawsuit against the use of the act will likely fail as Trudeau did what has required him under the front and the law.

Other polarizing aspects are the seizing of the protestor’s assets and freezing of bank accounts. Under the act, the federal government required that banks in Canada freeze the funds of people’s bank accounts that organized the convoy and helped in the convoy. I personally was very much in favor of this, as my tolerance of the protestors had long ago vanished if it ever existed at all. A small group of people refused to do so, given plenty of warning to leave. They deserve to face the consequences. The psychological and business needs of the people of Ottawa have gone unanswered, and they deserve some form of compensation for the torture they went through.

Finally, the last thing of note was the lack of enforcement on the protestors compared to First Nations’ treatment when they protest. First Nations protests and occupations are often marred by violence and excessive police force. However, protesters in Ottawa were allowed to sit and face little in the way of violence, only were given tickets. Some police officers even took photos with them. This is very unfair treatment in my view and needs to be addressed.

The long-term actions of the Emergencies Act being called are unknown in my view. Given how it was revoked two days afterward, it’s unlikely it will have a lasting impact on Canadian society. In the years and decades after that, conservatives will probably use it as a buzzword and term to call Liberals evil and dictatorships. People will debate for years if it was needed to use the act, given how successful police had been clearing out blockades and protests. The federal government never stopped allowing protests; they just wished to end illegal occupations and blockades that endangered people. Therefore, it will probably be regulated just to an ethical and historical debate in the long run.

The most significant legacy of all of this will be the polarization of Canadian society along political lines. With the United States and its two-party system and its polarizing qualities, Canada was bound to be affected by it. This occurred through a way of our media, culture, and shared politics. We should work together as a nation. The biggest problem is labeling all anti-vax or alt-right people as racist and stupid is an incorrect assumption. Many factors led to the creation of these movements, such as echo chambers on social media, the spread of false misinformation, and talking heads on T.V . Having had talks with the anti-vax and anti mandate crowd, I still found them intelligent and intelligent people, if not misguided. Coming to mutual understanding and educating people better on these subjects will be the way forward. Misinformation on social media was the most significant factor in my view here with the Freedom Convoy.

Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, according to a whistleblower, intentionally put spreading misleading info and content that would divide people for profit, over telling the truth. This relates to more significant issues of policing social media for misinformation and the fine line of freedom of speech on these platforms.

In the end, the legacy of the Freedom Convoy will be complicated. It will be seen as a time people in Canada were divided very much, and everything nearly came apart. All I can hope for is that future generations learn from the mistakes of this and in the word of the Beatles.”

To Kill a Kaiser

1918. The Great War has been dragging on for nearly four years at this point. The Americans, after the Zimmerman Telegram, which asked Mexico to join the side of the war on the Germans and they would get to reclaim lands they lost in the American-Mexican War, caused them to join. But the primary reason they joined was the Kaiser resuming unrestricted submarine warfare on merchant and passenger ships of any nation. Declaring war in April 1917, despite President Woodrow Wilson’s promise to keep America out of the war, served as the primary turning point in the war. However, American troops wouldn’t reach European shores until 1918.

The Zimmerman Telegram

  Mexican territory in 1916 (dark green), territory promised to Mexico in the Zimmermann telegram (light green), the pre-1836 original Mexican territory (red line)

American troops in France.

Before American troops arrived in Europe, Germany appeared to have the upper hand in Europe. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia led to the collapse of the Russian Empire. The subsequent treaty of Brest-Litovsk allowed Germany to move troops Westward to crush the remaining Allies finally. If Germany won a decisive victory before the Americans arrived or a Communist revolution broke out among discontent and war-weary citizens at home, they would have to launch one final, last brutal offensive to crush them. Therefore on March 21, 1918, Germany launched its latest, major desperate offensive to win. This was known as the Spring Offensive and was incredibly successful at first, given how for the majority of the war, it was a miracle if anyone moved a few kilometers.

The overall plan and hoped push of the German Army in the Spring Offensive

But thanks to stubborn Allied resistance and the straining of supply lines, the offensive was halted, not without thousands more dying or being injured.

Kaiser Wilhelm the II, at this point in the war, was on his way out. Discontent among the German people and successful Allied propaganda efforts left him marginalized at home and internationally. He no longer held any real power, with it being all in the hands of his generals.

To see how the Spring Offensive was going, the Kaiser moved closer to the front lines, only a few kilometers away near the Belgian front. But the Allies had no idea he was this close.

