Coming Up On Burrunjorsramblesandbabbles

Image result for tyrannosaurus

Okay its an understatement to say that this has been a very hectic and troublesome year for me personally.

Throughout the first three months of this year I suffered a severe bout of depression, one of the worst I have ever experienced in my life.

Tragically my Uncle also passed away in June this year after a heart attack, and another close family member has been diagnosed with a serious illness.

Needless to say I haven’t had as much time to work on this blog, but now after possibly the worst 6 months of my entire life I am ready to resume my work here.

This article will cover what I am going to write about in the up coming months.

The History of N-Space

Image result for N-Space Doctor Who

About 2 years ago I wrote an article arguing that Classic Doctor Who and New Doctor Who did not take place in the same universe, but that Classic Who did take place in the same universe as various other fictional series and franchises.

I even wrote up a fictional history for them all together called the History of N-Space. However I felt it didn’t work at the time and so I deleted it.

However after the recent female Doctor debacle I have decided that as far as I’m concerned New Who and Classic Who are not canon to each other so this is essentially my head canon. Since according to people like Steven Moffat and Paul Cornell Doctor Who has no canon, then as far as I’m concerned The History of N-Space is as valid as New Who.

I’ve also had a few people telling me they miss the N-Space article, so I have decided to redo it, but hopefully in a much better way than before.

Obviously this means that the history of the Daleks articles which treats all of New Who and Classic Who as canon will not be continued. I won’t be deleting them as they are popular, but they are finished for now.

Don’t worry I won’t be writing anymore articles about how much I dislike the latest few seasons of New Who. I’ve pretty much said all I have to about that, so really there is no need to keep beating a dead horse. Also I hate being negative all the time, so the History of N-Space article will NOT be one bashing New Who in the slightest.

I actually think that splitting New Who and Classic Who into separate universes makes New Who far more enjoyable, as you can appreciate say David Tennant’s excellent performance, and scenes like Rose and the Doctor being on the beach without having to imagine him as being the same character as the older, more mature, asexual character from Classic Who.

 

The happy couple?

As to which other franchises I believe exist in the same universe as Classic Who, I see it like this.

Classic Who, Dan Dare (the first three versions), Blake’s 7, Godzilla (Showa era), Planet of the Apes and Beneath the Planet of the Apes, Destroy All Humans video game series, Futurama, Quatermass, Prince of Darkness, the comic book Caballistics, Inc and Lost in Space all take place in the same universe in my opinion, as all have had loose crossovers with one another.

Doctor Who and Dan Dare crossed over in a Children in Need special where the Doctor and Dan visited a prison planet containing the Doctors worst enemies and the Mekon.

Blake’s 7 and Doctor Who have had a few crossovers with one another. In the novel Corpse Maker by Chris Boucher, a one off character from Blake’s 7 called Carnell encounters the Voc Robots, Leela and the 4th Doctor. Furthermore in the audio series Kaldor City, which features both Doctor Who and Blake’s 7 characters, the main protagonist is implied to be Avon, the main protagonist from Blake’s 7 in disguise!

Classic Who meanwhile had a few subtle crossovers with Quatermass in the story Remembrance of the Daleks. British Rocket Group and Quatermass himself are given a few mentions as real things.

“I wish Bernard were here.”

“British Rocket Group has its own problems”

In Futurama meanwhile the character of the 4th Doctor appears twice as a real person. First in Moebius Dick where he is one of the space travelers devoured by the space whale who are later rescued from its stomach by Leela.

In All The Presidents Heads the 4th Doctor is also briefly seen running back to the TARDIS in the altered timeline.

Fourth Doctor.jpg

File:Doctor Who.PNG

The Jupiter 2, the main spaceship from Lost in Space is also among the ships the Space Whale has trapped too, showing that it exists in the same universe as Futurama and therefore Classic Who.

Furthermore Godzilla also appears in Futurama as a real creature too, which once again links Godzilla to Doctor Who. As to which Godzilla it is however, well personally I am going to settle for the Showa era Godzilla.

Aside from the fact that he is my favorite, the Showa era Godzilla series had a crossover with the Planet of the Apes film series. In Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla and Terror of Mechagodzilla the earth is attacked by a race of talking Apes working with a race of mutant men who wear masks made of human skins.

Whilst it is never made clear in the narrative, the intention of Toho was that these were the Apes and the mutant humans from the first two Planet of the Apes movies travelling to the past to change history. There is a slight reference to this in Terror of Mechagodzilla where the aliens mention saving the earth from mankind.

Futurama makes reference to Planet of the Apes having happened in the episode The Late Philip J Fry, so since Planet of the Apes and Godzilla both exist in the same reality as Futurama, that means that it has to be the Showa era Godzilla.

