Characteristics Of 90’s/00’s Genre Series

The 90’s/00’s was a golden age for sci fi and fantasy series in my opinion. Then again I am a 90’s baby so having growing up with the genre series from this time I am naturally going to hold a special affection for them.

Still looking at it from a more impartial point of view I think those two decades marked many significant and positive changes in the sci fi and fantasy genres, and also produced some of their most enduring and iconic series and characters, such as Xena the Warrior Princess, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charmed, Babylon 5, The X-Files and the various Star Trek sequels.

In this article I am going to run through the common tropes and characteristics of series from these decades as well the influence they have had on the current generation of genre series such as Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead.

1/ American Genre Series vs British Series

During the 90’s America completely dominated the sci fi and fantasy market. In the United Kingdom meanwhile the genre was for all intents and purposes dead on television.

Doctor Who had finally come to an end in 1989 whilst Blake’s 7 had ended many years prior. Though Red Dwarf still endured throughout the decade it was often messed about by the BBC with there being several years between series 6 and 7 and later 7 and 8. for instance

The reason for this was because many high profile figures who ran British television during the 90’s hated sci fi. The most notable example of this was of course Michael Grade who launched a calculated campaign against Doctor Who in the late 80’s which eventually succeeded in finishing the show for close to 20 years.

It wouldn’t be until the 00’s before sci fi and fantasy series were capable of becoming mainstream successful television again in the United Kingdom, thanks largely to the massively successful revival of Doctor Who.

However even then almost all of the British genre series in the 00’s, including the revived Doctor Who followed all of the same tropes that the the American genre series of the 90’s and 00’s such as Buffy, Babylon 5, Xena and Smalllville had laid down.

Of course at the same time the irony is that many of things that 90’s American genre series pioneered from story arcs, to anti heroes, to characters dying regularly, to downer endings all originated in a British sci fi series from the late 70’s, early 80’s. Blake’s 7.

Now I am not saying that Blake’s 7 inspired all of these American genre series (though it did directly inspire some with the creators of Lexx and Babylon 5 being huge fans of Blake’s 7.)

Still ironically I think that Blake’s 7 really represents the start of the 90’s and 00’s style despite coming over a decade earlier. Though often dismissed by modern critics as a dated, cheesy, low budget series, Blake’s 7 ironically was decades ahead of its time in terms of its story telling and whilst I am not going to deny that its production values are shoddy, ultimately if you can get past that, then there really is little to no difference between Blake’s 7 and indeed any classic genre series for the next 30 years.

British and American Sci Fi and fantasy have obviously always had a habit of copying each other. At various points one will dominate the market, and so naturally the other will then try and emulate their style. There’s nothing wrong with it, but normally I feel that whenever the Americans or the British try and copy each other then there are still some notable differences as obviously the American and British entertainment industries and markets are very different.

For instance Blake’s 7 obviously borrowed a lot from Star Trek, right down to the teleporters, yet its really is the anti Star Trek.

Similarly Red Dwarf took a lot from Lost in Space yet the two shows sense of humour is as different as day and night. Lost in Space is upbeat, whimsical and family friendly, whilst Red Dwarf is more dry, cynical and certainly much darker all around.

In the case of the 90’s and 00’s series however there really is very little difference between say Merlin and Xena, or Doctor Who and Buffy and Angel. Thus for whatever reason I feel that the 90’s/00’s style was able to perhaps translate better over seas than many others.

2/ Leading Roles For Women

A key feature of fantasy and sci fi series in the 90’s and 00’s is that they have much stronger roles for women compared to previous decades.

Now I am not saying that previous decades sci fi and fantasy were sexist.

I think shows like Star Trek TOS and Classic Who get a hard time from many contemporary critics, as though there are certainly some examples of vintage sexism in them, by and large both shows were actually very progressive for their time. Martin Luther King himself even said that Star Trek played a key role in the Civil Rights Movement!

Sci Fi and Fantasy were actually often the most progressive genres during the 50’s, 60’s, but still even with that its true that there weren’t as many roles for women in them as after all the entertainment industry in general was more male dominated back then.

However times change and I think that really throughout the 70’s we start to see more and more leading roles for women emerge in some of the most iconic and successful genre series, from Wonder Woman, to the Alien film series, to The Bionic Woman, to The Survivors.

By the time of the 90’s I don’t think anyone had any issues with a leading character being a woman, but what changed during this decade was that for the first time female led shows actually became dominant. Indeed the three longest running and most successful genre series through the 90’s, Buffy, Xena and Charmed all starred female heroes.

It wasn’t just simply a case of women started to take on leading roles however. Throughout the 90’s we started to see shows where the majority of the supporting characters were women, and the most dangerous and evil villains were women too.

There were of course still plenty of male led series during this decade such as Hercules, Angel and Babylon 5. Still even in these series there were plenty of strong roles for women. In Angel for instance the most powerful character is a woman, Illyria.

The 90’s was really a golden age for female heroes, not just in the sci fi and fantasy genres. Many non sci fi and fantasy female led shows such as Alias also enjoyed huge success during this time too. Still undeniably the most famous original genre characters from this time, both heroic and villainous were all women.

3/ A Character Suddenly Becomes LGBT

Again as a sign of the times becoming more progressive, 90’s shows not only featured a greater representation for LGBT characters, but would often part way through their run turn a character that had previously been assumed to be straight; gay or bisexual.

Examples of this include Willow from Buffy, who became a lesbian in its fourth season when she entered into a relationship with Tara Maclay. Susan Ivanova from Babylon 5, who was in a relationship with telepath Talia Winters, and later Marcus. And finally Xena and Gabrielle themselves who were in many heterosexual and homosexual relationships throughout the shows 6 year run.

In the case of Xena and Willow their gay relationships ended up becoming more popular with the fans, prominent in the show itself, and iconic and long lasting in general.

All of these characters remain LGBT icons to this day with Xena in particular having a huge following.

At the same time however there was some criticism directed towards the likes of Xena and Gabrielle, Willow and Tara and Ivanova and Talia’s relationships as they all ended in tragedy. Indeed this gave rise to the phrase “bury your gays” that refers to the apparent habit genre series have of never giving their LGBT characters happy endings.

Personally however I think that the “bury your gays” criticism is bogus. In actual fact the vast majority of relationships, heterosexual, or LGBT end in tragedy in genre series.

Take a look at Angel and Cordelia, she dies. Wash and Zoe? He gets impaled. Cole and Phoebe? He goes evil and she kills him and shows no remorse whatsoever. Anya and Xander? She is killed in battle after a very bitter break up where he dumped her at the altar and she tried to curse him! You could argue that Tara and Xena were less tragic as at least they were still in loving relationships with their spouses.

Even all of Buffy, (a leading heterosexual characters) relationships go sour. Angel and Riley both leave her (after Riley goes to see Vampire prostitutes) whilst Spike burns up in the Hellmouth.

Wesley and Fred is another heterosexual relationship that ends with both of them dying horrible, slow, lingering, pointless deaths.

So much for it always being a happy ending for straight characters.

People love a tragedy more than a happy ending and thus when we started to see LGBT relationships they too by and large would be portrayed as tragic. Though even then it was not always the case that LGBT relationships didn’t have happy endings either. Willow and Kennedy for instance is in fact the only romantic relationship from Buffy that ends on a positive note.

The 90’s really broke new ground with its depiction of LGBT characters. Again it wasn’t the first time we had seen same sex relationships in popular television series. The first ever gay kiss occurred on British television in the 70’s, whilst there had been prominent drama’s that tackled the subject of homosexuality before such as The Naked Civil Servant.

Still again much as with leading female characters then the 90’s I feel saw LGBT characters become much more frequent and popular than before.

At the height of its success Xena was the most popular show in the world in terms of overseas sales. Its hard to imagine a television series starring an LGBT woman being so popular in the 60’s.

Of course the success of these 90’s show would lead to more shows featuring LGBT characters into the 00’s, with Torchwood having an entire cast of LGBT characters.

4/ Story Arcs

Prior to the 90’s most cult series did not have ongoing story arcs. The likes of Doctor Who, Lost in Space, the original Star Trek, The Avengers, Doomwatch all had self contained episodes. The reason for this was because when selling these shows abroad the makers had to take into account the fact that the entire series might not be brought, and thus they decided to make each story one that could effectively introduce a new audience to the series.

There were some exceptions, such as the already mentioned Blake’s 7 and the Key to Time story arc in Classic Who.

However it would really be during the 90’s that story arcs not only became practically mandatory for sci fi and fantasy series, but where many new types of story arcs were pioneered too.

Babylon 5 marked the first time a story arc spread out across an entire series from start to finish. Most of the show was written by the one man, Joseph Michael Straczynski who had mapped out the entire series before he had even written it. Though he had to make a few adjustments along the way, including replacing certain characters when their actors left.

Still the show was praised for how well it was able to develop its story across 5 years, and indeed many series since have attempted to similarly tell a story spanning several years.

Examples of this can be found in the revived Doctor Who. The story arc surrounding Tennant’s Doctors severed hand for instance began in series 2 and though initially it seems like nothing more than a throwaway scene, it later ends up playing key roles in Torchwood series 1, and Doctor Who series 3 and 4’s story arcs.

Similarly the entire Matt Smith era follows one story arc, the war on Trenzalore, fall of the 11th prophecy, and the threat of the Silence.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer meanwhile would pioneer a new type of story arc, the Big Bad formula.

Now the Big Bad formula is where a major villain or sometimes a few villains will emerge, usually at the start of a series, though sometimes it might be as late as half way through.

The Big Bad will be the head of many of the lesser villains who appear in each episode. Their master plan may be slowly revealed over the course of the series. Their end game will obviously be a bigger threat than any other villain that year, and as a result they will be defeated in the season finale in a spectacular battle where they will usually be killed.

The next year a new villain will emerge to take their place and the pattern will repeat once more.

The Big Bad formula has been copied by almost every major cult series since. Being Human, Doctor Who, Smallville, Once Upon A Time, Supernatural, Charmed, Arrow, The Flash etc.

Whilst it would be wrong to say that story arcs in genre series began in the 90’s, it was certainly during this decade that through the likes of Buffy and Babylon 5 they became more prominent than ever before.

5/ Characters Seeking Redemption

There had been anti heroes before the 90’s, with both Doctor Zachary Smith from Lost in Space and Kerr Avon from Blake’s 7 being two classic examples.

However in the 90’s they not only became a lot more common, but I feel were taken to a whole new level.

Where as Avon was merely ruthless and self serving, 90’s anti heroes such as Xena, Angel, and G’kar had all been murderers of women and children in the past!

It was quite a risky thing to make characters we were meant to root for be guilty of such deplorable things, from advocating genocide, to rape, to cold blooded torture. But that was often the point of 90’s shows that people can change.

These characters will often have to face someone they wronged at some point and try find a way to earn their forgiveness. Sometimes it doesn’t work, like Angel and Holtz, whilst in others such as G’Kar and Londo, Angel and Giles and even Xena and Callisto the atoner is able to earn forgiveness from the person they wronged more than anyone else.

At the same time however these series would often play around with the idea of the former villains never being able to truly make up for what they have done, and thus characters like Xena, Angel, G’Kar and Londo are often denied their happy endings.

A fairly large amount of 90’s/00’s genre series have a character like this. In Xena there is obviously Xena herself. Xena was once an evil warlord who slaughtered countless villages before being redeemed by Hercules and Gabrielle.

Charmed meanwhile has Cole who was once one of the worst Demons but later finds redemption (eventually) through his love for Phoebe.

In Smallville there is Lionel Luthor who starts out as the shows main villain, but ends up becoming a father figure to Clark Kent.

In Babylon 5, G’Kar and Londo both qualify. G’Kar starts out as a vicious racist would be conquerer. Though his people the Narn were genuinely wronged by the Centauri, the Narn still went on to conquer other worlds, and bully other races they way they had once been. They also sought to not just simply get back at the Centauri, but to exterminate their entire race from the universe.

As time goes on however G’Kar after all he endures, sees the error of his ways and ironically ends up becoming an almost messiah like figure preaching love between all races of the universe.

Londo his rival/friend (though only in the later series) starts out desperate to reclaim his species former glory at any cost. This of course leads him into a very dodgy deal with the Shadows that almost destroys two worlds (including his own) and costs millions of innocent people their lives.

However as time goes on he too sees the error of his ways and does all he can to rectify the wrongs he caused and later ends up sacrificing himself to save his world.

Doctor Who has also played around with this idea too with both Captain Jack and the Doctor during the Russell T Davies era having been guilty of terrible things in their past, such as the time war (before it was retconned).

Finally Buffy and Angel have a seemingly never ending supply of these types of characters. From Angel and Spike, two of the worst Vampires in recorded history, to Anya a former vengeance Demon, to Doyle a coward who left his people to be butchered, to Illyria a former Demon who killed Fred, to Willow who flayed a guy alive and nearly destroyed the world, to even Giles whose reckless actions in his youth let loose a Demon that killed several innocent people.

These characters helped the 90’s/00’s genre series be somewhat more morally grey than many of their predecessors such as the original Star Trek series.

6/ Lovable Lovestruck Rogue

A popular character in 90’s shows, this character was always a man.

He will start out as a villain, maybe the major enemy of the female hero. However as time goes on it will be revealed that he is in love with her. This will of course horrify him at first, not only because he has fallen in love with his enemy, but being in love will be contradictory to his nature, as he will be a creature of evil.

After realising his love for the female hero he will then try and become good. His love for her will motivate him to do some good things, but it may also motivate him to do some horrifying things too.

Eventually however his good side will win out, and he will even become more human and vulnerable, requiring the female hero to protect him. Throughout the story the female hero will struggle with feelings for him, which she will give into frequently. Ultimately however they will never get together, though usually by the end the female hero and male villain have a more respectful and caring relationship.

Cole from Charmed, Spike from Buffy and Ares from Xena all fit this template perfectly. All start out as major enemies of the main female heroes, Buffy, Xena, and the Charmed ones, all are creatures of evil who are not supposed to feel love. A Vampire, a God, and a Demon respectfully. All try and do good to win round the heroine they are in love with and all do manage to do great things. Ares gives up his Godhood to save Xena’s daughter, Spike is almost tortured to death by Glory to save Dawn, whilst Cole saves the Charmed ones lives many times.

However all 3 do horrible things as a result of their infatuation. Spike almost rapes Buffy, Ares tries to blackmail Xena into giving him a child by threatening to go to the Gods, whilst Cole rewrites time itself, murdering Paige in the process to win Phoebe back.

All 3 lose their powers or become more human. Ares and Cole literally become human, whilst Spike gets a human soul.

Finally all 3 do not get the girl in the end, but still they all develop a more respectful relationship with her, with Ares telling Xena that he wouldn’t ever want her to go evil again as he loves her for who she is now, Cole helping Phoebe find love again, and Spike sacrificing himself to save Buffy and her friends.

A further similarity between Spike and Ares can be found in their relationship with the main male heroes of their respective franchises too, Hercules and Angel.

Spike and Ares initially start out as darker characters on the series starring a male hero. They both have nothing but hatred for the hero and thus get a chance to be more genuinely evil characters.

As time goes on however Ares and Spike both become more comical characters as we discover their hatred of Hercules and Angel is actually more shallow and petty. The two villain are both just jealous of Herclues and Angel and at times seem more like a squabbling brother than a true archenemy.

Naturally these characters were always very popular. Both James Marsters and Julian McMahon who played Spike and Cole went on to have fantastic careers afterwards. Sadly Kevin Smith who played Ares was tragically killed in an accident not long after Xena finished.

In many ways I think this character represented how the 90’s and the 00’s became more female dominated.