It wasn’t until a specific German POW spilled the beans after being captured. While being interrogated, an unnamed German soldier said that the Kaiser was staying at a nearby cottage in Trelon. At first, the Allies and the French didn’t believe this, but they had excellent sources verifying it.

to quote an article from the Independent, this is how genuinely reliable the sources of British and French intelligence were:

“British intelligence officers in Amsterdam in neutral Holland had frequent contact with an underground espionage network in German-occupied Belgium and northern France called La Dame Blanche (The White Lady). It is known that the LDB had agents in the Trelon area – so it is likely that further information on the Kaiser’s movements was passed on (via Amsterdam) to the British intelligence HQ in London. However, there was always a time delay – so information was always slightly outdated.“

To the shock of French intelligence, not only was the rumor true, but it was the cottage of an assistant of Phillippe Petain, the famous French general and later ruler of Vichy France.

The cottage where the Kaiser resided

It was quickly decided to plan a decisive strike to kill the Kaiser and end the war. It was hoped by killing the Kaiser, they deal a morale blow so severe to the German people and war machine they would have no choice but to surrender.

The problem with the sources they were verifying the info from ( local spies and other informants) is that the information was usually a couple of days old at that point. They were able to reliably track the movements of the Kaiser and where he went every few days. However, if the Kaiser had left the cottage, they would just be bombing some poor assistant’s empty cottage.

With this in mind, the decision to insert a tactical team, along with an airstrike by the Royal Air Force, was hastened greatly. If they managed to kill the Kaiser, the war could be over. With the request being approved by the assistant to bomb the cottage, the plan was sprung into action in May 1918.

They only had one shot at this, and if it failed, it would alert the Kaiser that the Allies knew where he kept his base of operations. This would also force him to move somewhere else safer.

The Allies also learned from intelligence that the Kaiser kept his Imperial train nearby for safety if he had to make a run for it.

In late May, the Battle of Chemin des Dames occurred, where the Germans captured 45,000 Allied troops. This made them even more afraid that the Germans would win the war. It was under these unfortunate circumstances that the operation was finally launched.

On June 2, 1918 at 4:50 AM, 12 RAF De Havilland-4 bombers took from Ruisseauville Airfield (near Boulogne-sur-Mer). At 5:25 AM, they reached the Kaiser’s residence and dropped up to a dozen 50 KG bombs, along with some 24 11 Kg ones. Thanks to fog, the pilots could not see their targets correctly.

Not only had they missed their targets, but they had also missed the Kaiser by 19 hours. He left earlier the previous days to congratulate his generals at the front. The cottage itself was left relatively undamaged. The second bombing raid that occurred on the Imperial train also failed in its mission to kill the Kaiser as he was safe 25 miles away from it. They punched 800 pounds of bullets into it, killing an unknown amount of people.

The Kaiser was not in a good mood when he arrived to greet his generals, as a German advance had been repulsed. Covered in dust and grime, he returned to a different location away from the cottage.

Also, to the utter confusion of these attempted raids, none of his aides bothered to tell him about it, even after four days. He was moved to a different location whenever he learned about it and was furious that his aides hadn’t told him. In the diary of one of his senior aides, they reflected on how dangerous the location was and that they should move. But that’s all was said about it.

We also all know the rest of history after this point. On November 11, 1918, a ceasefire ended the First World War. The Entente and the Central Powers were at peace. With the failure of the Spring Offensive and with new American troops providing more steam and the naval blockade of Germany, the German economy crashed. This forced them to sign a ceasefire out of fear of an invasion of Germany.

In 1919, Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated after a popular revolution occurred against his government. He did this out of fear of a communist revolution and when the military turned against him. With the signing of the Treaty of Versailles and the rise of the Weimar Republic, Imperial Germany was dead. Thanks to the punishing treaty, reparation payments, limiting of the Navy and the army, loss of colonies and land, the inflation crisis, and finally, the Great Depression, caused the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

The Kaiser himself, with his family, fled into exile into the Netherlands and was permitted to settle in Doorn, despite the significant protests of the Entente who wanted him tried for war crimes. He spent the last twenty-some years of his life gardening, cutting down trees ( he cut 40,000 trees supposedly, and this was given out to poor residents), taking up hunting and archaeology in Corfu. He fled with over 60 rail cars of paintings, furniture, cars, and gold.

Huise Doorn where the Kaiser lived out his exile

With the rise of the Nazis in the late 1920s and early 1930s, he hoped their success would allow him to return to become the monarch in Germany again. He hosted Hermann Göring, but Hilter wanted nothing to do with him. Being an Imperial Germany army veteran, he held nothing but contempt for the former Kaiser, as he blamed all Germany’s current problems and their humiliating defeat in World War I on him.

The Kaiser in 1933

The Kaiser also grew to distrust the Nazis after the Night of the Long Knives, saying:

We have ceased to live under the rule of law, and everyone must be prepared for the possibility that the Nazis will push their way in and put them up against the wall!

He also was appalled by the Kristallnacht and the starting of Jewish Pogroms, despite holding very anti-Semitic views himself.