Of course this also means that the last 3 Planet of the Apes movies of the original series are not canon either. I have nothing against them. I think they were all great films, but they cannot be made to fit in with the N-Space timeline. You can rationalize it that the last 3 Apes movies take place in an alternate universe, with a similar history, but ultimately different in other ways.

Destroy All Humans and Cabillistics also contain references to events from Doctor Who stories as though they actually happened.

Prince of Darkness, a classic horror movie by the legendary director John Carpenter was said to have been based on real events, researched by Martin Quatermass, who in publicity material written to accompany the film, was said to be the brother of Bernard Quatermass. Thus as it is linked to Quatermass, then it is linked to Doctor Who too.

Finally the TARDIS also appears in Red Dwarf in a cameo scene.

Image result for tardis red dwarf

Incidentally the cast of Red Dwarf have also said that they want to have a crossover with Doctor Who, though they also said that they wanted to have one of the original Doctors instead.

Red Dwarf Cast: We Want A Doctor Who Crossover

So for all of these reasons and more I personally think that all of these franchises share the same universe as one another and I am going to try and work them all together in one history. I will have to take a few creative liberties with them to make them fit, but by and large I am going to try and stay faithful to every series in order to make them work.

Every Cyberman Story

Image result for cybermen

Having reviewed every Dalek story, I now intend to do the same for every Cyberman story. We will be looking at the Classic era Cybermen stories only as again I don’t really like to acknowledge New Who as much these days.

Other Non Sci Fi and Fantasy Reviews

Image result for Katey Sagal

In the last few years this blog has tended to focus more on sci fi and fantasy which are my two favourite genres.

However I’d like to review other non sci fi or fantasy series. I intend to do reviews of various animated series and classic British and American comedy series too.

I want this blog to be able to branch out a bit, though obviously we will still be looking primarily at sci fi and fantasy, but there will be other types of reviews on this blog too.

My Own Fiction

I am going to post my own fiction here too. I already have a website to showcase my fiction, but being the oldest blog, this has the widest reach, so I am going to post them here as well as on my other site.

Thank you for reading and the first article will be up tomorrow.

 

 

 

Why Classic Doctor Who and New Doctor Who Do Not Take Place In The Same Universe

Image result for Doctor Who

Image result for Doctor Who

Okay its no secret that I pretty much HATE all of the New Doctor Who from 2014 on. I think that its makers basically sold us out to a bullying, intolerant, needy ideology and have sunk what was once the most popular and wonderful of sci fi series.

Still in all fairness I don’t think that the New Doctor Who ever really worked as a sequel to the original series. Even in the Tennant era, whilst many fans, including I acknowledge myself, have tried to fit it in with the original. New Who was really always a different show.

Yes okay Classic Who changed over the course of its 26 year run, but never to quite the same extent as New Who. As I have been over many times there is a consistent characterisation overall to the 7 classic era Doctors, which New Who broke practically from the start.

So in this article I am going to argue that New Who and Classic Who take place in two separate universes, with a similar but different history (explaining the presence of the classic era Doctors in the 50th. They are simply alternate counterparts to the classic series versions.)

Obviously this is just my own head canon at this point, but as the likes of Paul Cornell and Steven Moffat have regularly said that Doctor Who has no canon (to cover up their own plot holes) then hey, this is just as valid as anything else.

I am also going to run down why I think this is better not just for Classic Who but New Who as well, and also for the future of the Doctor Who franchise in general.

So lets get started then shall we?

The Point of Divergence

Image result for 12th Doctor saves Davros

In my opinion the drastic change in history for the New Who and Classic Who universes occurs in the story The Magicians Apprentice/The Witch’s Familiar.

Here the 12th Doctor went backwards in time and saved a young Davros from a minefield and instilled in him an important lesson, that compassion can be a strength. Davros evidently remembered this enough to programme a concept of mercy into the Daleks, as several Daleks throughout all of New Who have been shown to understand mercy, compassion and pity.

The Metaltron begs the Doctor to show pity when he attempts to kill it, whilst the Stone Dalek begs River Song to show him mercy, and finally Clara is able to say mercy through the Daleks machine in The Witch’s Familiar.

This is of course at odds however with what we see in Classic Who when Genesis of the Daleks states that the first Daleks created by Davros have no concept of pity or mercy. This isn’t just a throwaway line. Its an important plot point in the story, with even Davros at the end realising the horror of what he has created by depriving the Daleks of the ability to feel pity.

Furthermore Classic Who always made a point of showing the Daleks not being able to understand mercy in other stories too. Even when faced with certain death, Daleks in Classic Who NEVER beg for mercy like their Revival era counterparts. They might scream in fear and yell “retreat” but they never beg their enemies to show compassion.