Normally in the past the role of the more romantic, lovestruck villain desperate for the heroes attention was taken by a woman. Catwoman in Batman,  Maxima in Superman, Black Cat in Spider-Man and in some versions Irene Adler in Sherlock Holmes. The role of the more vicious, unsympathetic, evil villain who wanted to kill the hero meanwhile was obviously taken by a man. The Joker in Batman, Lex Luthor in Superman, Professor Moriarty in Sherlock Holmes.

In 90’s series however this classic set up was completely reversed. The hero and the evil, psychotic, villain who was a rival to the hero were occupied by women, Xena and Callisto, Buffy and Faith, whilst the lovestruck villain is now a man, Ares, Spike etc.

It was good to give both women and men a chance to play different types of characters.

7/ Crossovers

Many 90’s series were part of a larger franchise. Again this was something that we didn’t really see that often before or indeed since (apart from the Arrowverse which is already based on a shared universe, DC comics)

The various Star Trek series, Voyager, Next Generation Deep Space 9, all obviously took place in the same universe and had crossovers with one another.

The revived Doctor Who franchise during the 00’s also had two spin off series, Torchwood and the Sarah Jane Adventures, both of which had crossovers with the parent show.

Xena and Hercules also obviously took place in the same universe, as did Buffy and Angel. Finally even Babylon 5 had its own short lived spin off series too.

Personally I always liked the fact that these series took place in a shared universe for many reasons. To start with it obviously allowed the writers to expand the fictional universe to a much greater extent. Also it was interesting watching what were similar ideas but from both a female and a male perspective as was the case with Xena and Hercules and Buffy and Angel.

Hercules and Xena were both fantasy series set in ancient Greece, whilst Buffy and Angel were both Vampire series set in modern day. However the fact that Angel and Hercules featured male heroes meant they were more straight forward action series, whilst Buffy and Xena the two female led series had more of a soap opera element too them.

Also the fact that many characters would cross over between both series was interesting as we got to see how they interacted with the heroes of different series. As already mentioned on Buffy and Xena, Spike and Ares were more complicated, romantic, conflicted, sexy, even sympathetic characters, whilst on the show starring a male hero they were comical, jealous, petty, and humorous characters. Faith meanwhile is almost the reverse. On the show starring a female hero, Buffy, she is her archenemy, whilst on Angel he takes on the role of a mentor to the troubled Slayer.

Then of course there is the debate about which characters worked better on each show. Worf for instance many would agree was far more badass on Deep Space 9 than on Next Generation, whilst similarly there are many fans who preferred Captain Jack as the lovable, cheery sidekick to the Doctor on Doctor Who as opposed to the depressed, angst ridden anti hero on Torchwood.

And finally many fans are split on whether Spike was better on as the hilarious, sarcastic, badass rival to Angel, or the more complex, but wimpy, weepy love interest of Buffy.

8/ Ancient Villain Who Returns 

Many 90’s and 00’s shows feature an overarching villain who was once one of the most powerful and dangerous creatures in all of existence, but who was banished eons ago in a great war. Their followers however remain, and seek to try and find a way to bring them back. The heroes are always terrified of what will happen if they come back, and have to do everything they can to try and stop that from happening.

Examples of this trope in action include the Old Ones from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dahak from Xena and Hercules, The Shadows from Babylon 5, and the Daleks from the Russell T Davies era of Doctor Who.

The Old Ones were once the masters of the earth. They were god like Demons whose power was beyond mortal comprehension. However they were banished from the earth through a portal to hell. Many lesser Demons however throughout the course of Buffy seek to open the Hellmouth and bring them back. Buffy knows that if the monsters were to return there is nothing she could do to stop them and thus has to prevent the Hellmouth from being opened above all else.

The Daleks in the Davies era of Doctor Who had similarly been the most powerful and evil creatures in the entire universe. They however were seemingly destroyed centuries ago in the Time War, but a few of them have survived and are trying to rebuild their race.

The Doctor throughout the Davies era is desperate to prevent that from happening to the extent that he even considers killing everyone on earth in the season 1 finale, The Parting of the Ways to stop the Daleks from regaining their power.

The Shadows meanwhile were similarly once one of the most powerful creatures in the entire universe who were driven away in a war, but much like the Old Ones, traces of them as well as followers survived throughout the Galaxy and they now plan to return which serves as the main threat throughout the first 4 seasons of Babylon 5.

Finally Dahak in Xena and Hercules was also said to have once been the most evil and powerful creature of all, even the Gods were terrified of him. However he too was banished from our reality before the rise of man. Just like with the Old Ones and the Shadows and the Daleks, traces of his evil remain, and years later his followers attempt to bring him back from the nothingness the Gods banished him too.

All of these characters were inspired to some extent by the old ones from the Cthulu mythos created by H.P Lovecraft, ancient Demons who were sealed beneath the earth, yearning for a chance to return.

Indeed even the designs for monsters like the Shadows and Dahak were somewhat Lovecraftian.

9/ Best Friend Who Is In Love With The Hero

This character is also popular in 90’s/00’s shows. They are the heroes rock. They would do anything for them, are there when the hero needs them the most, often help the hero through their darkest days, will take any secrets the hero has to the grave. Yet sadly the hero barely notices them. Certainly not in the way they would like.

Eventually this character will tell the hero how they feel and even perhaps try and make the hero feel guilty for not seeing them the same way they do. Things will be awkward for a while after until eventually the friend gets over their crush and gets a new love interest, whilst still remaining the heroes greatest friend.

Examples of this character include Martha Jones from the New Doctor Who, Chloe Sullivan from Smallville, Xander from Buffy and Joxer from Xena.

Romance never had as big a role in Sci Fi and fantasy series before the 90’s. The likes of Doctor Who, the Avengers, and Lost in Space feature no romance at all (other than an implied attraction between Peel and Steed). In Star Trek meanwhile Kirk obviously had many love interests, but they were all one offs, whilst Nurse Chapel’s infatuation with Spock didn’t play as large a role which leads me to my next point.

10/ More Soap Opera Elements

Perhaps as a result of the genre series of these decades becoming more female dominated, many of them tended to make a move towards being more of a soap opera.

Charmed, Buffy, the new Doctor Who, Torchwood all at times focused more on the characters relationships and personal drama rather than any supernatural threat.

One episode of Buffy called The Body, featured just one Vampire that appears at the end. The rest of the episode revolves around the death of Buffy’s mother from natural causes.

The decision to take the fantasy genre into more of a soap opera territory was somewhat controversial. On the one hand it did at certain points allow the writers to flesh their characters out more, but at the same time its true that it was at other points at the expense of the Fantasy and Science Fiction.

11/ Annoying Child of One Of The Main Heroes

Another character type that emerged in 90’s shows. This character often starts out as a baby who is born through some special, mystical means. The baby stays a baby for a short while until the writers realise that its difficult to have an action hero constantly look after a baby.

So the baby gets aged and later resurfaces as an adolescent. The adolescent will be evil and want to make their parent pay, and do heinous things, worse things than even the heroes worst enemies.

However they will be forgiven at the last minute and redeemed.

Naturally these characters were never too popular among the fans. Eve from Xena and Connor from Angel follow this pattern completely whilst Chris and Wyat Halliwell together also fit this pattern loosely.

12/ Mixture Of Camp And Darker Material

Whilst its true that previous decades series could sometimes get a bit silly (not always on purpose) I don’t think there was ever quite as extreme a variation between darker and lighter material as there was in series such as Xena and Buffy.

Some episodes of Xena and Hercules can only be described as outright parodies such as the musical and modern day episodes.

Yet at the same time other episodes actually pushed the boundaries as to what was acceptable on television. For instance in the first episode to feature Callisto, Xena’s archenemy, the villain makes her entrance by casually slicing the throat of a 3 year old boy open.

Buffy similarly could waver between extreme camp and some of the darkest television ever made.

See for yourself.

I must admit that I didn’t think merging such extreme humour with such dark content always worked as sometimes it could feel quite jarring and off putting.

However that said it was true that it did give the 90’s and 00’s shows a somewhat wider range of stories they could draw on.

13/ Self Pitying Archenemy

Many 90’s/00’s series will often have a nemesis who tries to paint themselves as a poor, misunderstood victim. To be fair they will have been genuinely wronged. Maybe even by the hero. At first the audience will have sympathy for them, but eventually it will reach a point where it doesn’t matter what a shitty life they’ve had their crimes will be so great. Often it will be a supporting character who will point this out to them in a defining moment and the villain will not be able to take it.

Eventually however this villain may be able to find redemption, but if not then they will at least finally take responsibility for the monster they became.

Callisto from Xena, Holtz from Angel, Faith from Buffy and the Master from the new Doctor Who all follow this pattern.

Callisto was originally just a nice young girl from a small village called Cira. Unfortunately however when Xena raided the village she accidentally caused a fire which burned it to the ground. All of Callisto’s family including her little sister were burned to death and Callisto was driven completely insane. Though obsessed with getting revenge on Xena above all else, Callisto doesn’t care who she has to hurt in order to make the Warrior Princess pay. In her first appearances she begins slaughtering hordes of men, women and children simply so she can frame Xena for their deaths. In her second appearance she murders scores of innocent people (including Gabrielle’s husband) because she knows Xena will feel guilt for their deaths as she ultimately made Callisto.

Eventually however Callisto pushes Xena too far when she plays a key role in the murder of her only son, Solon. To be fair Xena had been shown to be willing to murder Callisto before, but it was only from a practical point of view of she couldn’t let Callisto go around killing people, and she knew no prison would ever hold the lunatic (think on Batman!)

After Solon’s death Xena genuinely despises Callisto and even refuses to kill her at one point because she knows that will ease her pain. Incredibly enough however the two are able to forgive one another after Xena (who has become an Angel at this point) finally takes responsibility for making Callisto and uses her Angelic power to purge her soul of darkness.

Holtz in Angel meanwhile was once a noble Vampire hunter and rival of Angelus, the most twisted and evil Vampire of them all. Angelus later rapes and murders Holtz’ wife, snaps the neck of his infant son, and turns his child daughter into a Vampire, forcing Holtz to kill her himself by throwing her into the sunlight.

Holtz naturally wants to make the Vampire pay, even when Angelus is cursed with a soul and becomes a hero in his own right, Angel.

Angel much like Xena obviously feels guilt over the role he played in Holtz turn to the darkside. Holtz much like Callisto doesn’t care who he hurts in order make Angel pay. At one point he is even prepared to snap Angel’s infant son Connor’s neck!

Just like Callisto, Holtz finally pushes his archenemy too far when he goes after his son. Interestingly in both cases, Holtz and Callisto are only able to hurt Xena and Angel’s children thanks to one of their closest friends, Gabrielle and Wesley, betraying them. Xena and Angel subsequently try and kill Wesley and Gabrielle as a result in what are two of the most shocking moments in either series.

Holtz never achieves any kind of redemption however (though his sins were never as great as Callisto’s to be fair.) Still at the very least he does show some self awareness, telling his closest companion Justine that he knows he is headed for hell. Also rather interestingly he calls Angel, Angel rather than Angelus. Before he had always seen his vendetta against the Vampire as righteous and made no distinction between Angelus and his souled counterpart, but his last moments show that at the very least he now knows that Angel is not evil, and that he is motivated solely by vengeance.

Faith in Buffy also follows this template to some extent. Throughout her entire life Faith was completely rejected by everyone close to her, except for her Watcher who was brutally tortured to death by the Vampire Kakistos right in front of her. All of this makes her a somewhat unstable, unpredictable character, but its only when she accidentally kills an innocent man who she mistakes for a Vampire that she is finally pushed over the edge.

Its quite a nice twist on the idea as unlike Callisto and Holtz who had horrible things happen to them, in Faith’s case she did something heinous by mistake and simply couldn’t own up to it.

Much like Callisto and Holtz she goes around blaming everyone else for her turn to the dark side. At first Buffy actually feels bad for Faith, even at one point saying that it could have been her in Faith’s shoes. Of course just like Holtz and Callisto, Faith eventually pushes Buffy too far when she poisons Angel and Buffy tries to murder her. Prior to this Faith is also brilliantly called out by Willow, in much the same way as Callisto often was by Gabrielle.

Faith however later manages to achieve redemption and though she and Buffy never become great friends, they do end the series fighting against the First evil side by side.

Finally the Master during the Russell T Davies era of Doctor Who fits this template too. In the Davies’ era it was revealed that the Master had been driven insane by a constant drumming in his head that he gained when he first stared into the untempered schism as a boy.

Just like Callisto, one incident as a child twisted the Master’s personality and turned him into a monster. As a result of this the Doctor during the Davies’ era is more sympathetic towards the Master than he had ever been before.

In the classic era the Master was not insane. He was a megalomaniac who sought power, and though he and the Doctor had been friends, the Doctor had no quams about killing him. Indeed in The Mind of Evil he goes out of his way to try and murder him, whilst in The Deadly Assassin the Doctor says the Master is the one person in the universe he would wish death on.

The dynamic was completely changed however in Tennant’s time as the Doctor now wanted to help the Master and believed that deep down he wasn’t really evil. The Master also later redeems himself (though it doesn’t stick) in his last appearance in the Davies era where he seemingly sacrifices himself to save the Doctor by blasting Rassilon, the evil timelord who implanted the drumming in his head and thus made him a monster.

Of course all 4 of these villains in some respects were inspired by the Joker. Not only are many of them portrayed as cackling, hysterical psychopath’s, but they all (with the exception of Holtz and Angel) have a gay subtext with the hero too. Also finally the idea of the villain not only being driven completely insane by one bad day, but being created by the hero too is reminiscent of Batman and the Joker.

The Joker was originally a small time crook named the Red Hood who tried to rob a chemical plant, but when Batman intervened he inadvertently knocked the Hood into a vat of chemicals which horribly disfigured him and drove him insane.

The Joker is often quick to point out how Batman made him and thus is really responsible for the evil he causes.

It makes sense that villains in the 90’s and 00’s would draw on the Joker for inspiration. Though he had always been a cultural icon, the Joker’s popularity really skyrocketed during this decade thanks to Jack Nicholson and Mark Hamill’s performances. Obviously this would continue into the 00’s when Heath Ledger’s Oscar winning performance really cemented the clown prince of crime’s place as the most iconic comic book villain of all time.

14/ Killing Major Characters

This was less common in genre series pre the 90’s (again apart from Blake’s 7 which was a trailblazer in this respect.)

There were a few instances of characters being killed off in genre series from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s such as Adric in Classic Who.

However generally speaking in series such as the original Star Trek, Lost in Space and Doctor Who main characters were never killed off.

Again however in a post Blake’s 7 world the reverse was certainly not true. It wasn’t even just that 90’s series killed main characters. They would often do it suddenly, without warning. Fan favourites wouldn’t die in some big glorious battle. It would just be a sudden horrible accident, like Warren shooting Tara as he ran off, or Wash getting impaled, etc.

Of course this has only increased to the point where now shows like The Walking Dead, and Game of Thrones regularly kill main characters off. Still its important to mention that it was during the 90’s that this darker and bolder style really came into fashion.

15/ Downer Endings

Yet another thing that Blake’s 7 pioneered, but really became the norm in the 90’s. To be fair not all 90’s and 00’s shows had downer endings. Some such as Charmed and Buffy had reasonably happy endings.

Still many of the series from this time often featured quite bleak endings. Xena ends with the main character being decapitated, whilst Angel similarly ends with all of the main characters facing certain death. Even in Buffy though she and Willow succeed in making the world a better place, Anya and Spike two of the shows main characters both die. Similarly in Babylon 5 the lead character Sheridan dies before his time too.