His view softened with the conquest of Poland and the start of the Second World War. Declaring in 1940, the House of Hohenzollern was loyal to Nazi Germany. He noted that 9 of his sons and grandsons were currently serving in the German army at the time. Hitler later banned the Kaiser’s family from serving out of fear of them becoming a rallying point against him. With the conquest of the Netherlands, the Low Countries, and France in May 1940, he sent a telegram of congratulations to Hitler.

“My Fuhrer, I congratulate you and hope that under your marvelous leadership, the German monarchy will be restored completely.“

Hilter laughed when he received it, calling the Kaiser an idiot. He later sent more telegraphs, greatly admiring what Hilter had achieved in such a short time during the opening stages of the war.

Hilter on the far left, in WW1

With the conquest of the Netherlands, Churchhill offered Wilhem asylum in the U.K, as he was a cousin of King George. He declined, choosing to live out the rest of his days at his estate in Doorn. With the conquest of the Netherlands, he ultimately retired from public life.

Hitler left the Kaiser alone on his estate until he died at 82 in 1941. The Kaiser wished to be buried on his estate, and his body was not to be moved back to Germany until the monarchy was restored. Hitler wanted him to have a state funeral back in Germany for propaganda purposes, but he grudgingly respected his wishes. He did go against the rest of Wilhem’s wishes not to have Nazi symbolism at his funeral.

The Kaiser’s funeral

Germany, today is a democratic republic and the fourth-largest economy in the world and the largest in the European Union. The monarchy was never to return.

Germany today

The attempt on the Kaiser’s life was only disclosed four years ago in 2018, with the release of a book detailing it from released British and French records from that period. This was more than 100 years after this. There are lingering questions about why the raid took place. Was it Allied desperation?

They had tried in the times of Napoleon to kill him and as recently as the 1940s with Hitler. These many questions remain unanswered.

The legacy of the First World War and Kaiser Wihlem the II still affect us today. It led to the rise of the Nazis, World War II, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War. We still don’t know the legacy of these conflicts upon our world and history fully. Only time will tell.

My Thoughts on NFTs

What I thought was going to be a fluke is sticking around. NFTs, otherwise known as Non-Fungible Tokens, are becoming a mainstay of online culture, economics, and art. Like cryptocurrency before it, people are dumping lots of money and resources into these products.

But what exactly is an NFT?

Well, as I previously had said, they stand for Non-fungible Tokens. According to CNN, this is the definition of them:

“Non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, are pieces of digital content linked to the BlockchainBlockchain, the digital database underpinning cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and ethereum. Unlike NFTs, those assets are fungible, meaning they can be replaced or exchanged with another identical one of the same value, much like a dollar bill. “

As someone who once accidentally bought 50 dollars worth of Bitcoin and tried to get into the Dogecoin scene, NFTs are kind of like cryptocurrency but in the form of art or other cultural artifacts. Anything using blockchain technology could theoretically be an NFT. Using BlockchainBlockchain, they can also provide a unique certificate of ownership. Any of these can be music, video games, videos, audio, and more. However, they can not be exchanged like Bitcoin, therefore the Fungible part.

According to Wikipedia, while all Bitcoins are created equal, NFTS are not and therefore can have any value, depending on consumer demand and interest in that NFT. NFTs also function as a form of a cryptographic token but can be interchangeably shared. Whoever also owns the NFT has intellectual ownership of it and can share it as they please. I’m just lost as you are trying to figure this out. Here’s a Youtube video further explaining NFTs.

Basically, from my point of view, and anyone is welcome to correct me on this, but NFTs create value out of nothing. They make digital files into authentic life pieces of art or important historical artifacts that can be bought and sold in museums or private collections. They’re assigning real-life value to these files and treating them as if they were critical historical artifacts or art pieces or collector’s items to get. There and also environmental and fraud concerns according to Wikipedia:

“

“NFT purchases and sales are enmeshed in a controversy regarding the high-energy use and consequent greenhouse gas emissions associated with blockchain transactions. A significant aspect of this is the proof-of-work protocol required to regulate and verify blockchain transactions on networks such as Ethereum, which consumes a large amount of electricity; Estimating the carbon footprint of a given NFT transaction involves a variety of assumptions about how that transaction is set up on the BlockchainBlockchain, the economic behavior of blockchain miners (and the energy demands of their mining equipment), as well as the amount of renewable energy being used on these networks. There are also conceptual questions, such as whether the carbon footprint estimate for an NFT purchase should incorporate some portion of the ongoing energy demand of the underlying network or just the marginal impact of that particular purchase. An analogy described for this is the footprint associated with an additional passenger on a given airline flight.