So even already New Who and Classic Who are at odds with one another.

That is unless of course you take them as existing in different universes, with similar but ultimately different histories.

I say that in the New Who Universe which we’ll call M-Space, Davros as a boy wandered into the field by accident where he was rescued by the Doctor, whilst that simple event never happened in the universe Classic Who took place in which we’ll call N-Space.

Maybe in N-Space Davros stayed in that day, rather than going out to play with his friends like in M-Space where he got lost and stumbled into the minefield.

As a result of this the N-Space Davros never met the Doctor as a child and as a result never learned the important lesson about mercy from the Doctor. He continued to think that it was only weakness and so the N-Space Davros removed all sense of pity and compassion from the Daleks

As a result, as we saw in Genesis, the N-Space Daleks eventually overran Davros, and lacking any concept of mercy, shot their creator, though little did they know, he survived and would return to try and take leadership of their race, splitting them into two, which held them back greatly.

In M-Space however though the Daleks still overran Davros, they did not shoot him, as they were able to show some small measure of mercy towards their creator. Instead they enslaved him like in Journey’s End and The Magicians Apprentice.

As a result of this the M-Space, the Daleks became far more advanced and powerful.

They were able to make use of Davros’ intellect throughout their history, and they also did not have to deal with Davros splitting their race in two either.

Of course Davros at some point maybe did try and escape and create new Daleks, (which led to an alternate version of the events of Revelation of the Daleks as seen in The Magicians Apprentice.) Ultimately however they were able to recapture him, and his attempts to create a new Dalek faction never got off the ground in M-Space.

As a result of this, the Time Lords of M-Space became more scared of the Daleks and the two races were locked in a conflict of some kind before the Doctor even left Gallifrey. This explains why according to New Who the Doctor left because of a prophecy about a Dalek/Time Lord hybrid, whilst in Classic Who he had no fucking idea who they were in the first Dalek story.

In order to combat the Daleks, the Time Lords technology advanced (including finding the way to bring the dead back) and they even modified their bodies too. Finding a way to make regeneration into a weapon for example (explaining why it blows shit up in New Who.)

These modifications to their bodies however had a number of side effects, including gender bending and also making the incarnations of a Time Lord more radically different to each other. Naturally Time Lord society began to accommodate those differences, leading to different attitudes towards regeneration from the Time Lords in N-Space.

Of course this led to various other changes throughout the history of both universes which we will look at here.

1/ The Cybermen

Image result for cybermen mondas

The Cybermen in Classic and New Who are not compatible with one another in many ways.

To start with in the 1966 story The Tenth Planet, the Cybermen are shown to invade the earth in the year 1986. Their invasion spreads out all over the world, they attack every major city, and their planet appears in the sky which is on every major news station.

The event isn’t covered up of course, and later stories set in the future show the Cyber invasion having become established history.

From The Moonbase set in the 21st Century.

“There were Cybermen every child knows that, but they died out ages ago.”

In New Who however nobody knows who the Cybermen were by the early 21st century, before the invasion of Canary Wharf which happens in 2006 or 7.

Now you might be thinking that the Tenth Planet jars with what we see of the earth in later stories of the Classic Era where nobody knows about the Cybermen, but it doesn’t.

The last companion before Ace to come from contemporary earth is Peri, who is said in Attack of the Cybermen to come from before the invasion in 1986. Ace meanwhile in Dragonfire was said to have been whisked away to a far away planet 18 months ago.

Assuming that Ace comes from modern earth (which there is nothing to contradict.) Then this would mean Ace was whisked away in 1985 as Dragonfire was broadcast in 1987, meaning that she was whisked away before the Cyber invasion, explaining why she doesn’t know the monsters in Silver Nemesis.

Battlefield and Survival, could easily take place in 1985, or even in 86 before the Cyber invasion which happened in December 1986.

Silver Nemesis meanwhile is said to take place in 1988, but to be fair there is nothing in that story to suggest that everyone else apart from Ace isn’t aware of the Cybermen. Indeed the Nazis do seem somewhat familiar with them, and nobody else meets them in the story to conform whether humanity is familiar with the Cybermen or not, so it is just about possible to fit the Tenth Planet in with later Classic Who stories.

It is not possible however to fit it in with New Who. In New Who, nobody knows about Aliens in Rose set in 2005, and Rose is show to be explicitly unaware of the Cybermen in Dalek.