In previous decades many genre series such as Star Trek and Lost in Space actually didn’t even have endings. They were often sadly cancelled before their time. Still even then it would have been unlikely for a series like Lost in Space or say Doctor Who to end with any of the main characters dying horribly.



As you can see the 90’s/00’s pioneered a new style that managed to spread out across both fantasy and sci fi, and arguably travel better overseas than any other before.

However it would eventually be replaced by a darker, grittier style that was pioneered in 10’s genre series like Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead.

In some respects however modern genre series just pick off where the 90’s/00’s style left off. Like 90’s/00’s genre series they still feature ongoing story arcs, the big bad formula, and more soap opera elements, and they obviously kill characters off more often.

However what has been dumped from the 90’s/00’s style is the overt camp and humour. Most modern genre series tend to take themselves very seriously and indeed the likes of Xena and Hercules are sadly often looked down on by contemporary critics as being too camp.

Still the 90’s/00’s style does still persist in some genre series such as The Flash, Once Upon A Time and of course the revived Doctor Who.

Whilst mass audiences generally may prefer sci fi and fantasy (and indeed most forms of entertainment) to be dark and gritty nowadays, its nice to see 90’s classics like Buffy and Babylon 5 not only still maintain a devoted following, but also their influence and style still continuing to influence series to this day.

Thanks for reading.


Doctor Who/ Tommy Robinson Comparisons

From one British hero to another.

I’m probably the first person to ever draw a comparison between the Doctor, a two hearted, time travelling alien from Gallifrey, and Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the EDL, and a media hate figure.

However recently when watching the classic story The Power of the Daleks; I noticed some rather striking similarities between the situation in that adventure, and the current crisis Britain and the west in general faces as a result of Islamic extremism.

Now obviously this was not intentional on the part of the writer of The Power of the Daleks, the late David Whitaker. Power was broadcast in 1966 about 20 years before Tommy was even born!

Still ultimately I find the story to be the best metaphor, unintentionally for the current Islamic crisis we are facing in the west and the Doctor similarly in that story, unintentionally represents Tommy Robinson’s role in the ongoing struggle against Islam.

Hopefully as I explore the similarities you might come to agree with me, though as always let me know what you think in the comments below.

Who is Tommy Robinson?

Before we start I thought it would be best to give a brief introduction to Tommy Robinson for those who might not be familiar with him.

If you had asked me just a year ago what I thought of Tommy I would have sadly like many others derided him as nothing more than a racist thug, and a trouble maker.

The mainstream media always portrayed him that way and I bought into it. However when I saw him being interviewed by Paul Joseph Watson last year I found myself, to my immense surprise agreeing with every single thing he said. After that I tracked down many other videos of Tommy and now I not only think the man doesn’t have a single racist bone in his body, but I would actually consider him a true British hero.

Tommy has never attacked anyone for their race. Indeed you’d be hard pushed to find someone from a more multi cultural and multi racial background than Tommy Robinson.

All he has ever done is criticise the religion of Islam. Islam is not a race. It is an ideology. Criticising it is no different to criticising say Christianity, Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, or Scientology.

Ironically I find people who call criticism of Islam racist, to be the actual racists themselves. After all what they are saying is that we can’t criticise Islam because most of its followers have brown skin. Basically they think its okay for a dark skinned person to follow a violent, dangerous ideology like Islam because, hey brown people aren’t quite on white people’s level yet. We shouldn’t ever hold dark skinned people to the same high moral standards that we would white people.

Meanwhile a non racist person like Tommy doesn’t care about what skin colour someone has. He criticises any ideology that he finds abhorrent regardless of the race of its followers as he ultimately holds every person on earth to the same moral standard.

Now at the same time obviously not all Muslims are violent, and Tommy Robinson has NEVER said that they were.

He always makes it clear that whilst many Muslims who live in the west are good people, the ideology of Islam at its core is violent and dangerous and its influence in our society needs to be curbed.

Tommy has argued that the many peaceful Muslims in the west either abandon the violent parts of their religion, and embrace its spiritual side, or they simply haven’t read their own holy book. I completely agree with him on this point. In fact I think that most religious people including even Christians in secular societies probably haven’t read their own holy book to be honest.

However Muslims who do actually follow the Quran word for word and are raised on genuine Islamic beliefs, at the very least hold prejudiced views against women, gays, black people, and atheists, whilst in the most extreme cases they will end up becoming terrorists.

The reason for this is because Islam’s holy book, the Quran, says very clearly that Muslims have to murder all non believers, that all gay people are to be killed, that women are inferior to men, that black people are inferior to white people, and that if a Muslim sins (which includes things like eating pork, drinking, listening to music) then a way they can redeem themselves and get into heaven is if they kill more infidels.

This is why over 50 percent of British Muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal, why in any country where Islam is allowed to call the shots, women have fewer rights than men, LGBT people are either imprisoned or killed, and all other religions are banned. This is also why Muslim extremists kill themselves in terror attacks, whilst slaughtering “infidels” as they do genuinely believe that they will go to heaven if they kill non believers.

Here are some sources to back up these claims.

Half of All British Muslims Think Homosexuality Should Be Banned

England Grooming Statistics

There is obviously a problem with Islam, even in Western secular societies and it needs to be dealt with. That obviously does not mean that we should round up all the Muslims and get rid of them. That would be utterly inhuman and Tommy Robinson has NEVER argued for that.

However at the same time we need to stop pandering to the religion and try and limit its influence in the west. For instance all Islamic schools, Sharia courts and Madrassess should be banned in the United Kingdom. Also there should be a limit to immigration from countries that are majority Muslim until the problems with extremism are taken care of, and finally criticism of Islam should become as common as it is of other religions.

All Tommy Robinson has ever tried to do is bring problems caused by Islam to people’s attention, whilst at the same time always making sure not to tar innocent Muslims with the same brush. He has always presented his points in a fair and reasonable way, and has been open to debating anyone, even people who have sent him death threats. See here.

Sadly however the mainstream media have from the start attempted to sabotage Tommy Robinson, simply because they are complete cowards when it comes to Islam. They don’t dare criticise the religion because they are not only terrified of being killed by Muslim extremists, but also they are also scared of being called racists too.

Tommy Robinson meanwhile exposes the media for the cowards they are simply because he does their job for them.

Its Tommy Robinson who brings widespread attention to Muslim extremists that could potentially be a danger to the country. He did a video on the killer of Lee Rigby, 5 years before he brutally murdered the British soldier in cold blood on the streets of London.

He also warned about the Muslim grooming gangs before they became public knowledge in towns such as Rochdale, and even to this day Tommy offers far more support for the victims of Muslim grooming gangs that are all but ignored by the mainstream media and sadly at times even the police too.

See here.

Of course that’s not to say that Tommy hasn’t made mistakes. By his own admission in his youth he was a bit of a thug. Also the EDL an organisation he founded didn’t go quite the way he planned either. He even ended up leaving it in 2013 as he felt it had been taken over by extremists.

Still overall I think Tommy is a good man who has done a lot for this country and whilst the media may have succeeded in turning many people against him, ultimately I think in years to come Tommy will be seen as someone who above all else cared about the people of Britain and did all he could to help them.

Here are some videos you should check out if you have the time.

The Power of the Daleks

Tommy Robinson, Caolan Robertson and Faith Goldy stumble upon some Jihadis. Note; Faith Goldy is obviously way cooler than Polly, but still you get my general point.

The Power of the Daleks was a 1966 story and the first to feature the second Doctor played by Patrick Troughton.

Its premise sees the newly regenerated Doctor arrive on the planet Vulcan in the future. There he and his companions, Ben and Polly discover a far flung earth colony, cut off from the rest of humanity.

The colony is suffering from many problems, chief among them are a group of rebels who plan to take it over. The rebels are secretly in league with a man named Bragen, who holds great influence and power. Bragen however does not actually care about the rebels planned utopia. He sees them as a mere means to an end, and actually intends to dispose of them once he is in charge.

Things become even more complicated when the colony’s leading scientist Lesterson discovers a space capsule containing three deactivated Daleks.

The Daleks are the Doctors greatest adversaries. They are a race of hideous mutants, housed within a near indestructable, tank like armour. They seek to exterminate all other life forms in the universe as they believe them to be inferior.

Lesterson revives one of the Daleks who instantly exterminates his assistant. A woman named Janley however (who is secretly a rebel), covers up the killing as she hopes to use the Daleks to help the rebels take over.

Lesterson carries on with his experiments and revives the Daleks. The Daleks pretend to be peaceful, harmless, friendly creatures. They even chant “I AM YOUR SERVANT!”. All of the colonists who know nothing about the Daleks are fooled by their deception.

Naturally the Doctor tries to warn everyone about what the Daleks are really like, but no one listens to him. They think he is crazy, and at one point they even lock him up in prison.

The Daleks meanwhile are given materials and supplies willingly by the colonists and the rebels which they use to build an army. The army then goes on to exterminate almost everyone on the colony before the Doctor finally manages to defeat the monsters by giving them a power overload.

The Power of the Daleks has long been regarded as one of the greatest Doctor Who stories ever made. Sadly however all 6 episodes are currently missing from the archives. Only a few scant clips remain.

In 2016 however an animated version of the story, featuring the original soundtrack which fortunately still survives was released on DVD to great acclaim.

Prior to this there had been numerous reconstructions of the story made by fans on youtube, using pictures and the original soundtrack. Personally I preferred the animated adaptation, but a lot of the Recons were very well done too.

Who’s Who In This Story?

Tommy Robinson/ The Doctor 


The Doctor in this story, much like Tommy Robinson is now, tries desperately to warn a society that has been duped by the followers of a dangerous and hateful ideology what it is really like and that they are greatly underestimating their enemy from within, whose power and numbers are slowly growing.

Of course just as the mainstream media slanders Tommy and most of the population sadly view him as nothing but a racist and a bigot, then the Doctor is similarly ignored by everyone around him like Lesterson, the colonists and even the rebels.

Just like Tommy, the Doctor is even thrown in prison at one point!

Both Tommy and the Doctor know more than the others around them from experience, but sadly they are not listened to. It ended up being too late for the colonists on Vulcan lets hope its not too late for us!

Another area where I feel the Doctor and Tommy are similar is that neither are taken seriously because of their appearance.

The Second Doctor was often referred to as a cosmic hobo. He dressed in clothes that were too big for him, he acted in a somewhat hysterical and childish manner and naturally people often thought he was a fool.

Of course underneath the bumbling facade he was anything but. In fact he was one of the craftiest Doctors.

Now Tommy I obviously don’t think acts the fool or dresses in a ridiculous way like the Second Doctor, but at the same time I don’t think people take Tommy seriously for superficial reasons to do with his appearance.

In Tommy’s case I feel that its to do with class snobbery. A lot of the middle class regressives in the mainstream media take one look at Tommy and think that he is an idiot because of his accent, his style, his background etc.

Take a look at this interview between Tommy and George Galloway. Galloway just completely dismisses all of Tommy’s claims and calls him a knuckle scraping moron.

Of course ironically in this video here George Galloway debates Nigel Farage on the same issue, but he is completely respectful to the former leader of UKIP in contrast.

Why do you think that is? Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farge make exactly the same points on Islam. In fact you could argue that Farage is more extreme than Robinson, only because Farage wants to ban the Hijab which Tommy has explicitly said he has no problem with.

Yet Galloway refers to Farage as a “truly worthy adversary” and shows him the utmost respect, he even wishes him well, whilst Tommy is dismissed as a “knuckle scraping” moron.

Its because Nigel Farage has a posh accent, is erudite, dresses in sharp suits etc, whilst Tommy in George’s eyes is the little commoner. Ironically George Galloway, the supposed man of the people, and great socialist is actually a class snob.

This video here however is my favourite as this interviewer on Aljazeera clearly thinks Tommy is a moron too and tries to catch him out by reading a line from the old testament claiming its from the Quran.

Tommy Robinson much like the Second Doctor has to deal with people that he is much smarter than, but who treat him like a moron based on the most shallow reasons whilst trying to warn everybody else about the danger they are in.

Finally another area where I feel that Tommy Robinson is similar to the Doctor is that both of them are motivated solely by their desire to help people.

That’s always been a large part of the Doctors appeal, that he was really just a straight, forward good guy.

Most heroes when you think about it are heroes because of some big tragic event in their lives. Batman for instance, its the murder of his parents in front of him, Spider-Man its at least partially the murder of his Uncle Ben. Others like Xena and Angel meanwhile are trying to make up for their past mistakes. Some might even be caught in an accident that gives them powers too.

With the Doctor however its just because he is a good man. The Doctor isn’t on a quest to rid the universe of evil, nor is he trying to make up for past sins (in the classic series at least.) He just simply wants to explore the universe, but whenever he stumbles upon injustice (which is most of the time), he can’t let it go. He has to do something about it

Now Tommy I feel is the same in that I don’t think he was ever really a political person, not because he wasn’t intelligent of course. Based on what I have heard Tommy Robinson say about his early life, he seemed to have other ambitions and plans. I think he was someone who just simply couldn’t turn a blind eye to the people in his local community around him suffering as a result of Islamic extremism and became involved.

It would have been much easier for Tommy if he had just turned a blind eye, same way it would more often than not be easier for the Doctor just to nip in the TARDIS and leave whatever problem he is facing behind.

Ultimately however neither can do that as they both care about the people around them too much.

The Daleks/Islam

” We are men who love death just as you love your life. We’re the soldiers who fight in the day and the night.”

Now again obviously I am not saying that all Muslims are evil here, but sadly it cannot be denied that the ideology of Islam is not only evil at its core, but its ideals are not too dis-similar from the Daleks beliefs.

The Daleks were created by the deranged scientist Davros to despise all other life forms in the entire universe. He felt the only way they could survive was if they came to dominate all other life forms.

Now the Quran as we know says that all non believers, all non Muslims basically are to be killed. It also says that all homosexuals are to be killed regardless, that all black people are inferior to white people and that men are superior to women in every way.

Thus Islam much like the Daleks has an idea of the perfect being, and anyone who doesn’t fit in with that idea in both the Daleks and Islam’s view is to be exterminated!

The Daleks are also prepared to kill themselves in order to destroy their enemies. Examples of this include in Asylum of the Daleks when an unarmed Dalek tries to blow itself up to take out the Doctor, and Destiny of the Daleks when a group of Daleks strap bombs to themselves and try to blow up a Movellan spaceship.

Dalek suicide bombers!

The Daleks and Islam are also created in the image of a twisted, inadequate man. Originally the Daleks were a humanoid race called the Kaleds but it was Davros that mutated them into the Daleks and tampered with their minds.

Everything Davros is the Daleks are. Davros is pitiless, Davros craves power, Davros despises people he considers to be weak, etc.

Similarly everything that Muhammed was we can see replicated in his most vile followers. For instance Muhammed was a pedophile, who kept women as sex slaves, beat women, and regarded them as inferior to men in every way, and sadly we see his followers in many Islamic countries follow his example, and deny women the same rights as men,  make child marriage completely legal, and inflict the most horrific violence on their female spouses and relatives.

Of course the great irony with both Davros and Muhammed is that whilst they managed to ensure that millions more people throughout history would be shaped in their own vile image. Both were also among the most pathetic, inadequate excuses for men you could imagine.

Muhammed was an illiterate, violent, degenerate who used to boast about how many semen stains he made his child bride scrub out. He also suffered an undignified death because he was so stupid he didn’t realise that his food was poisoned; after it was served to him by someone whose family he had killed! He didn’t even realise it was poison after he had bitten into it and could actually taste the poison!

Davros meanwhile is a weak, pathetic man who never faces his death with dignity, despite his constant talk of strength and power.