Some more recent NFT technologies use alternative validation protocols, such as proof of stake, that have much less energy usage for a given validation cycle. Other approaches to reducing electricity include the use of off-chain transactions as part of minting an NFT. Several NFT art sites are also looking to address these concerns, and some are moving to use technologies and protocols with lower associated footprints. . Others now allow the option of buying carbon offsets when making NFT purchases, although the environmental benefits of this have been questioned.  In some instances, NFT artists have decided against selling some of their work to limit carbon emission contributions.“

Plagiarism and fraud

“There have been examples of “artists having their work copied without permission” and sold as an NFT. After the artist Qing Han died in 2020, a fraudster assumed her identity, and a number of her works became available for purchase as NFTs. Similarly, a seller posing as Banksy succeeded in selling an NFT supposedly made by the artist for $336,000 in 2021, with the seller, in this case, refunding the money after the case drew media attention. 

A process is known as “sleep mining” can also allow a fraudster to mint an NFT in an artist’s wallet and transfer it back to their account without the artist becoming aware. . This permitted a white hat hacker to mint a fraudulent NFT that had seemingly originated from the wallet of the artist Beeple.“

The BBC reported a case of insider trading when an employee of the NFT marketplace OpenSea bought specific NFTs before they were launched, with the prior knowledge they would be promoted on the company’s home page. NFT trading is an unregulated market that has no legal recourse for such abuses

For example, the video of ” Charlie Bit Me” and the source code used to create the Internet by Sir Tim Berners-Lee in 1991 have been turned into NFTs. An NBA All-Star Clip of Lebron James recently sold for $200,000, and a 3Lau album for $11.7 million has sold. Ironically, a clip of SNL making fun of the concept of NFTS was sold as an NFT for $305,000.

The original source code for the World Wide Web was created by Sir Tim Berners-Lee and turned into a NFT as displayed here

NFT of the source of the World Wide Web.

NFTs have at least been around since 2011, with the first one being created then. But it wasn’t until the past four years that people started to pay attention to them. Particularly within the last year in 2021, they’ve seen an explosion of popularity thanks to celebrity endorsements and the aftermath of R/Wallstreetbets’s GameStop Squeeze.

With the advent of cryptocurrency gaining real-world value (with Bitcoin being worth USD 79,000 for a single Bitcoin as of this writing), this has expanded into other forms of commerce and culture.

I’m probably butchering ultimately how Bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies, and NFTs work, but I’m still trying to make sense of it on my own.

People recently like Jimmy Kimmel, Mark Cuban, Elon Musk, ASAP Rocky, John Cena, and many more have bought or created NFTs. It kind of feels like people are making their baseball cards, specially designed to sell to other people. Investors and buyers recently have been buying and promoting them because they believe they will become some of the most extensive and most expensive collectives in the future.

Many celebrities such as Grimes and John Cena ( two names I never thought I would see in the same sentence ever) have created them and seen the initial value drop because of lack of interest or subsequent devaluing. Long-term NFTs investors have called these money grabs. But like any piece of art, value and price wane and increase over time.

My thoughts on NFTs are that I find them incredibly stupid. The fact that someone is willing to dump that much money into a digital product or piece of art baffles me. Sure, if it was an authentic life artifact or an incredibly famous work of art, that has real-world value. But something that doesn’t physically exist in this realm of reality doesn’t have value for me. Some of the NFTs I have seen, such as the Bored Ape Avatars all over my Twitter page, I have found incredibly dumb and stupid. The art is simplistic, and just the same image is remixed over and over again. If they existed in real life, I wouldn’t bat an eye.

However, one thing to consider is the emergence of an idea known as ” the Metaverse.” Recently in the past year as well, Epic Games and Facebook, among other companies, have pioneered a concept known as a Metaverse. It has existed for decades in sci-fi, but finally, we are starting to see it become a conceivable reality.

The definition of the Metaverse is the idea of a combination of augmented reality and combining 3-D virtual environments where ideas and creations can interact with others with seamless integration and ease. Ready Player One, where any popular culture and history design can interact in different environments, virtually and in augmented reality.

Therefore, I could see NFTs having a physical value in the natural and digital worlds. You can place an NFT in any place in augmented reality or virtual reality that overlaps with the natural world using GPS. Using technology such as your phone or VR goggles ( or a suit that may exist), you have to travel to the physical location in the real world or the digital world to see the real thing. Like the different hubs in Ready Player One for certain franchises, ideas, or pieces of history, digital art galleries could exist anywhere in the real world or the digital world.

If this doesn’t melt your mind, I don’t know what will. Something that sounds like something out of a Holodeck episode out of TNG existing blows my freaking mind. While I think NFTs are stupid, I cannot deny their impact on the future of entrainment and art and commerce.

With the creation and distribution of NFTs on the rise, nobody knows where this will go. I hope my Facebook prom photos aren’t turned into an NFT.