On top of this technology in the Tenth Planet was shown to be much more advanced than technology on earth in the New Series. Now again fair enough, technology in later 80s Classic stories is not as advanced either, however this can be explained away by the fact that all of the later 80s Classic Who stories are set in little remote, poor, rundown areas, like Silver Nemesis, Survival, Battlefield, Attack of the Cybermen etc.

The technology for the Tenth Planet does actually fit in reasonably well with stories both before and after it. In the Pertwee era UNIT stories that we know took place only a decade or so before The Tenth Planet, the technology is on a similar level. (In both the early Pertwee stories and The Tenth Planet, mankind has developed spaceships far in advance of what we have even today that can take human beings to planets like Mars and back.)

In Power of the Daleks meanwhile mankind has set up various colonies on other planets by the 2020s, to the point where one colony on Vulcan can easily be forgotten about and overlooked. Furthermore according to the Chase mankind has robots that are advanced enough to be indistinguishable from human beings!

With New Who however we see stories set in big cities, and secret military compounds designed to take on alien threats like Torchwood, and the government in the 21st Century, 20 years after the events of The Tenth Planet, and the technology still isn’t as advanced as it is in the Tenth Planet or even certain Pertwee stories like The Ambassadors of Death.

Also according to New Who the first ever colony established on another world was on Mars by the 2050s and the destruction of this single colony was a huge event in the history of mankind. Furthermore it was only after the destruction of Bowie base one, that mankind would leave the solar system. How does this mesh with Power of the Daleks where mankind had various colonies on planets outside of the solar system by 2020, to the point where one could go missing and nobody even noticed!

Classic Who also established that the Cybermen were ONE race who came from the Planet Mondas. Originally they were a vast intergalactic power until their home planet was destroyed. Most of the Cybermen perished when Mondas exploded, but a few survived and colonised Telos, wiping out its inhabitants the Cryons.

A major plot point of the Cybermen’s story arc is that they are a unique race, teetering on the verge of extinction. If they are wiped out there will be no more, hence their catchphrase “We Will Survive!”

New Who meanwhile says that the Cybermen were never a race, rather they were the collective name given to various humanoid species that had transformed themselves into machine creatures.

The Doctor states that the different Cybermen originated almost wherever there were people, and goes on to list worlds that developed their own Cybermen independently from one another, including Mondas, Telos, and earth.

This makes no sense of course in regards to old who. Old Who states that the last of the Mondasian Cybermen moved to Telos and wiped out its native life forms, whilst New Who says that they developed on Telos independently from the ones on Mondas?

See here.

Classic Who

CYBERCONTROLLER: We know your intelligence.

DOCTOR: Oh, thank you very much. Ah yes the lunar surface.

CYBERCONTROLLER: Our machinery had stopped and our supply of replacements had been depleted.

DOCTOR: So that’s why you attacked the Moonbase.

CYBERCONTROLLER: You had destroyed our first planet and we were becoming extinct.

LYTTON: Telos is the Cybermen’s home planet.

DOCTOR: Uh-huh adopted planet. You’d have liked Telos Peri, in the old days when the Cryons were in residence. They were the indigenous population. Until the Cybermen wiped them out.

LYTTON: They had nowhere else to go.

DOCTOR: Oh for heavens sake man, the universe is littered with unpopulated planets.

PERI: Well why not on their own planet. I assume they had one. What’s the matter?

DOCTOR: Mondas the Cyber planet was destroyed.

New Who

DOCTOR: They (Cybermen) always get started. They happen anywhere there’s people. Mondas. Telos. Earth. Planet 14. Marinus. Like sewage, smart phones and Donald Trump. Some things are just inevitable.

DOCTOR: People get the Cybermen wrong. There’s no evil plan, no evil genius. Just parallel evolution. 

This is a complete contradiction. Now according to the Doctor there were people on Telos who turned themselves into Cybermen independently from the ones on Mondas.

What about the non human aliens, the Cryons, who the Mondasian Cybermen wiped out to steal their home planet, whose history the Doctor knew (and who he felt passionate about) and who he met? Is the 12th Doctor saying that the Cyrons turned themselves into Cybermen now?

Also if the Cybermen sprung up on various worlds, why were the Mondasian Cybermen nearing extinction in stories like Tomb of the Cybermen? Surely they must have known that there were various other Cyber factions out there, and that according to the Doctor they would always spring up sooner or later?

Also the recent two parter World Enough and Time/The Doctor Falls, featured a sort of origin story for the Cybermen that contradicted The Tenth Planet.

According to this two parter the Cybermen had the power to fly and shoot laser beams from their bodies at the start of their development. In that case, why the hell did we not see the Cybermen in the Tenth Planet display any of these powers?

Once again this isn’t just a minor detail that New Who got wrong. The entire point of the Cybermen in the Tenth Planet is that they still have some human components. They are a mixture of man and machine. They have human hands, they still have names and individual identities like Krang etc.