The parallels between the Daleks and Islam become arguably even stronger in The Power of the Daleks due to the tactics the Daleks use against their enemies.

The Daleks lie to the colonists, claiming that they are peaceful, friendly robots, who love humanity.

Now Islam advocates that its followers, when they are low in number and vulnerable, lie through a process called Taqqiya that Islam is peaceful in order to deceive non believers. The prophet Muhammed himself used this tactic when his forces were weak.

Of course once non believers are no longer of any use then they are to be killed just like any other non Muslim.

The Daleks in this story effectively practice Taqqiya to lure in the unsuspecting colonists, not only into not disposing of them when they are weak and few in number, but also into actually giving them what they need in order to become powerful, and eventually overthrow the Vulcan colony.

Now again when dealing with Taqqiya it is important not to simply dismiss every Muslim who doesn’t support barbarians like ISIS as practising Taqqiya.

However at the same time many Imans and celebrity Muslim speakers have been known to practice Taqqiya.

An example of this is Linda Sarsour, a supposed Muslim feminist (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one.)

Whilst Sarsour presents herself as a progressive ally to marginalised groups, in truth she is a supporter of Sharia Law, a law which states that women are inferior to men, and thus deserve less rights than they do, and worse treats homosexuality as illegal.

Sarsour also has made disgusting comments about Ayaan Hirsi Ali an outspoken feminist critic of Islam.

She said that she hopes Ali gets beaten up and has her vagina taken away from her. Ali is a victim of genital mutilation ( a practice advocated by Muhammed himself). Sarsour knows this and thus is basically saying she would love to mutilate Hirsi Ali’s genitals again!

Radical Muslims like Sarsour are able to use people’s general ignorance of Islam to further their twisted beliefs whilst at the same time presenting themselves as champions of social justice, just as the Daleks used the Colonists ignorance of their true nature to their advantage.

Lesterson/ Owen Jones/ Angela Merkel/ Other Apologists For Islam

Owen Jones and others like him who shout down any criticism of Islam as racist are represented in this story by the hapless scientist Lesterson who ends up bringing about the end of the colony.

Lesterson revives the Daleks because he thinks that they are harmless and can be used for the good of the people of Vulcan.

He is given repeated warnings by the Doctor and his companions, but he doesn’t listen to any of them of course.

He not only revives the Daleks but gives them the various supplies they need to build a machine that creates more Dalek casings, and an incubation chamber that clones more mutants.

Even as it is becoming apparent that the Daleks are dangerous, Lesterson still doesn’t listen, and he only realises when its too late the horror he has unleashed upon his own people.

Lesterson decisions are motivated by a genuine desire to help the people of Vulcan, but at the same time it is also hinted that he is desperate to use the Daleks to further his own career. He is aware to some extent that there is a risk with the Daleks from the start, but he is so arrogant he thinks that the can use them.

People like Owen Jones are exactly like Lesterson in my opinion. Owen Jones for those of you who are unfamiliar with him is a journalist for the Guardian. He is a socialist and also a rank Islam apologist.

He has in fact shut people down who criticise Islam such as Douglas Murray who he deplatformed by refusing to appear on a show as long as he did.

Now whilst I dislike Jones immensely I will give him the benefit of the doubt that his desire to protect Muslims from apparent Islamophobia does stem from a genuine desire to help people.

However Jones is ultimately completely misguided. He equates perfectly reasonable criticism of the ideology of Islam from people like Tommy Robinson with violent attacks against innocent Muslims.

He also knows nothing about Islam (unlike Tommy Robinson) and thus actually champions it as a progressive religion. He has swallowed all of the Taqqiya around him.

Also again I feel that Owen Jones just sticks up for Islam because most of its followers are brown skinned, and so he instantly assumes that they have to be the poor victims of the evil white people (which is ironic as Islam is a white supremacist religion at its core.)

Still Owen Jones like a lot of so called “liberals” has a racist double standard against dark skinned people ironically. No matter what happens he can’t view them as being in the wrong. He treats them like children “aww that’s okay that you throw gay people off of a roof top, you’re dark skinned, its not like you’re civilised like white people.”

As time goes on however and there are more Islamic atrocities, and even just as more people become aware of what is actually in the Quran thanks to people like David Wood, Paul Joseph Watson and of course Tommy Robinson. Then even the likes of Owen Jones begin to worry that maybe they have actually backed the wrong horse when it comes to Islam.

Like Lesterson in Power they have a mental breakdown. When Owen Jones stormed off the Sky News interview after the Orlando massacre I think Douglas Murray was right that it may have in part been motivated by guilt over the fact that Owen deep down must have realised that he spent a large part of his career covering for an ideology that had just killed 50 LGBT people that night.

Owen Jones’ sense of guilt is not misplaced at all of course.

He should feel guilty for creating an atmosphere where Islamic extremism is able to flourish more easily as people like him spread dangerous lies to the general public that Islam is a religion of peace, have prevented Islamic reformers, the only people who have a shot at actually making the religion peaceful from being given as big a platform as they should (as even they are often deemed “Islamophobic”), and he has actively shut down the people brave enough to criticise Islam in public and bring attention to the problems it is causing like Tommy Robinson, by ruining their reputations through smearing them as racists, and actively preventing them from being able to speak in public like Douglas Murray.

Thus Owen Jones in my opinion is in some respects complicit in the problems Islam is causing in the UK getting worse just like Lesterson was in the rise of the Daleks on Vulcan.

At the same time however just like Lesterson a lot of these high profile Islamic apologists are perhaps somewhat more cynical in their support for this twisted ideology.

Angela Merkel for instance I feel wanted more refugees into Germany so that she could use them as a cheap labour force. Of course once again just like Lesterson she greatly underestimated just what it was she was truly letting in.

The Vulcan Rebels/ Antifa

Antifa are perfectly represented by the rebels on Vulcan such as Janley.

Antifa for those of you who are unfamiliar with them are an extreme far left organisation who have carried out violent protests against figures such as Milo Yiannopolous.

Now the rebels I feel not only represent Antifa, but also many other far left organisations who show support for Islam.

These leftists show their support for Islam because they despise western society so much they actually view Islam as their ally in destroying it.

Now I personally would regard myself as a socialist. I have some problems with Western society too but ultimately it is foolish to ally with radical Islamists. The society they would build would be far worse for everyone, atheists, Jews, LGBT people, women, even peaceful Muslims.

However these leftists are so blinded by their hatred of the west they fail to see that they have not only jumped into bed with someone much worse, but that their new “ally” will dispose of them as soon as they are of no further use.

The Vulcan rebels meanwhile similarly are so obsessed with overthrowing what they believe to be an unfair and oppressive society that they end up working with the Daleks, the most evil creatures in the entire universe. The Daleks of course plan to dispose of the rebels once they are of no further use too. In fact Janley, the rebel who covers up the Daleks first killing and thus makes their entire deception possible is gunned down by the monsters at the end of the story during their rampage.

Bragen/ George Soros

The main villain of the piece. Bragen is a greedy, self serving, backstabbing liar who plays both the rebels and the regular colonists against one another.

Bragen is already in a high position of authority and influence on the colony but he is so greedy he wants more. The naive rebels think that he cares about their vision of a perfect utopia, but to him they are a mere means to an end.

Now George Soros I don’t think wants to take over the world, but at the same time he and others like him in high positions in society love identity politics (which is of course embraced by the likes of Antifa) because it keeps the poorest and most marginalised people in society squabbling among themselves rather than actually working together to bring about a genuine positive change.

Identity politics is really the greatest weapon against genuine left wing politics there has ever been. It divides people by race, gender, and sexuality. Rather than working together, men and women for instance as a result of identity politics influence end up at loggerheads over stupid, trivial bullshit like white male privilege, manspreading, and mansplaining,

Thus George Soros uses radical leftists as a tool, much like how Bragen did with the Vulcan rebels. In both cases the anarchists foolishly believe one of the richest and most powerful men in society genuinely cares about their left wing beliefs!

Bragen’s use of the Daleks also somewhat mirrors Soros and others like him’s attempts to use Islam too. Bragen once again believes that he can use the Daleks to help dispose of his enemies and divide the colonists for his own ends.

Soros meanwhile I feel wants to use the problems caused by Islam to further divide the working class, hence why he personally supports radical Muslims like Linda Sarsour who openly supports Sharia Law.

Of course just like Antifa and the apologists like Owen Jones, Soros and Bragen greatly underestimate the damage both Islam and the Daleks will cause. They are not so easily manipulated or controlled.

Why This Means The Daleks Are The Greatest Monsters

The Daleks for me have always been the most effective monsters in all of science fiction because I feel that they ironically despite their alien nature represent the very worst aspects of humanity better than any other monster.

The Daleks were originally based on the Nazis. Their creator Terry Nation grew up during World War 2 and drew on his own past experiences. Many strong parallels are drawn between the Daleks and the Third Reich throughout both the original and the revived Doctor Who.

The Daleks hatred towards all other non Dalek life forms obviously draws from the Nazi’s ideas of a master race.

In their first story meanwhile Terry Nation creates a similar situation to the policy of appeasement before World War 2. The Thals, another humanoid race who live on the same planet as the Daleks, Skaro refuse to fight the monsters.

Even though the Daleks wish to exterminate them, the Thals do not wish to fight the monsters because many centuries ago the Thals fought the Daleks in a war which ultimately destroyed the surface of Skaro, turning it into an irradiated wasteland and wiped out most other life forms.

The Thals thus vow to never fight another war like that again, but the Doctor and his companions eventually convince them that they have no choice as the Daleks hate them for who they are.

The Thals much like Britain pre World War 2 did not want to fight another war because of a previous conflict which was genuinely pointless, and led to millions of deaths. However ironically that is preventing them from defending themselves against an enemy that cannot be appeased, and is never going to stop hating them, because it hates them simply for who they are.

The message of the first Dalek story is that sometimes you need to stand up for yourself. The story does not glorify war but it makes a valid point that those who despise others simply for who they are should never be appeased. When you face an enemy that wants to destroy everything about your culture and even just your way of life, then they have to be stopped.

There is no indignity in being afraid to die, but there is a terrible shame in being afraid to live.”

Later Dalek stories such as The Dalek Invasion of Earth serve as metaphors for the Nazi occupations of countries such as France.

We see this not only in the way the Daleks rule, (which includes everything from concentration camps, people being experimented on in the most horrific ways, to Daleks marching down the streets performing the Nazi salute.) But also in the way that the people react to the monsters too.

Some people fight them and form underground resistance movements. Others are only in it for themselves meanwhile and just try to survive at any cost. Finally there are those who collaborate with the Daleks and actually sell out their fellow humans.

In Remembrance of the Daleks (which is set in the 1960’s) an actual former Nazi collaborator works with the Daleks as he is naturally drawn to their ideas of racial purity in the same way.

The Daleks were very effective allegory’s for the Nazi’s but I feel that they have also become the perfect metaphor for man’s inhumanity to man in general.

They can be seen to represent many other evil figures throughout history. General Chivington for instance, an American General who orchestrated the Sand Greek Massacre (where hundreds of Native American men, women, children and infants were butchered in cold blood.)

Chivington’s actions and views mirror those of the Daleks as much as the Nazi’s do.

Just after the massacre was carried out, there was a meeting held which Chivington attended where it was asked if it would be better to civilise or exterminate the Native Americans. Chivington and the others there shouted enthusiastically to exterminate them all.

there suddenly arose such a shout as is never heard unless upon some battlefield—a shout almost loud enough to raise the roof of the opera house—‘EXTERMINATE THEM! EXTERMINATE THEM!

The actions of the American government during the Vietnam war are also eerily reminiscent of those of the Daleks in their first adventure too.

During the Vietnam war the American government dropped chemical weapons on thier enemies that were in their own words designed to “bomb them back to the stone age!”

Certain areas of Vietnam to this day are still poisoned, and children are still born with mutations.

40 Years On The Shadow of Agent Orange Still Looms Over Vietnam

In their first story the Daleks plan to exterminate the Thal race by poisoning the air of Skaro itself with a radiation bomb.

The Daleks and the American government wanted to completely exterminate their enemies off the face of the planet by not just simply dropping a bomb on them, but by ensuring that none of them can possibly survive afterwards by destroying their entire environment.

The Daleks comments about “changing the environment to suit them” by killing the Thals are a chilling foreshadowing of the Americans “Bomb Them Back To The Stone Age” policy about Vietnam.

Finally the Daleks as we have explored in this article can now be seen to represent ISIS and the twisted core beliefs of Islam.

The way they both follow the example of an evil twisted man, the way they both believe that anyone who doesn’t fit what their idea of  what someone should be (non Dalek, non Muslim basically) should be exterminated, they are both so fanatical they are willing to kill themselves, and finally they both operate through deception (Taqiyya, “I AM YOUR SERVANT”)

Thus the Daleks I feel unlike other aliens and monsters in sci fi are able to tap into the very darkest aspects of humanity from race hatred, to fascism, to man’s destructive effect on the environment.  The Predator for instance though effective is just a savage warrior, the Xenomorph is just an animal. Other aliens may even be a metaphor for real life horrors too. The Klingons for instance in Star Trek were meant to represent the Soviet Union.

However the Daleks again I feel tapped into the darkest corners of humanity overall.

For this reason they will always resonate with audiences, whether that’s a post war audience who can recognise them as the Nazi’s, or even a contemporary audience who perhaps can see them more as ISIS.


Now again this obviously does not mean that all Muslims are comparable to the Daleks! As I pointed out before most Muslims in the UK practice a reformed version of Islam already, either intentionally or unintentionally.

However the core beliefs are still evil and thus still inspire great evil around the world which is why the religions influence needs curbed in the west.

Sadly however a combination of fear of persecution of innocent Muslims arising as a result of this (which does NOT need to happen) and a lack of knowledge in what Islam actually represents are preventing this from happening.

This is why we need people like Tommy Robinson. Tommy does not tar all Muslims as evil, but at the same time he calls out the problem for what it is unlike Owen Jones and offers peaceful solutions. If he is not listened to however then things will get worse and eventually support for real right wing extremists will grow leading to an all out blood bath on both sides.

Lets not end up like Vulcan.

My Opinion of Feminism

In the last few decades feminism has broken into mainstream popular culture like never before.

Whilst initially this was a good thing as it helped to bring a greater focus to women’s issues, sadly it has also led to various other problems which I will explore in this article.

I don’t identify as a feminist. I don’t have anything against the concept of feminism itself. Really no decent person could as the concept of feminism is simply equality between the sexes. However at the same time feminism is more than just a concept. It is a full blown political and social movement and whilst it has done many great things in the past, in its current form its not something I would wish to associate myself with.

Sadly however I feel that many people in the mainstream media are too scared to ever criticise the feminist movement as any criticism of feminism is almost always seen as an attack against women in general.

A recent example of this can be seen when Piers Morgan simply voiced a criticism of the Women’s March in January and Ewan McGregor and Patrick Stewart both boycotted This Morning, a programme which Piers Morgan co-hosts (with McGregor cancelling a scheduled appearance and Stewart vowing to never appear on the show again as long as Morgan is host.)

Now regardless of whether you agree with Morgan or not its quite frankly pathetic of both Stewart and McGregor to boycott the man simply for expressing a negative opinion about anything even remotely feminist related.

If you disagree with Piers Morgan wouldn’t it be better to go on his show and actually you know, argue with him, explain why he is wrong, maybe listen to his arguments in a fair and decent way before decrying him as a sexist bigot who should be boycotted?

PS its worth noting that the woman’s march Morgan criticised in January was a disgrace. This was a march organised by a woman called Linda Sarsour who supports Sharia Law, a law that treats women, and homosexuals as less than fully human. Sarsour has also said that she hopes Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a feminist critic of Islam gets beaten up and has her vagina taken away from her! Another organiser and speaker at the March, Donna Hylton meanwhile aided in the kidnapping and torturing of a homosexual man to death!

See here.

So yeah how dare Piers Morgan say anything bad about a march run by homophobic killers and terrorists!

Again however you can see how this is a classic example of how its impossible to criticise feminism in any way without people, both men and women instantly jumping down your throat as a sexist.

Thus as Feminism can’t look in on itself and recognise where its going wrong (which every single movement must do, as no movement is perfect). Feminism has become stagnated and static.

In this article  I am going to highlight the problems modern feminism has, the different types of feminists there are, and why true feminism is still needed in the world today despite the problems it has.

I feel its very important for other people to highlight where feminism is going wrong, bloggers, youtubers, the very few feminists who can look inward and see the problems with their movement, such as Christina Hoff Sommers, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Even people with practically no influence like me, its important that we all highlight the problems with feminism for many reasons.

To start with the more people criticise mainstream feminism the more acceptable it becomes to criticise it. There is no longer a stigma attached to voicing any kind of disapproval towards feminism like there is now where people are treated as pariah’s or even fired from their jobs just for criticising feminism.

Also the more people know what the problems with feminism are, then the more likely the next generation of young men and women will see that while there is nothing wrong with being a feminist in principle. The movement is in serious need of a reformation and thus actually work towards accomplishing that.

As always let me know what you think in the comments below.

Why Feminism Is Still Needed, But Why Its Also Standing In The Way

There is no denying that on a global scale women have it worse than men. That’s not to do down men’s issues or try and turn misery and suffering into some kind of competition of course.

Still in certain countries around the world such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Somalia, women live lives of unbearable suffering and inequality. Though again that’s not to say that things are rosey for the men in these countries either, particularly if you are gay. In fact its worse for LGBT people as they will kill you!. Still all women in these countries are deprived of basic rights and privileges such as being allowed to drive, marry whoever they want, an education, and even just being allowed to dress however they wish. They are the property of their husbands, fathers, and brothers, they have to do everything they say, and are regularly traded like pieces of meat. They also have to endure such horrific forms of abuse as genital mutilation, acid attacks and regular violent sexual assaults.

These countries are in desperate need of first wave feminism, and we here in the west should do all we can to help the women suffering in these countries to overthrow the genuine and disgusting patriarchy they live under by supplying any feminists groups and individual women brave enough to fight back against the misogynistic Islamic culture they are cursed to live under with financial aid.

We must also I feel boycott any country that treats women as less than fully human the same way that we boycotted South Africa during the Apartheid regime. And finally we must always make sure that everyone knows how women are treated in these countries.

I am sorry to say that I did not know about the case of Dina Lee until just a day or two ago. Sadly it appears that it may be too late to help this poor woman, but at the very least she should serve as a further reminder that we need to focus on the plight of the women (and other people) in Islamic countries more than we do now.

Every activist worth their salt should be doing all they can to bring tragic cases like Dina Lee to as many people’s attention as possible; rather than taking part in marches organised by self promoting, terrorists, murderers, and Sharia Law supporters to attack Donald Trump for saying pussy 12 years ago.

Thus feminism far from being obsolete is in some places needed now more than ever.

In the west meanwhile I think its more complicated. I do not believe that we live in a Patriarchy in the west.  I believe that western society is by and large an egalitarian society where everyone is treated equally regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation.

Ultimately we do not live in a society where anyone is told that they cannot go for a job, or any position based on who they are. I also do not believe that we live in a rape culture either. Its true that our justice system is far from perfect and there have been many great miscarriages of justice (not just for rape but many other crimes too). But at the same it is also true that rape is rightfully viewed as one of the most reprehensible crimes in our society. An accusation of rape is enough to completely ruin someone’s reputation forever.

Similarly other claims of an institutionalised patriarchy such as the gender wage gap have been debunked time and time again too. See here.

Don’t Buy Into The Gender Wage Gap Myth

Yes The Gender Wage Gap Is Still A Myth

Thus I don’t believe we live in a patriarchy. However that said I do think there are certain areas where women are disadvantaged compared to men in the west, but at the same time there are areas where men are disadvantaged compared to women too.

The reason for this is because ironically I think that western society does not take into account the key differences between men and women. Men and women are obviously equal, but they are different, not just physically, but in terms of personality in some respects too.

Sadly modern western society I feel is probably too egalitarian for its own good in that it does view everyone as exactly the same and doesn’t consider that some situations might benefit one gender more.

For instance the way the education system is set up currently favours women more, hence why fewer boys are going to University than girls and generally doing well overall. See here.

At the same time the way the medical profession is set up favours men as it doesn’t take into account the fact that women will naturally need to take long periods off in order to have children. Young women in the medical profession sadly often have to make a choice between having children and having a career!

Females in Medicine. Having Children

Similarly there are many other double standards against men and women in our society. On the issue of sex, I would agree that there is a slut/stud double standard in some respects, but at the same time there is ironically a double standard when it comes to female on male rape as people tend to view men as always wanting sex, and being lucky if some hot girl pays them any attention.

Current British laws on rape are very misandiristic as according to the law a woman cannot be charged with raping a man unless she is an accomplice to it.

Is The Law On Rape Sexist

Thus I feel that in order to counteract these double standards we need to accept the differences between the genders and try and find a way to accommodate them in every situation that requires it. Create an education system that can benefit both genders, take into account that women in certain professions may need to take a certain amount of time off in order to start families, and work around that. And finally try and combat double standards that exist against both genders in other areas of life too.

Modern, third wave feminism however I feel stands in the way of recognising the true cause of gender inequalities in western society for various reasons.

To start with many feminists argue that gender is a social construct created by the patriarchy. Now its true that certain stereotypical male and female behaviours are as a result of indoctrination, but ultimately most of them do stem from biological differences.

I feel that feminists often say that gender is a social construct in a misguided attempt to help trans people. They probably think that by tearing down so called gender norms they are making people who blur the lines between genders behaviour more socially acceptable.

The thing is by saying that there are differences between men and women you are not saying that trans people are either amoral, or don’t exist.

Obviously there is a spectrum and therefore we do get some men who are more feminine, and some women who are more masculine, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However the point is that most people do tend to behave according to their gender. I am not saying that gender decides every aspect of your personality, but it certainly does have a noticable impact on 99 percent of men and women.

Even with trans people it does too. If there were no true differences between the genders why do trans people feel that they were born in the wrong gender? Why do they change their gender if there are no true differences between the sexes? Ironically by saying that gender doesn’t exist you are actually saying trans people don’t exist and ignoring what they go through.

People have actually had their careers threatened for daring to question the received feminist wisdom that there aren’t only two genders such as Jordan Peterson.

Furthermore by insisting that we live in a patriarchy despite the many disadvantages faced by men.

Feminists tend to gloss over men’s issues (apart from a few positive exceptions such as Hoff Sommers), as men are seen as privileged. Though some feminists do comment on things such as the high rate of young men committing suicide, even then its in a way that is anti men.

It says that its men’s fault that things are so bad for them because of their own “toxic masculinity” which apparently drives other men who can’t compete to suicide. Thus feminists “sympathy” for men suffering in the west is often just a tool they can use to further attack masculinity which again diverts our attention away from the real causes of inequality. A lack of understanding of the differences between men and women.

Finally the fact that feminists view western society as being completely anti women also leads I feel to feminists always trying to view a situation in a way where women are hard done to rather than in any kind of objective way.

An example of this was Hillary Clinton’s outrageous comments that women are the real victims of war as they lose their husbands and sons! Even when men are being sent off to die in pointless conflicts in their thousands, sometimes millions, its still somehow women who are suffering more?

Thus on the one hand its true that we need feminism to tackle the very real inequalities that women still face all over the globe, but on the other hand its kind of standing in the way in combating real gender inequalities in the west caused by natural differences between men and women, as it leads us down a mistaken path where we believe that we still live in a patriarchy, whilst also somewhat paradoxically telling us that there are no true differences between men and women.

Feminism therefore needs a top to bottom reformation, but in order to do that I feel we need to know the different types of feminists there are in the world today in order to see where the movement is going right and wrong.

Whilst there are many different feminist groups I feel they can all be grouped into the following three categories by and large.

1/ True Feminists

These feminists include the likes of Christina Hoff Sommers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maryam Namazie and Camile Pagilia.

Now I don’t always agree with every individual thing these feminists say. For instance Ayaan Hirsi Ali politically is probably more to the right than I am.

Still these women at the end of the day do actually follow the true definition of feminism, the belief in equality between genders, and combat the very worst forms of misogyny in the world today.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been a vocal critic of Islam’s treatment of women for her entire life. She has helped to bring the suffering of women in countries like Somalia to a far wider attention in the west. She has given countless lectures on the subject of women in Islam, made tv appearances, written best selling novels (many of which draw on her own traumatic childhood in Somalia where she was forced to endure among other things, her genitals being mutilated.)

She later founded the AHA foundation which is the worlds leading organisation working to end things such as Female Genital Mutilation, honour killings and arranged marriages.

As a result of this Ali has faced genuine attempts on her life by Islamic extremists. In fact she has to walk around with bodyguards everywhere she goes, and has even had to cancel several public appearances.

Maryam Namazie, another outspoken feminist critic of Islam similarly has had to endure regular threats against her life, and recently even had to deal with Muslim men trying to interrupt a lecture she was giving on what women endure in Islamic countries.

See here

Feminists like Ali and Namazie are true champions for female empowerment. They help the women who are suffering from the ugliest forms of misogyny at a risk to their own safety.

They also at the same time however do not have any anti male feelings either, in fact they fight just as hard for men’s rights. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has devoted her life to helping marginalised groups of men in Islamic countries such as gay men (who again in some ways have it even worse than women in Muslim countries) just as much.

You’d actually be hard pushed to find a greater champion of men’s rights in the west than Christina Hoff Sommers herself meanwhile.

These feminists care about inequalities against both genders and battle for many worthwhile causes across the entire world.

Sadly however whilst they have done a lot of good work for many marginalised groups, they are not only a minority within modern feminism, but their influence on mainstream popular culture is also limited.

The reason for this is because these brave ladies expose the mainstream media for the cowards they are in dealing with radical Islam.

Now I am not trying to tar all Muslims as evil, and I am certainly not advocating for persecution of innocent Muslims.

However at the same time the religion is in desperate need of a reformation (more so than feminism!)

Islam at its core is a violent, bigoted, and dangerous religion. It says very explicitly that all other religions are to be abolished, that all LGBT people are to be executed, that all black people are inferior to white people (Islam also advocates slavery too). That all women are inferior to men, and finally that all non believers be killed or converted.

Now not all Muslims follow the bigoted beliefs that are in the Quran. Many Muslims who live in the west abandon the negative aspects of their faith in order to fit in with western society.

However those who do not and actually follow what their holy book says at the very least hold prejudiced beliefs against gays and women. Sadly its a higher percentage than you’d think.

A recent poll showed that over 50 percent of Muslims in the United Kingdom believed that homosexuality should be criminalised.

Poll Shows That Half of British Muslims Think Homosexuality Should Be Illegal

52 Percent of British Muslims Want Homosexuality To Be Criminalised

Of course in the most extreme cases Muslims born and raised even in western countries on Islamic beliefs can become suicide bombers and carry out violent crimes against those who insult their prophet Muhammed and even just non believers.

Sadly these violent crimes have only increased the more influence Islam has gained in the west. Rather than make more concessions to Islam, we should be insisting that it change its values to fit in with our own. We should be aiding Muslim reformers (including Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz, a devout Muslim man).

However the mainstream media is simply too terrified to take Islam on. Nobody wants to end up like Charlie Hebdo. However the only reason things like Charlie Hebdo happen is because the mainstream media leaves small, low key critics of Islam out in the cold.

Its easy to pick off low key critics of Islam like Charlie Hebdo, a tiny little magazine. If the entire mainstream media however starts criticising Islam as much as it does other religions then things have changed. We have shown the extremists a sign of strength, as images of their prophet are everywhere, on tv, in the newspapers etc, and its not like they can destroy the entire mainstream media is it?

However the mainstream media are a pack of shameless cowards and thus they refuse to comment on the problem with Islam, but at the same time they also slander those who are brave enough to speak out against the religion which sadly includes the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in order to cover their tracks.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is either slandered as an Islamophobe and racist (despite Islam not being a race). Or just ignored completely (much as many Islamic crimes are too) by the mainstream media.

Thus Ali and others like hers influence is sadly not all that it could be, and worse still the mainstream media in an effort to look progressive starts to prop up a very different type of feminist as their safe champions of women’s rights, which leads to my next point.

2/ Career Feminists

The most contemptible and dangerous type of feminist. These feminists include the likes of Anita Sarkeesian, Gloria Steinam, Rebecca Watson, Hillary Clinton and Amani Al Khatabeh.

These feminists emerged when feminism started to become popular and trendy. They saw that there was money to be had in the movement, however they didn’t want to actually take the risks that would come with speaking out against the worst form of sexism in the world today, risks that again true feminists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maryam Namazie have to deal with on a daily basis.

Thus they instead invent mythical bogeymen like the patriarchy, and the gender wage gap to rally against. They pick perfectly benign targets such as video games, sci fi, and comic books and slander them as sexist in order to make themselves look like feminist champions.

They also somewhat ironically present themselves as damsels in distress by trying to make out that they are constantly harassed and victimised in western society. Now I am not saying that western society is perfect, but again a lot of these so called hostile environments for women that career feminists complain about are blown out of proportion or just flat out made up.

Take for instance the harassment women endure online. Feminists would have you believe that its only women endure online harassment.

Truth is men ironically endure far more abuse online than women do according to studies.

Higher Proportion of Men Report Abuse In Online Survery

Now this does not mean I condone any of the sick and twisted abuse that women get online, but the point is, its not a gendered issue is it? These sicko’s clearly go after everyone for every reason, which is why the best thing to do is just ignore them.

Similarly feminists such as Anita Sarkeesian will often try and paint video games, the sci fi and fantasy genres and comic books as being hostile, unwelcoming places for women, and indeed minorities such as black people. They will also tar their fans as being openly misogynistic and racist.

Once again nothing could actually be further from the truth. To start with many studies have shown that there is no link between violent forms of entertainment and people committing actual acts of violence.

Also whilst its true that many video games do allow the players to murder female characters, far more male characters are killed in video games.

Furthermore sci fi and fantasy, and video game fandom’s are usually welcoming to women. In fact ironically over the years some of the biggest fan community’s have been majority female. Doctor Who is the worlds longest running sci fi series, and in America during the 1980’s (where it was far more popular) over 80 percent of its fans were women.

There have also been many, many films, television series, video games, comic books etc that star non white, non male, non straight characters and audiences have embraced them.

In fact ironically some of the sci fi and fantasy genres all time biggest hits have starred women or minorities, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Xena the Warrior Princess and Charmed. All 3 series were among the longest running fantasy series (until it was surpassed recently by Supernatural, Charmed was the longest running fantasy series in American history). All three also became global icons and had an immense influence on popular culture and other television series.

Its just such a shame that there are never any strong, iconic or interesting heroic and villainous roles for women in Sci Fi and Fantasy series. Feminists are right to attack these two genres more than any other. 

Ironically the sci fi and fantasy genres have often been ahead of the curve in terms of representation for women and minorities, with the original Star Trek series having the first ever interracial kiss in an American drama. None other than Martin Luther King himself praised Star Trek for its progressive values and actually said it was important to the civil rights movement!