However according to New Who, before even leaving the place they were created, the Mondasian Cybermen transformed into complete machine creatures?

In short the New Who Cybermen are the complete opposite to the original in almost every way. One’s entire story arc revolves around them being a unique race, nearing extinction, the other are an idea that originates on various different worlds. One was known to mankind in 1986, the other weren’t etc.

There’s no way to reconcile them both.

The Master

Image result for the master missy

The villain to suffer the most from series to series. The John Simm Master obviously wasn’t quite as terrible as Michelle Gomez version. He did carry on certain aspects of the villains personality like his lust for power, whilst Gomez was just a completely different character in every conceivable way.

Still again much like with the Cybermen, the Master even before the SJW pandering began was never really compatible with his classic era counterpart.

The Master in Classic Who was originally stated to be a renegade Time Lord who sought to conquer the galaxy because he believed that under his rule, things would be better. He believed that using his advanced intellect he could cure diseases, avert major disasters, end inequality, and protect planets like earth (that he had a particular fondness for, much like the Doctor.)

He was willing to kill, even billions of people to achieve this, but he initially saw his crimes as being for a greater good. In fact he saw the Time Lords as the villains, as they had the power in his mind to change history for the better, establish a peaceful empire that holds all of the other worlds in line rather than let them destroy each other wars, and cure all of the ills that affect primitive planets like earth.

The Master it was also established was the Doctors friend back on Gallifrey, however their friendship was not that close.

In The Five Doctors when the First Doctor (played by stand in Richard Hurndall) meets the Master he doesn’t even recognise him!

Granted the Master is in a new body, but even then, when the Master tries to jog the Doctors memory, the First Doctor still fails to recall their friendship and later simply refers to him as a villain and a strange fellow, showing that it clearly wasn’t that important a relationship in either men’s lives.

In fact its only mentioned as having been friends years ago in ONE story, The Sea Devils. That’s literally it. In every single other story the two only ever refer to each other as enemies. Even in the Five Doctors, the Master doesn’t introduce himself as an old friend of the first Doctor, simply as having gone to the Time Lord Academy at the same time as he did. (The Five Doctors was written by the co-creator of the Master, Terrance Dicks who not surprisingly, hates Missy with a vengeance.)

When the Doctor and the Master first meet on screen in Terror of the Autons, its obvious that neither have that high an opinion of the other. Still the Master does think that the Doctor can perhaps be a potential ally. He is the only other Time Lord seemingly that isn’t content to just sit back and observe the universe. The Master clearly hopes that the Doctor can help him build his better galaxy in his earliest stories like Colony in Space.

When it becomes apparent to the Master that the Doctor doesn’t share his grand vision for the universe, he sees him as his greatest threat and tries to destroy him above all else. At no point does the Master show hesitation at killing the Doctor because of their past friendship.

The Master also is quite insecure about the Doctor’s intelligence too. As the Doctor is the only other renegade Time Lord whose reputation in some respects outshines him, then The Master is desperate to prove he is superior. We see this in The Mind of Evil when the Masters worst fear is a giant Doctor laughing at him!

The more the Doctor foils the Masters plans, the more the Master comes to genuinely hate the Doctor to the point where it becomes his main desire to not just destroy the Doctor, but humiliate, and torture him.

The Master’s intense hatred of his foe, coupled with an accident that reduces him to his emaciated form in the Deadly Assassin, pushes the villain over the edge to become a vicious, deranged, bitter lunatic. The later Masters are shown to kill for no reason other than their own sadistic cruelty, and are more unstable, vicious characters. They still desire ultimate power however. So much so that in Logopolis, the Master gambles with the fate of the universe itself to gain control over it.

However the key difference is that the likes of Ainley and the Burned Master have dropped the seemingly altruistic facade that the Delgado Master played up in stories like Colony in Space. They want power just for their own glory.

The Doctor meanwhile in turn always views the Master with contempt. He never shows any affection for him. He only mentions their friendship in The Sea Devils, and the rest of the time he not only considers the Master evil and responsible for his actions, but tries to kill him.

In Terror of the Autons, the Doctor is perfectly happy for UNIT to shoot the Master.

In The Mind of Evil, even when the Master has agreed to leave the earth, the Doctor still tries to kill him as he doesn’t want him loose in the universe hurting other worlds. He tries to kill the Master by trapping him in an area that is about to be hit by a missile (using a device that quite literally cripples the Master with his own fear.) He is later absolutely devastated when the Master escapes.