Yet feminists such as Anita Sarkeesian seem to go out of their way to target these genres more than others because they are the most progressive genres and thus Sarkeesian won’t have to actually deal with a genuine misogynistic backlash.

Also things like Sci Fi and Video Games are looked down on by the mainstream media. Even with the recent geek fad, nerds are generally still looked down upon, with things like Comic Books and Video Games being seen as childish interests.

Thus the mainstream media will naturally be on the side of the feminists against the supposed, smelly, sad, basement dwelling nerds and even some nerds themselves will be on the side of the feminists. They won’t want to be seen as sad gits whose whole lives revolve around things like Video Games and so they will happily join the feminists in slandering their own genre.

Case in point.

Its funny, I’ve never seen Wil Wheaton EVER mention any female led franchises like Xena, Buffy, Charmed, Ghost Whisperer, Dark Angel, Alien, The Bionic Woman etc. Its only ever male led things like Doctor Who, Star Trek (obviously) and Star Wars he talks about. It seems to me like he’s projecting when he accuses others of not watching any female led shows.

Now I don’t doubt that the likes of Sarkeesian have received death threats from some psychotic nerds and video gamers, but there are psycho’s in every group. Many anti feminists have had to endure death threats too, and even physical assaults and attempts to get them fired for speaking out against feminism.

See here

All of this ironically is worse than anything any feminist critic of video games or sci fi has ever had to endure. No nerd or gamer has ever thrown their own urine over Anita Sarkeesian. No one has ever actually punched Rebecca Watson in the face, and no one has ever tried to get say Whovian Feminism fired from her job and ruin her life. Mean tweets? Yes okay, but again those aren’t quite the same thing, and as we have been over anti feminists, indeed EVERYBODY gets mean tweets.

So no I don’t think that Anita Sarkeesian is in the same kind of danger as Ayaan Hirsi Ali for speaking out against video games. I don’t even think that Anita is in as much danger as Lauren Southern is for criticising feminism or saying that there are only two genders.

Again that’s why Anita goes after Video Games. Its a brilliant way through a little media manipulation of making herself look like a feminist champion without actually having to do a sodding thing to help women in genuine need of feminism.

Other career feminists might have a second agenda of their own, beyond simply becoming famous, and use feminism to make themselves untouchable.

I feel that Muslim Feminists fall under this category. I am sorry but its impossible to actually follow the teachings of the Quran and be a feminist. The Quran openly says that women are inferior to men. Thus any movement that advocates the equality of both genders has to be at odds with the teachings of the Quran (that is until the Islamic faith has a reformation.)

Now many of these Muslim feminists claim to be practising Muslims who know their own holy book. Thus going by their own word we can’t just accuse them of being ignorant of the true nature of their faith. Even then though if they were merely ignorant then that doesn’t say much about the type of feminists they are, that they don’t know what it is Islam actually says about women; and indeed the suffering it has inflicted on women throughout history and still continues to do so throughout the world today.

Nevertheless I feel lot of these Muslim “feminists” such as Amani Al Khatahbeh actually lie about how sexist Islam is in order to dupe people for a variety of reasons.

First of all it can allow them to gain more oppression points, as Muslim women have to endure double what western women do. Not because of the religion of Islam of course, according to these women, but because of evil western Islamophobia.

Also as devout Muslims they are following a process called Taqiyya. Taqiyya is the name given to deception in Islam. Muhammed encouraged his followers to lie to non believers about the true nature of his religion through Taqiyya in order to fool them and take them on as allies for the time being. Once the non believers had served their purpose then they are to be disposed of or forcibly converted of course like all other non believers.

Here are some interesting videos on Taqiyya.

Muslim feminists like Amani will actively lie that their religion is a feminist religion, that it supports rights for LGBT people, black people, that Muslims are the most oppressed group in western society, all to lure unsuspecting non believers in.

By far and away the most disgusting example of a Muslim Feminist duping unsuspecting liberals is the case of Linda Sarsour.

Linda Sarsour is a vile human being. She advocates Sharia Law, a law that says that women are inferior to men, and that homosexuality should be criminalised and she has also said that she wants to take away Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s vagina because of her remarks about Islam.

The fact that Ali is a survivor of female genital mutilation is something that Sarsour must surely be aware of. With this in mind it doesn’t seem likely that this was just a random threat does it? It seems to me as though Sarsour was saying that she actually wanted to cut out Ali’s vagina, but was hiding it under the mask of feminism of all things by saying it was because Ali didn’t deserve to be a woman.

To the mainstream media however, Sarsour is a champion for women’s rights and the underdog as that’s how she presents herself through clever deceptions such as the Woman’s March.

Of course sadly other career feminists will often support these Muslim feminists because they benefit their narrative. If people wake up to how big a danger Islam is, then Anita Sarkeesian will be seen as the joke for going after video games and appearing at the UN to try and censor people saying she sucked!

Same with all the career feminists who focus on things like manspreading, women being called bossy, etc. They support the Muslim feminist deception of Islam being a feminist religion to cover up their shameful cowardice compared to true feminists.

Finally male career feminists not only use their position to further their careers but also for sex too. I know that’s a cliche, and I certainly would not decry every single man who identifies as a feminist as simply wanting to get laid. That’s as lazy a way of arguing as when Social Justice Warriors just call someone who disagrees with them a Nazi.

However at the same time it cannot be denied that many militant male feminists who slander other people as sexists and even perverts have been exposed as using their status for sex.

See here.

Of course they are the perfect feminist champions for the mainstream media to prop up as they are safe. They won’t have to run the risk of actually worrying about taking on genuine misogynists like the Islamic extremists who try and murder Ayaan Hirsi Ali or even just the Islamic thugs who tried to silence Maryam Namazie. Instead they can just slander nerds, or video gamers.

Sadly however as these feminists and the mainstream media work together (as they both benefit each other) these feminists have a far greater influence and reach than the true feminists do. This in turn leads me to my next point.

Sucker Feminists

These feminists are often young feminists who I feel have been taken in by the likes of Sarkeesian, and Watson. These feminists include the likes of Claudia Boleyn, Laci Green and Emma Watson.

I don’t see these feminists as being malicious. I do think their hearts are in the right place, but the problem is all the media they have been exposed to has filled their heads full of lies that they live in a society that despises women and thus they actually believe bullshit like the gender wage gap, sexism in video games, etc.

Furthermore they also buy into other dangerous lies such as Islam is a religion of peace, or even that Islam is a feminist religion and will ironically end up defending a religion that says they are inferior for their very gender!

Claudia a bisexual, feminist really needs to watch these two videos

To see how duped she was by the toxic alliance of feminism and Islam.

I think its important to try and reach out to and debate with these feminists. In the case of people like Anita Sarkeesian they don’t want to reach out and debate with people as they know their beliefs are a lot of bullshit. They know things like rape culture or the patriarchy are not real, but they don’t want their arguments to be disproven because then their cash cow will end. Anita Sarkeesian has openly refused to debate Milo Yiannopolous several times for instance, even when he has offered to donate money to feminist charities if she did.

Sucker feminists however I feel are not the kind who always shout down any opposing opinions.  I’m sure some of them will, but ultimately I think a lot of these feminists are kind, decent, intelligent people. They have just been given the wrong idea which is why its important to talk to them.

Claudia Boleyn, though I strongly disagree with many of her opinions I find to be a nice person all around. I’ve had a few disagreements with her on twitter about various things, but she has always been very polite and courteous to me. She’s never derided me as a sexist, a bigot or anything like that. She has also done a few response videos to people who disagree with her and again has always been very pilot and respectful in them too.

ShoeOnHead did a video challenging her views on women being funny, and Claudia once again was very polite and respectful in her response to Shoe. See here.

“Claudia Boleyn The Feminist I Responded To In My Video Is A Sweetheart”

Laci Green similarly had a very civil debate with Blaire White, and has also recently expressed an interest in debating more anti feminists too.

Thus again I think its vital to have an open debate with these kinds of feminists. I think that sadly however because of the likes of Sarkeesian who try and shut down anyone else having a discussion, all feminists are tarred with that brush and as a result many people assume the likes of Laci and Claudia are unwilling to have a discussion and so they don’t reach out to them.

I’m not saying that these feminists are less intelligent than I am for believing things like the gender wage gap.

Until just a few years ago I used to believe in feminist lies like that too. Its understandable as that was all people from my generation in particular ever heard all around them, from television, to the papers, to the education system.

However the rise of the alternative media in the last few years has helped to shed a light on many of the main feminist myths and really I think its just a matter of time before most of these types of feminists like Claudia Boleyn will see the truth about the state of their movement.

I’m not saying that they will stop being feminists. They might do, but I think it would be more beneficial if they instead tried to reform their movement, as again sadly feminism is still needed in some ways now more than ever, but its just people like Sarkeesian that are making it a negative force.

Of course not all of these sucker feminists are nice, reasonable people like Claudia Boleyn. I feel that some of these women are sadly deeply unhappy people who have deep issues which third wave feminism exploits to lure them in.

Indeed many ideologies and cults try and lure in most vulnerable and unhappy people by telling them what they want to hear, IE its not your fault, its everyone else’s fault, we have all the answers, get back at the people who did this to you etc.

An example of this is Cora Segal. Segal for those of you who don’t know is a feminist who famously heckled Milo Yiannopolous and Christina Hoff Sommers. She threw a child like tantrum shouting “KEEP YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF THIS CAMPUS, KEEP YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF THIS CAMPUS” over Sommers every time she tried to speak.

The footage of Segals outburst was uploaded onto youtube and Segal was subsequently mocked by people all over the world. She even became a meme, and earned the unflattering nickname of “Triggly Puff”.

I feel sorry for Cora. I think she is probably very unhappy with her weight. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with being fat of course. However from a practical point of view if you are obese then you will be more likely to have serious health issues.

The same thing applies for someone who is far too thin as well. No extreme size is healthy.

Someone like Cora Segal if she is unhappy with being overweight should do one of the following things. 1/ Try and lose weight which is obviously hard. 2/ Come to terms with the fact that she is overweight. There is nothing wrong with being overweight, obviously but again from a practical point of view it is unhealthy as are lots of other popular habits such as smoking. I would never dream of bullying smokers, or decrying smoking as amoral, but at the same time I would also never lie and say smoking is a perfectly healthy habit either.

However feminism will lure young, unhappy overweight women in as it will at first make them feel better about being overweight by spreading lies like “healthy at any size”. However at the same time it will make them angrier by telling them that everybody hates them because they are overweight, that no one will ever find them attractive if they are overweight because of the patriarchy etc.

As a result of this women like Segal will never do anything about losing weight, and they will never come to terms with being overweight either, which will make them unhappier in the long run as they ultimately believe they live in a society that despises them.

Its a shame and I would never mock someone like Cora Segal. Again I would much rather talk with her, but with feminists like her I admit it is somewhat harder as they have invested in their beliefs emotionally more than people like Laci Green and Claudia Boleyn.

Finally once again sucker male feminists I feel can differ from their female counterparts somewhat. Sucker male feminists I feel are men who are guilted into being feminists, simply because they are men.

They buy into all of the myths about toxic masculinity, all men being privileged, all men being potential rapists etc, and grow to despise themselves as a result.

Steve Shives I feel not only falls into this type of male feminist but epitomises it!

See here.

In spite of how loathsome he can act such as when he tries to shut down anyone who disagrees with him from Sargon of Akkad to Laci Green, I do feel sorry for Steve Shives to some extent. Ultimately Shives is someone who has been made to feel guilty just for being a man!

However again it is difficult to have a conversation with a feminist like Shives as he has invested so much emotionally in feminism he can’t stand any kind of criticism or skepticism (ironically) on the subject.


The governor Pat Condell sums it up brilliantly as always.

As you can see there are still many great feminists who are true champions for equality around the world such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Sadly however their influence on the next generation of feminists, though not completely insignificant. Is ultimately dwarfed by the safer, career feminists who have filled an entire generation of young men and women’s heads with irrational and ultimately unimportant bullshit like manspreading, whilst ironically making it hard for people to talk about the biggest danger to women in the world today, Islam.

Its important therefore that the next generation looks up to women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Christina Hoff Sommers instead of people like Anita Sarkeesian in order to learn what true inequalities against women need to be fought.

If not Feminism I predict within the next 20 or so years will be an almost completely dead movement. Anyone who genuinely cares about equal rights for men and women will not want to associate themselves with it, which will be a shame, but it will only have itself to blame.

When a movement is unable to look inward and see where it goes wrong then it will ultimately stagnate and die and that’s the future feminism is currently facing unless things change soon.

Thanks for reading.

Top 10 Dinosaur Video Games

Dinosaurs have always been a good subject for video games, whether that’s playing as a Dinosaur tearing innocent people apart, or unloading rounds of machine gun fire into their scaly faces, or beating them to death with clubs, or fighting them as a giant ape on Skull Island. I think most people enjoy a good Dinosaur game. In many ways they have had just as much success in the video game medium as they have had in any other, and in this article I am going to run down my 10 favourite Dinosaur games from all platforms.

10/ Turok Dinosaur Hunter

For the Nintendo 64, this game didn’t have the largest variety of Dinosaur species. Just Velociraptors and one Tyrannosaurus Rex with the odd Pterosaur tossed in.

Still it more than made up for it with its engaging and somewhat unusual premise. The game took place in a bizarre fantasy land called simply The Lost Land, that mixed various time periods together. For instance the penultimate boss is a Tyrannosaurus Rex who has been cybernetically enhanced.

He has a robot laser eye and can breath fire!

The game spawned an entire franchise beyond even just video games with the character of Turok even gaining his own short lived comic book series too. In some ways Turok works better as a fantasy game rather than a Dinosaur one. Still it was a very engaging and exciting game all around.

9/ Dino D-Day

As crazy as its title would suggest, this 2011 game is set in an alternate universe where Hitler cloned Dinosaurs during World War 2.

Its true that its graphics are somewhat sub par for the time it was released, but I think it more than makes up for it with its wild premise as well as the large variety of Dinosaur species too. Everything from the classics like Tyrannosaurus to obscure creatures like Protoceratops.

I always like it when people merge two genre’s that you’d never think of putting together. Dinosaur and World War 2 games? Yet it worked and managed to bring something new to both genres.

In this respect the game kind of reminded me of the Ray Harryhausen classic Gwangi which similarly managed to blend the unlikely duo of Dinosaur movies and Westerns to great effect too.

8/ Jurassic Park: The Game

Released for several platforms in 2011, this Telltale game would prove to be somewhat polarising in a number of ways.

Still I must admit whilst it wasn’t perfect I did think it was still probably one of the better Jurassic Park games.

It had an original story, that actually served as a direct sequel to the original game (though it would later be contradicted by Jurassic World). The Dinosaurs are also every bit as scary as their film counterparts and the deaths are really quite gory and explicit.

In fact to be honest I’d say that was the best thing about the game was how creative the ways both the supporting characters as well as the main character were killed by the Dinosaurs.

This was actually an advantage that the games had over the films, as often the deaths in the movies were a little bit more straight forward. I feel the makers of the game had a little more fun with their dinosaurs.

7/ Peter Jackson’s King Kong The Official Game of the Movie

An all around excellent game. It follows the same basic plot as Jackson’s equally brilliant film version, but it obviously expands on the story too.

You get to play as both Kong and the main human protagonist, Jack Driscoll at different points throughout the game. As Kong its brilliant to fight head on often with multiple Vastatosaurus Rex’s (fearsome descendants of the Tyrannosaurus Rex) but my two favourite parts of the game are as Driscoll.

One is when a V-Rex knocks Kong off the edge of a cliff and you have to rescue Ann from it as Jack. Its one of the most intense moments in any game trying to hold off a V-Rex inside tiny little ruins with only a piece of bone!

The other is when the V-Rex again corners you and you have to summon Kong himself. You really feel all 4 of the main characters terror as the Rex relentlessly smashes down the walls of the rotten fortress they are trapped in.

I found the setting of this game effective too. Skull Island is a truly horrifying place, filled with rotting bodies, crumbling ruins of a once great civilisation and hideous monsters lurking round every corner.

Its a fitting setting for Kong as it just adds to the tragedy of his character that in many respects he has never fit in anywhere as the place he is taken from is so heinous.

Overall a very effective and exciting game.

6/ Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis

One of the best Jurassic Park games, this was not an adventure game, rather a platform building one. The player’s task was to create a version of Jurassic Park that would gain a 5 star approval rating.

Of course there are many obstacles to your goal, with the flesh eating Dinosaurs ironically in some ways being the least of your troubles. Tornado’s strike the island, your dinosaurs get sick, you run out of money and go bankrupt etc.

The game probably has the largest collection of different species of Dinosaurs of any Jurassic Park title, though sadly you can’t use them all. Still overall this was a brilliant game as it treated the Dinosaurs like real animals rather than as unstoppable monsters.

In this respect it really captured the spirit of the original Jurassic Park movie better than any other game in the series.

5/ The Lost World: Jurassic Park

Based on the film and book of the same name, this game however doesn’t really have a story. You just play as 5 different characters through a series of levels.

The reason I rank it so highly is because you get to play as both a Velociraptor and a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

I loved the T-Rex levels so much. Though they could get a bit samey, it was still brilliant being able to kill hundreds of Raptors and human soldiers. It was quite explicit when you killed people as either the Rex or the Raptor. Your human victims would scream for mercy as you tore into them with your claws as the Raptor, whilst as the Rex you’d hear both your Raptor and human victims scream in agony and their bones snap as you crushed them to a pulp in your jaws.

The levels as the other characters, a Compsognathus, a human soldier, and Sarah Harding are still enjoyable, but nothing can quite match playing as the T-Rex. Still it is brilliant the way the game allows you to explore this vastly different world from so many different perspectives, from the Compy that’s no bigger than a Chicken, to the humans who don’t belong in the Lost World, to the absolute king of all the Dinosaurs, the Tyrannosaurus Rex.

4/ Yoshi’s Island

Again in some respects more of a fantasy game, still as Yoshi is technically a Dinosaur then I’m going to list it.

Yoshi’s island is a prequel to the Mario series. It sees the evil Kamek attempt to kidnap two babies Mario and Luigi (both of whom are foretold to stop King Koopa, AKA Bowser in the future)

Though he is successful in capturing Luigi, Kamek ultimately fails to capture Mario who falls lands on Yoshi’s island, where all the Yoshi’s decide to band together to protect baby Mario from Kamek and his minions, rescue Luigi, and finally bring the boys to their parents.

Yoshi’s island is an absolute classic. Visually its absolutely stunning with all the levels being unique and beautiful in their own way. There is also a wide variety of monsters too, made up of plenty of old classic Mario foes, and plenty of new ones.

Its always fun to play as Yoshi and this game really helped to establish a lot of his most iconic traits such as his ability to turn his enemies into eggs and his crazy flutter jump.

When you think about it, Yoshi really is an unstoppable killing machine! He kills his enemies by eating them alive, and he can eat just about anything, but on top of that he can also turn the people he kills into weapons too!

Don’t be fooled by his cute appearance, Yoshi is one of the most dangerous Dinosaurs in any work of fiction and that’s what makes him so fun to play.

3/ Dino Crisis

One of the ultimate horror survival games. Dino Crisis was made by the creators of Resident Evil. Indeed at the time many critics dismissed it as being just a rehash of Resident Evil, with the Raptors standing in for the Zombies and the T-Rex standing in for the Tyrant.

The premise was also somewhat similar in that both revolve around a team going to investigate a remote area where an experiment has gone wrong, leading to monsters overrunning the place. In Resident Evil’s case it is because of an outbreak of the T-Virus that turns people and animals in Zombie like mutants, in Dino Crisis’ it is because of Doctor Kirk’s third energy experiment which creates a rip in the time vortex and allows Dinosaurs to emerge into modern day.  The main characters in both games is also the only female member of the team, Jill Valentine in Resident Evil, Regina in Dino Crisis.

Finally both sequels see the government get hold of the secrets of the experiment (Kirk’s third energy program, the T-Virus sample) which later thanks to their recklessness results in it getting loose in a big city. Raccoon City in Resident Evil’s case which is overrun with Zombies and eventually nuked, and Edward City in Dino Crisis which is eventually destroyed by Velociraptors.

Still whilst it can’t be denied that it did reuse a lot of the same game mechanics and tropes as its more famous predecessor, overall Dino Crisis managed to stamp out its own identity.

The Raptors were different to the Zombies in that they were a lot faster, more intelligent and could leap out of seemingly nowhere at the player without warning. Also the Tyrannosaurus was far bigger and much more terrifying than anything in the Resident Evil series too.

Also I personally though Regina was a lot better than Jill Valentine. Jill was always a bit too wet and mopey for me. Regina however was far more badass, and snarky. No scene demonstrates that better for me than when the Tyrannosaurus first smashes its way through a window and corners Regina in a tiny little room and she just responds with “you’ve got to be kidding me!”

I think its a shame that Regina is not more famous. The dry, fearless T-Rex and Raptor slayer definitely desevres more respect in my opinion.

I’d love to see a Dino Crisis film with Famke Janssen as Regina.

She’d be so perfect for the role its not true!

Dino Crisis is not without its faults. Like some of the Resident Evil games its a bit slow and it also doesn’t have the greatest variety of Dinosaurs. Still overall its a brilliant game that still holds up thanks to its atmospheric and engaging story.

2/ ARK Survival Evolved

One of the most recent Dinosaur games for the PS4 and X Box One. This game doesn’t have a story. Instead you simply have to train Dinosaurs in order to survive. The game has probably the largest selection of Dinosaurs of any game. Everybody’s favourites are here, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus Allosaurus etc.

I do miss the lack of a story like the Dino Crisis games, but ultimately I can’t rate it as anything but a classic due to the sheer amount of Dinosaurs you get to train as well as the detailed lost world the player can inhabit.

1/ Dino Crisis 2

An oldie but a goodie, Dino Crisis 2 may look a bit primitive by today’s standards but for me its still the best Dinosaur game for a number of reasons.

To start with it has a great selection of Dinosaurs, also its fast paced (rectifying the problems of the first game.) However its story and setting is really what elevate it.

I love running through the crumbling ruins of old cities and military bases (always littered with mutilated bodies) that the Dinosaurs have overrun, finding out how the humans were eventually overcome. And then there is the twist that it was not by Dinosaurs, but a mysterious group of Helmet wearing women from the future.

Trust me it actually makes sense. One of the Helmet women, Paul I always found to be quite unnerving. It was the way she was so child like, yet still somewhat intelligent in other ways. She couldn’t speak and would act like a helpless child, yet was smart enough to use a gun, work a computer etc. You were left to wonder how much of the young woman she once was is left in there.

Dino Crisis 2 much like the first game would make a great movie. Hopefully one day it will get the recognition it deserves.

Thanks for reading.


My Favourite Social and Political Commentators

Nowadays it seems you can’t trust anyone. Everyone from the biggest news channels and media outlets to Youtubers making entertaining videos from their bedrooms are derided as fake news, or a shill for some crooked politician, or part of some new and dangerous political movement..

In my opinion the only thing to do in this current climate is to look at as many different sources as you can, even people that you don’t particularly like and then draw your own conclusions. For instance even though I find them most of the time to be nothing more than a sick parody of what they once were, I still watch BBC News regularly, simply so that my sources don’t become too one sided.

That said however there are obviously social and political commentators who I agree with more than others on the most important issues, and even just whose style I personally enjoy watching more than most.

In this article I am going to run through my personal favourite social and political commentators. I don’t agree with any of these people on absolutely everything, and again I obviously don’t get everything I think from these people either. I just feel that they are generally on the right track more than most and whilst I do think its important to listen to as many different people from both the left and the right as possible. These would still be my best recommendations.

Please let me know what you think in the comments below and also who your top choices would be as well.

These are in no order

John Pilger

Someone I have been a huge admirer of for most of my life. I was first introduced to John Pilger through my parents who were also big fans of his.

I’ve read many of his books and watched almost all of his documentary’s. Pilger for me is probably the most accomplished journalist of the entire 20th Century. He has helped to shed light on many of the worst disasters caused by US, British and Australian foreign policy over the course of his decades long career.

For instance his groundbreaking documentary ” Year Zero the Silent Death of Cambodia” helped to bring world wide attention to the suffering of the Khmer people. As much as 45 million pounds was raised in small donations from across the entire United Kingdom in solidarity to the nation after its first showing.

Pilger has also produced documentaries about the Australians treatment of the Aboriginies, the genocide in East Timor, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the Vietnam war. He has also been a consistent critic of the likes of Tony Blair, George W Bush, and Barack Obama.

Though there have been some controversies over the years, with some critics dismissing Pilger’s work of being too sensationalised. Overall Pilger has continued to have a large influence.

I do agree that he can be a little bit too anti Western at certain points. He is guilty of sometimes taking anybody’s side against Western governments and sometimes sugar coating the sins of its enemies.

However overall I think he maintains a clear and level head in his reports, and his work is very thorough and well researched.

He also somewhat refreshingly for someone on the left has criticised identity politics. Indeed in the video below from circa 2012 he warns of identity politics influence long before many of its most outspoken critics on the right.

John Pilger is the type of journalist that we don’t see much of anymore. Someone with real integrity who tries to bring attention to those who are in need of real help and that’s why even though I don’t always agree with him. (I do most of the time) I always have nothing but respect for him.

Brendan O’Neill

Much like John Pilger, O’Neill is one of the few people on the left who criticises identity politics.

I would consider myself a socialist, but I absolutely despise identity politics. I feel that identity politics is the biggest enemy to any kind of genuinely progressive politics as it keeps us squabbling about the most unimportant differences like race, sexuality etc, whilst duping us into thinking that we are fighting to end racial and other prejudices.

Thanks to identity politics the left is more fragmented than it has ever been. Rather than trying to work together to try and fix the real source of inequality, class, people are instead fighting over things like who is more oppressed, gender pronouns etc.

Its also advocated that people be put in positions of power regardless of their ideas or character just to tick some boxes. This can be seen with the lefts attempts to canonise Obama and Hillary Clinton, two of the biggest war mongers in US Politics simply because Obama was the first black president and Hillary could have been the first female president. Those on the left, who should have been calling Obama and Hillary out for destroying the country of Libya and leading to a greater rise in Islamic extremism were instead viewing their time in office as being steps forward for society, simply because of their gender and race.

We are never going to get anywhere with identity politics (which is why so many of the corrupt bastards at the top like George Soros LOVE identity politics.)

Thus someone like O’Neill who champions old genuine left wing values, yet criticises the phoney, divisive nature of identity politics is important in my opinion.

Tree of Logic

A youtuber and outspoken critic of Islam and Black Lives Matter. I agree with Tree on most things, but politically she is probably a little more to the right (by her own admission) than I am. When I say right I obviously don’t mean “oh my god she is a Nazi bastard” more just that she is less a critic of capitalism than I would be.

Still Tree’s video’s on Islam are absolutely brilliant. She really has done her research and also speaks from personal experience too.

Sadly like many critics of Islam Tree has been dismissed as racist, but that’s ridiculous. Islam is NOT a race. Islam is an ideology. We are allowed to criticise all other ideologies from Christianity to Capitalism, so why not Islam? For instance I’m not about to call Tree a racist for presumably being opposed to socialism given her pro Capitalist ideas. So why the fuck would anyone call her a racist for criticising another ideology?

Islam is in need of a reformation. There are obviously many, many, many peaceful Muslims in the west. No one is denying that, however the ideology of Islam itself is poisonous. Any decent Muslims are decent in spite of their faith. They are people who abandon the negative aspects of Islam in order to fit in with Western society’s values (or perhaps haven’t even read their holy book properly), but still those who do actually follow what the Quran itself says at the very least hold bigoted views towards women and homosexuals and Jews, and in the most extreme cases become terrorists.

The reason for that is of course because the Quran says to kill all non believers, kill all homosexuals and that all women and black people are inferior to white men.

Thus the religion of Islam needs a top to bottom reformation to cut these ideas off at the source, and people like Tree who are brave enough to speak out against the religion not only I feel deserve our respect, but are also important in helping to stamp out the worst forms of racism, sexism and homophobia that come from the Islamic world.

Angry Foreigner

Another youtuber, Angry Foreigner is from Sweden and has done excellent videos on the devastating effects of Sweden’s open door immigration policy.

I obviously like any decent human believe that we should help refugees. However I don’t believe that the open door policy is the way to do it. The open door policy is dangerous as it allows in people without checking them first. Ultimately any country has a right to decide who comes in, to make sure its people will be safe.

Angry Foreigner has also explored in great detail the Swedish government’s soft bigotry of low expectations in dealing with Muslim criminals, often ironically for a so called feminist government at the expense of women.

There isn’t really that much I disagree with him on. Off the top of my head I can’t think of anything major I clash with him over, but I’m sure there will be something eventually. Still overall his videos are very well researched and informative. Definitely worth a look.

Blaire White

Another critic of identity politics, Blaire I’d say is probably more to the centre of things. She’s certainly not as left wing as say John Pilger, but I wouldn’t describe her as right wing either. Though hilariously she is often derided as a Nazi by the mainstream media.

The mainstream media and the regressive left despises Blaire as she is really their worst nightmare made flesh.

She is a trans woman, but she is a strong critic of identity politics. The regressive left loves to deride all of its critics as pathetic, ugly, smelly, bitter white men who can’t stand the thought of their “privilege” being taken away from them.

Blaire however is a beautiful, intelligent, trans woman who doesn’t buy into their divisive nonsense and her critiques are always very measured and well thought out.

Thus they don’t really know how to respond to her, so most of the time they will either ignore her or ultimately just accuse her of being a Nazi or worse a traitor to trans people (as though trans people all have an obligation to believe in identity politics and can’t you know have their own opinions like anyone else?)


Another youtuber that I would describe as being in the centre. Shoe is very keen not to associate herself with any real political ideology. She laughs at the most ridiculous people on both the right and the left. Though her style is very accessible and her sense of humour is brilliant. My only problem with her is that she doesn’t release that many videos.

Still good things come to those who wait and I rarely find myself disagreeing with her videos.

Christina Hoff Sommers

A second wave feminist, Sommers split from mainstream feminism due to what she felt was a hostile attitude towards men and also a lack of action against Islams treatment of women.

Since then she has provided interesting critiques of third wave feminism. In my opinion Sommers is what feminism needs. Feminism though starting out as a genuinely progressive movement has over the years been hijacked by posers who are actually too scared to comment on real inequalities faced by women and thus goes after safe, benign targets such as video games, rather than say radical Islam.

Worse than that however is the way that feminism has become dogmatic to the point where it can’t accept any criticism of itself which has in turn led to it becoming a static movement, stuck in the past and unable to move forward.

Sommers meanwhile is trying to break feminism out of its rut and gear it towards becoming a respectable and noble movement once again that actually helps women rather than a vehicle for posers.

Whether she will succeed or not? Who knows, but she will always have my support at least.

Chris Ray Gun

A self identified classical liberal, Chris again is really much like Blaire and Shoe more to the centre of things and tends to look at the worst of the left and the right. He has a very even handed and fair approach to the subjects he tackles and isn’t I feel motivated by any pre existing biases.