In The Claws of Axos, the Doctor tricks the Master into thinking that he wants to leave humanity to be consumed by the Axons and get revenge on the Time Lords, so that he can trap both the Master and the Axons in an eternal time loop where they will be forced to live the same moment over and over again forever. The Master however catches on to what the Doctor is doing in time and escapes, though the Doctor after successfully trapping the Axons, believes that he trapped the Master too, and is happy about it.

In the Daemons the Doctor compares the Master to Hitler and Gengis Khan!

In The Deadly Assassin meanwhile the Doctor boots a dying Master into a bottomless pit. He later tells the Time Lords that the Master is the one person in all of creation that he would actually wish death on as he is the quintessence of evil.

In Keeper of Traken the Doctor with Adric and Nyssa’s help destroys the Masters TARDIS and seemingly kills him in an inferno.

In Castrovalva the Doctor leaves a pleading Master to be torn to pieces by his own followers in a place that fades from existence. He later says that he hopes the Master is finished for good this time.

In The Five Doctors, the third Doctor, against Sarah Jane’s protests leaves the Master to be killed by the Cybermen. He also states that the idea of the Master helping him is the biggest pile of rubbish he has ever heard in his life!

The Fifth Doctor similarly leaves the Master in the care of the Cybermen and shows no remorse for it “Well if he survived I’ll say sorry.”

In Planet of Fire the Doctor burns the Master to ashes as he begs for mercy.

In The Two Doctors, the Doctor seals the Rani and the Master in a TARDIS with a hungry Tyrannosaurus Rex that’s about to eat both of them!

In Trial of A Time Lord, the Doctor tells the Time Lords (who are known for not only killing their enemies, but erasing them from history) to do what they want with the Master, and only makes a case for Glitz.

In Survival the Doctor nearly bashes the Masters head in with a rock, and only relents when he realises the Cheetah virus will consume him if he carries out any act of violence.

There’s really very few instances where the Doctor is not willing to kill the Master. In The Time Monster, the Doctor pleads for the Master to not be condemned to an eternity of torture at Chronos’ hands. Later when Jo asks him why she showed mercy, the Doctor tells her flatly that he wouldn’t want to condemn anyone to an eternity of torture, even the Master, his worst enemy.

There are a few more instances of the Doctor not killing the Master when the latter is unarmed, but again this doesn’t demonstrate any affection for the villain. He also has a trouble killing Davros, and even the Daleks when they are unarmed. The Doctors moral code only ever allows him to kill in self defence. One could argue however that the Master is the only villain he makes an exception for, including even Davros.

In Resurrection of the Daleks and in The Mind of Evil, the Doctor comes to the conclusion that Davros and the Master must both be killed for the greater good of the universe. When it comes to Davros however, he finds he is unable to just shoot him in cold blood, whilst with the Master as we have seen he went through with it without a seconds thought or regret, and was furious when he found out he survived!

The Doctor and the Master in Classic Who are the bitterest of enemies. They can never completely triumph over the other. The Doctor may stop the Master from taking over the earth, but he never stops him from destroying innocent lives, and never is even able to bring him to justice.

Their friendship which was a very minor part of their relationship, was really more of an ironic echo than anything else.

In New Who meanwhile the Master was said to have been a psychopath since he was a child and was forced to stare into the untempered schism. Since that day he heard a drumming in his head that tormented him and drove him insane.

The Doctor in New Who as a result of this does not view the Master as evil. He thinks had it not been for the drumming in his head he could have been a force for good in the universe. The Doctor and the Master according to New Who had a very intense friendship when they were young.

The Doctor in both his Twelfth and Tenth incarnation regularly states that the Master was his absolute best friend, and possibly even his soul mate. The two even planned to elope throughout the universe together when they were young back on Gallifrey, but for some reason it never happened.

The Doctor is never willing to kill the Master. In fact he actively saves him/her many times. Even when killing the Master will bring all of humanity back after being turned into clones of the Master, the Doctor refuses to kill him, effectively putting the Master above 7 billion people.

The Doctor is also shown to break down into tears when he believes that the Master has died too.

There is also a sexual aspect to the Doctor and the Masters relationship too in the revival, which becomes more obvious after the Master has turned into a woman.

Finally whilst the Simm Master is shown to have a desire to rule, Missy has no such motive. In fact Missy outright gives up a chance for ultimate power just to win her “boyfriend” back, telling him that she doesn’t need an army.

There is no way you can reconcile these two characters as being the same in terms of history, relationship with the main hero, and characterisation.

Why did the Delgado Master never mention the drums in his head? John Simm never shuts up about them.

Also why did all 7 of the Classic era Doctors view the Master as evil and not some poor lost soul, like Tennant. Tennant tells the Simm Master that he doesn’t really want to hurt people, and that if he would just let him help, then the Master could be good. Similarly Capaldi’s Doctor spends an entire year trying to rehabilitate Missy.

Why did the previous Doctors never try and get through to the Master? Why did they view him as being no different to Hitler and go out of their way to murder him?

Why did the first Doctor not remember his friendship with the Master? Apparently the whole reason he was going to run away was so he could spend time with this guy?

Why was there never any hint of romance between the Classic Doctor and Master (and there wasn’t.)

The Classic Masters entire story arc where we see him descend from a power hungry sociopath to a bitter psychopath doesn’t make any sense either if you take the drums origin story.

In Logopolis the Doctor says to the Master with genuine shock “you’re mad” when he sees how he is willing to take such a huge risk in gaining power, showing how the Master is different to how the Doctor remembers him. Again however according to New Who the Master was always a lunatic?

The only explanation that makes any sense is that they are two different characters.

The Great Intelligence

Image result for the great intelligence doctor who

The villain who has changed the most over the course of old and new who. In the original series the Great Intelligence was said to be an alien that came from another universe.

He first came to our reality when a Tibetan monk was mediating and encountered the monster on the astral plan. The Intelligence then hitched a ride via the monk to our universe and took him over.

The possessed monk then spent the next 300 years not only building Yeti robots as his army, but a machine that would allow the GI to fully manifest in our universe. The GI is foiled in this plan by the Second Doctor in the 1930s meaning that it came to earth at some point in the early 1600s.

The Intelligence returns many decades later with new and improved Yeti robots in an attempt to drain the Doctors mind. Though it is defeated, it still manages to escape into space. The Intelligence is shown to be able to possess people. Its true form is nothing more than a voice, and it is a cold and logical creature. It dismisses emotions like revenge as petty, wants to gain knowledge as it believes it is power, yet is also shown to be somewhat cowardly, shrieking in panic when the Doctor makes plans against it.

In New Who meanwhile the Great Intelligence was created from the mind of Professor Walter Simeon in the late 19th Century. Thanks to his experiments it was able to live beyond him. It would always assume his form, it did not have the power to possess people, and it was a highly emotional creature who was shown to have a cruel sense of humour, and enjoyed torturing the Doctor.

Ultimately the New Who Great Intelligence kills itself to get back at the Doctor.

There is no way the GI from old who can be the one from the revival. To start with their origins are completely contradictory to one another. One is an alien from another universe, the other the creation of a mad human. One was in Tibet from the 1600s to the 1900s, the other was in London, unable to leave a tank in the late 19th century.

One was just a disembodied voice, the other always assumed the form of Simeon. One was cowardly, put its survival above all else, was generally cold and logical and sought power, the other was sadistic, vengeful and killed itself to take down the Doctor!

Hell even their minions were different. The GI from Old Who had a fondness for its Yeti robots and always used them, whilst the New Series GI never did.

They are completely different villains other than being a similar idea of a disembodied spirit.

Of course the real reason that they are so different was much like with the Master and the Cybermen, the writers of New Who didn’t give a shit about trying to actually write the villain they were supposed to. They simply wanted to write their own character, but slapped the name of a more famous villain to make them more popular (in the case of the GI it was clearly to cash in on the upcoming release of the then recently discovered Web of Fear.)

The Daleks and Davros

Image result for the Daleks and Davros

The Doctors two greatest enemies, the Daleks and the Davors have definitely been handled the best out of all of the icons of the show in the revival (including even the dear old Doctor himself.)

Still there are a few discrepancies between the old Daleks and the new ones. As I have been over the New Daleks whilst still monsters, at least understand what pity is and can even plead for it, whilst the old Daleks are utterly devoid of even the tiniest bit of compassion.

Also the home planet of the Daleks, Skaro was completely and utterly destroyed in Remembrance of the Daleks when the Doctor caused Skaro’s sun to blow up and consume it.

In the Revival meanwhile it is said that Skaro was ravaged during the time war, but not completely destroyed and then later rebuilt.

Also Davros by the time of Remembrance had upgraded himself into the form a Dalek Emperor, whilst in the revival in stories set after Remembrance he is still in his usual form.

Furthermore as we have been over the Doctors relationship with the Daleks doesn’t match up if you take New Who into account. According to the hybrid story the Doctor ran away because he was scared after reading about a prophecy that the Daleks and the Time Lords would produce a hybrid. So he must have been aware of the Daleks then before he first met them according to Classic Who in the Mutants?

Finally even the Time Lords had no idea who the Daleks were before the events of the War Games when the Doctor brought the monsters to their attention, whilst New Who has the Time Lords being terrified of them before the Doctor even ran away.