Chris’s videos are always very amusing. His humour is energetic, self deprecating, and over the top, yet he always in amongst the drinking bleach and other crazy antics, manages to make his points very clearly and backs them up well.

He is also a talented and accomplished musician and has produced many songs, including original material and parodies of old songs with a political slant.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

A true feminist hero. Ali grew up in a Muslim country Somalia, and had to among other things endure genital mutilation at a young age. Ali has devoted her entire life to trying to bring about a reformation of Islam and has written many books on the subject as well as given many talks too.

Among the books she has written on Islam include The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam, Infidel, Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilisations and Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now

Sadly she has been targeted by extremist Muslims for many years, and in fact has to walk around with body guards. Worse still many people on the left and the mainstream media have tried to deride Ali as a racist and trouble maker.

Still she has always remained a strong critic of Islam and continues to this day to be a true champion for women’s rights and free speech.

David Wood

David Wood is a Christian apologist and so naturally as an Atheist I clash with him on the subject of God. For the record though I have no objection to anyone believing in God.

I have always said the only right way to live your life is a way that doesn’t harm other people. Thus for all I care you can believe the universe was actually created by a flying spaghetti monster as long as it doesn’t impinge on anyone else’s rights.

To be fair to David its not like he tries to silence anyone who doesn’t believe in God either. He is always willing to debate with people n civilised ways, but again as he is a devout Christian then obviously I don’t believe in what he does.

Despite this however I do love David’s videos on Islam. David probably gives the most comprehensive run down of the religion of anyone. I don’t think his knowledge is necessarily greater than the likes of Tree, but his videos do go into more detail. Not that I am knocking Tree for that, as her style is different. Still David’s videos are very educational and help to debunk a lot of the dangerous myths about Islam.

See here.

Paul Joseph Watson

Paul Joseph Watson is an editor at Info Wars, though he also has a youtube series of his own. He is one of the most popular critics of third wave feminism and identity politics with his videos having had over 100 million views so far.

Now Paul is someone that I disagree with on quite a lot of things. Paul by his own admission is very right wing. He believes Capitalism is the greatest system on earth and I feel he tends to gloss over America’s sins too.

Though I often describe myself as a socialist, I suppose you could maybe call me a light socialist. I think that Capitalism has to at least be reformed, and that we need to bring in more socialist elements into western society, though not necessarily become a full blown socialist society. Not yet.

I feel we have already done this in the United Kingdom to great effect so far, with the NHS obviously being a more socialist concept. I personally think the NHS despite its problems is always preferable to a Private Health service.

I think a full Capitalist society ultimately leads to Corporatism. Paul on the other hand feels that Corporatism and Capitalism are distinct from one another and thus I obviously clash with him on this issue.

I also at the same time am not always so keen on Paul’s videos against feminists. He does make some excellent points about the state of the movement, but I think he can get too nasty and personal when he goes on about feminists being fat, ugly bitches that no one wants to fuck (though to be fair its not like feminists don’t make similar comments about the supposed “Alt Right” all being ugly, sad, basement dwelling virgins.)

Still despite these faults I do have a lot of respect for Paul and think he talks a lot of sense on most things. His videos on Hillary Clinton were brilliant and really helped to shed a lot of light on her corruption. He also does great videos on Islam and its apologists, and has also highlighted the hypocrisy of the mainstream media brilliantly many times.

Paul’s style is very confrontational and no nonsense which is refreshing in the modern over sensitive PC culture that we live in, and its not hard to see why he has earned so many fans as a result.

I also feel that Paul is more even handed and fair than people give him credit for. For instance he has often been derided as a Trump fanboy. Yet he was among the first to criticise Trump when he launched an air strike on Syria.

Unlike those who still praised Obama even after he had destroyed the entire country of Libya, killed hundreds of innocent people in drone strikes, and kept the USA at war through his entire tenure as President. All it took for Paul was one air strike for him to criticise Trump.

Compare Paul’s comments warning Trump of “opening the gates of hell” by toppling Assad after Trump’s first foreign policy blunder to Owen Jones’ about Obama “being so cool” in 2016, a year in which Obama dropped over 26,171 bombs on wedding parties, hospitals, schools and homes, and then tell me who is the real fanboy of a President, and who merely supported a President because of his position on foreign policy?

Overall I’d say Paul could almost be described as the anti John Pilger in that, whilst Pilger’s problem is that he is too anti Western society, Paul’s is that he is maybe a bit too pro Western society. I can understand Paul’s frustration when idiots on the left try and make out that the West is a worse than any Islamic culture, but still in the past Paul has gone too much the other way to the extent where he has made out that Margaret Thatcher was a hero which is just ridiculous in my opinion.

Interestingly enough Pilger and Watson do actually overlap in terms of opinion on many key issues, such as the bias of the mainstream media, American intervention in the Middle East, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and identity politics.

A debate between Pilger and Watson would be very interesting I think.

Honorary Mentions

Among the other people I listen to frequently include Computing Forever, Abby Martin, Some Black Guy and Kraut and Tea.

Now, Kraut and Some Black Guy I really like, but I haven’t had time to see as many of their videos. I aim to rectify that soon, but for the time being I am not as familiar with their work, though again I like what I have seen so far.

Other Youtubers who I have only seen fleetingly but who so far I have been impressed with include Logicked, Roaming Millenial, and The Iconoclast.

Abby Martin meanwhile I have been a fan of for a long while. I think she talks a lot of sense about the negative effects of American foreign policy. Her videos on Hillary Clinton are also excellent. Indeed I’d say she and Paul Joseph Watson more than anyone else really helped to bring to people’s attention just how corrupt Clinton actually was, though ironically Paul and Abby despise each other. The reason for that is because Abby is sadly a rank Islam apologist. Seriously she is an Owen Jones level of Islam apologist. Its like her brain just shuts down any ability to look at things in a fair and rationale way as soon as Islam is brought up, and she just hears all fair criticism of the religion as “I hate brown people!” Even when Abby is being told Islam is in need of a reformation by an actual Muslim man himself (Maajid Nawaz) Abby still writes his criticisms off as Islamophobia.

Computing Forever meanwhile though I like his regressive news series I do feel he is perhaps a bit too right wing for me at times. For instance he is opposed to gay marriage (and even voted against it), whilst I support it very strongly. Still I don’t think he is a bad guy or anything, and he is always willing to listen to other people’s opinions too. However I feel that politically, though I agree with him on a lot, we are maybe just too far apart.

Thanks for reading.

Trump’s Syrian Air Strike: Meet the New Boss Same as the Old Boss

So much for draining the swamp.

Yes sadly it seems many people’s dreams of a peaceful co-operation between Russia, the US and Syria just went up in flames.

Donald Trump like the immediate US Presidents before him is apparently desperate to start a war after all.

Naturally many of Trump’s supporters such as Paul Joseph Watson who only supported him due to his anti war stance, and his desire to limit American intervention in the middle east have now turned on him.

Whilst some people have criticised Watson and others such as Lauren Southern for apparently “flip flopping” on Trump personally I admire them for sticking to their principles.

They only supported Trump because they believed he was a better option than Hillary Clinton in terms of foreign policy. Now that Trump is seemingly pursuing the same destructive foreign policies that Hillary wanted in toppling Assad then they are calling him out on it.


I will say there has already been a lot more criticism from Trump’s high profile supporters for his actions in Syria than there were from Obama’s for his many war crimes.

Trump’s Syrian strike not only classes him as a war criminal, but also reveals him to be a spineless, weak man who is easily manipulated by those around him into changing his position in the blink of an eye.

Courtesy of Ben Garrison cartoons.

Abby Martin, former host of Breaking the Set actually warned of this many months ago saying that she felt Trump’s biggest problem was the way he was too easily influenced and prone to changing his mind all the time.

See here in this video.

Trumps actions in Syria could very well lead us into a full scale conflict with Russia. It remains to be seen if Russia and America can smooth things over, but still he is taking a huge risk over what is ultimately a pointless endeavour.

To start with it is not known yet if Assad was even guilty of the recent chemical attack. I am not saying that he wasn’t, but its certainly not proven and in some ways it doesn’t make sense for Assad at this stage to gas his own people when things are generally heading in his favour. ISIS and Al Qaeda were both in retreat, peace talks were going ahead and at that point Trump was limiting intervention in the middle east. For him to suddenly blow that does seem a little unlikely, though again we still don’t know for sure.

Personally I think that this smells of another Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, Benghazi debacle, a lie cooked up to goad us into being ready for a pointless and bloody conflict.

Whatever the case even if Assad does turn out to be guilty then removing him is still the worst of all options. To start with it risks a war with Russia which could in turn escalate into a Third World War! Remember Syria is close allies with Russia, who in turn are close allies with Iran and China. The end result of Trump poking and prodding Syria and Russia could see the US, the UN, Russia, Iran and China all aiming nukes at each other. Russia is also no lame duck either. It has weapons capable of destroying an area the size of Texas.

Russia has already tore up a 2015 military operations agreement it had with the US, which gives both sides open communication regarding air operations. There is now a much greater risk of American and Russian jets accidentally shooting each other down!

Even if there somehow isn’t a war between Russia and America then removing Assad will make things worse for Syria. It will completely destablise the country just like Iraq and Libya and shatter it into a thousand pieces leading to more deaths, and another refugee crisis. It will also give ISIS a footing and lead to a greater rise in Islamic extremism (the very thing Trump promised to fight).

Ironically these are all the things that people (myself included) were terrified Hillary Clinton would cause if she got in. To be fair I do still think that Hillary would have caused a conflict with Syria and Russia if she had been elected President.

Just last night Hillary Clinton said she wanted the US to launch an attack against Syria and for Putin to be held accountable for his actions.

See here Clinton calls for Bombing Assad’s Air Fields.

Hillary Clinton called for Bombing Assad Hours Before Trump Airstrike

So its not a question of “if only Hillary had won” its more that sadly Trump was no alternative after all. No matter who the Americans voted for it seems war was inevitable.

It funny in a tragic way how Obama and Trump really are no different after all.

When Barack Obama was voted in in 2008, people hoped that he would be a positive change and end the conflict in Iraq and limit American intervention in the middle east.

Just like Trump he promised to do that and the two candidates he was up against, John McCain in 2008 and Mit Romney in 2012 were also both crooked war mongers. Thus Obama at the very least was seen as the lesser of two evils. Obama however ended up not only increasing the use of drone strikes significantly from George W Bush, but he too destroyed an entire country, Libya, in an illegal invasion.

Flash forward to 2016 and many people myself included hoped that Trump would be a positive change in terms of foreign policy and limit American intervention in the middle east as he promised to improve relations with Russia and leave Assad alone. He also went up against a candidate who was a crooked war monger, Hillary Clinton too.

However barely 3 months into his Presidency Trump has already carried out a war crime and an illegal attack on another sovereign state.

If you weren’t duped by Obama in 2008 being a positive change then you were probably duped by Trump supposedly draining the swamp in 2016.

It seems there is no escape. Its always the same war mongers running things from behind the scenes, using a spineless puppet as their front man. You can vote Democrat or Republican, Trump or Clinton, Obama or McCain and the result is the same. More wars.

Its time in my opinion that the left abandoned identity politics once and for all. Rather than constantly fight each other over trivial stupid things like gender pronouns, white male privilege etc. The left seriously needs to get its arse in gear and try and find a way to reform the current corporatist system that favours endless wars and expansion.



The Most Useless Heroes

Sorry David Bowie these people couldn’t be heroes for one second!

Not everybody has what it takes to be a hero. In some cases its because they are weak, cowardly, selfish or amoral. In others however they can be strong, brave, dashing, handsome, sexy, noble, have all the right ingredients on paper, but fail for one simple reason. They are completely fucking useless!

In this article we will briefly look at what I feel are the 4 most useless heroes on television. All of these characters really did mean well. They all have the heart of noble warrior, but sadly the competency of Homer Simpson.

4/ Emma Swan (Once Upon A Time)

I am sorry to have to include her here. I do like the character. She has an interesting backstory, great characterisation, and Jennifer Morrison who plays her is brilliant in the role.

Sadly however she makes this list simply because she NEVER saves the day. Seriously try and find me a main villain of the series that Emma has actually defeated?

In series 1 it is Henry who in a way brings down the Evil Queen. He is the one who stops Emma from eating the apple which forces Emma and the Evil Queen to work together which ultimately reveals the truth.

In season 2 it is Snow who kills Cora (following Rumple’s orders) in season 3 it is Rumple himself who kills Peter Pan, whilst Zelena the Wicked Witch is defeated by Regina.

In season 4 the snow queen is stopped by Ana, whilst Rumple is beaten by Belle. The Author meanwhile is beaten by Henry.

In season 5 Emma does kill Hook to be fair and she also killed Cruelle in season 4. Even then however Cruella couldn’t kill anyone and Hook also wanted Emma to kill him. Finally Hades the main villain of season 5 is killed by Zelena.

I haven’t seen the 6th season yet. Maybe Emma finally stops the badguy herself but really for the so called saviour its pretty poor that in the first 5 years she only killed two main villains, one of whom couldn’t kill anyone and another who wanted her to kill him.

This is pretty much what always happens in Once Upon A Time. The badguy is completely unstoppable and is about to kill everyone, Emma included, but then someone else bursts in and saves the day leading the viewer to wonder why Emma is called the saviour.

3/ Merlin (Merlin)

Again I liked this show a lot and Colin Morgan who played the character was excellent in the role. Sadly however Merlin ultimately makes the list as not only does he fuck everything up in the show but he is also technically a traitor to his kind too.

The premise of Merlin is that magic has been outlawed in Camelot by the tyrant Uther Pendragon. However an ancient prophecy states that one day Arthur and Merlin will bring magic back to Camelot.

Only problem is that this never happens! Now to be fair I did used to think that this was quite a good twist on the legend that Merlin’s knowledge of the great future caused him to make the wrong decisions. However I have changed my opinion now only in that it would have been better if he and Arthur had at least accomplished something before Arthur’s death.  I get that they needed to have Arthur die just like the myths but they should have had Arthur at least bring magic back before he died. Ultimately Merlin just looks like someone who supported two regimes that persecuted his own kind and turned his friend Morgana evil.

2/ Kendra the Vampire Slayer

The short lived slayer from Buffy’s second season. Kendra is most famous for her dodgy accent, but she was also quite a useless slayer too.

Granted she never went rogue and tried kill people like Faith. Still as a Vampire Slayer she has a pretty poor track record. She is killed by Drusilla barely a year into being a Slayer.

To be fair Kendra unlike the others on this list is meant to be lame. She is meant to highlight how Buffy is a superior Slayer as Kendra never thinks for herself. Still it cannot be denied she was a pretty lousy and unimpressive Slayer.

1/ Hawkman (Arrowverse)

The most useless hero. Hawkman is reborn over and over only to be killed by the exact same guy, Vandal Savage each time. Vandal Savage kills him over 200 times.

Then when Hawkman finally defeats him (only with help from two teams of heroes) Vandal returns and kills Hawkman again in a one on one fight, before going on to drink his blood.

No matter whatever the time or place, Hawkman will always be Vandal Savage’s little bitch.

I don’t think that it was a good idea to have Vandal Savage kill Hawkman and Hawkgirl so many times. It just made them look too inept that they couldn’t beat one guy for over a thousand years. Though Hawkman does finally triumph over Savage at the end of Legends of Tomorrow, but still its only with help and the score is still something like Vandal Savage 270, Hawkman 1.

Overall I’d say that’s a poor track record for any hero against his enemy and just makes Hawkman look all the more inept.

On top of that the only reason he was picked for the mission was because he was deemed unimportant by Rip Hunter and thus if he did die then it wouldn’t make that big a change in the timeline.