The Doctor

Image result for William Hartnell Billie Piper

Yes the main character himself across both series seems like a totally different person (more so than usual.)

Now a lot of people will try and justify this with that old mantra “Doctor Who is all about change, so all change is good”. Well again I say that is as moronic a statement as saying that the show can never change.

Doctor Who has a flexible format that can allow it to change if it needs too, but that doesn’t mean that it has to. Each change must be justified, hence why things like Colin Bakers coat that were just done on a whim were crap.

Also the character of the Doctor as I have explained many times can NOT be anyone. There is a definite template to his personality that defines the Doctor as a character. If there wasn’t then he wouldn’t be the Doctor, he’d just be a name. The job of an actor or writer is to try and do something different within that template, which is true in many ways of every iconic character that is reinterpreted again and again.

Now whilst it would be wrong to say that New Who has completely broken that template, at the same time I think its fair to say that a lot of the time, not only is it hard to imagine the New Who Doctor as being the same character as the original, but you’d laugh.

Take a look at the Doctors morality. In Classic Who the Doctor has a very particular moral code where he will kill if he has to, but prefers to find peaceful solutions. He has no affection for any villain he faces (as we have been over he is more than happy to kill the Master in almost every confrontation.)

He also shows no quams about killing human villains compared to killing monsters either as seen when he poisons Professor Solon. The only times the Classic era Doctor shows hesitation in murdering an enemy is if they are unarmed and it is not in self defence. This can be seen in Resurrection of the Daleks when he refuses to shoot Davros, or Frontier in Space when he tells the earth men they can’t shoot the Master as he is unarmed, or even in Genesis of the Daleks where he memorably shows hesitation at wiping the Daleks out when they are defenceless and at their point of birth.

Of course there are a few exceptions to this, where the Doctor will murder a villain he deems to be too big a threat to the rest of the universe (ironically most instances of this involve the Master such as in The Mind of Evil and Planet of Fire and The Deadly Assassin.)

Still overall the Doctor is more than willing to kill, and he will use any type of weapon to do it. Guns, swords, sonic lances, high explosives, poison, acid, electricity, feeding his enemies to animals, he’ll even beat villains to death with blunt instruments. The Doctor never demonstrates any particular hatred of guns either. In fact in some stories he seems to be quite the gun buff.

He mentions having several vintage gun collections to Steven in The Gun Fighters, and scolds Steven for not being careful with his favourite gun. He also mentions building a gun in his workshop in The Invasion of Time, and in The Talons of Weng Chiang he demonstrates impressive knowledge on fire arms in general. Finally in The Visitation he even mentions having a gun making him feel quite comfortable.

Of course again ultimately the Doctor in the classic era is a scientist, not a soldier, so he doesn’t carry guns with him all the time, and he finds violence distasteful

In the Revival however, to start with the Doctor refuses to use guns under any circumstances. (There are a few instances where he will pick up a gun in desperation, but even then he never actually uses it against another life form.)

The New Who Doctors hatred of guns is comparable to Batman in that both will refuse to use guns, or allow others beside them to use guns in a situation where they literally have no choice. Examples of this can be seen in the Tenth Doctor refusing to allow Jack to use a gun on hordes of Toclafane about to strike down on Jack, Martha and the Doctor himself. The Doctor also chastises UNIT for using guns against the Sontarans, gun toting monsters who could easily vaporise them. He also shouts at his clone not to use a gun on Davros and the new Dalek empire, seconds away from their bomb which is about to destroy every single universe going off! Then of course there is the Tenth Doctor refusing to use Wilf’s gun to stop the Master and save 7 billion people.

Finally there is this notorious moment where the Tenth Doctor refuses to shoot the man who killed his own daughter and outright says that he never, ever would shoot anyone, and that the Hath and humans should follow his example.

See what I mean? You laugh when you think of Tennant as being the same character as the first 7 Doctors.

This kind of hypocrisy isn’t limited to David Tennant either. Peter Capaldi’s Doctor similarly is shown to have a distaste for soldiers, which makes no sense considering the Classic era Doctors best friend was a soldier.

Also the Twelfth Doctor acts as though having to shoot Missy will damn his soul forever? Why would killing the Master do that, but not poisoning Solon, or ageing the Borad to death, or throwing Magnus Creel into a machine that slowly drains his bodily fluids and turns him into a burnt out husk, or blowing up Skaro  or smashing a guys head in with a shovel, or using Aggedor to maul Eckersly to death, or shooting the Cyber leader to death, after choking him with gold?

Answer its not. Ironically Missy deserved it more than ALL of those characters, as she’s killed more than all of those villains combined!

Of course this was never a problem in Classic Who as the Doctor did try and kill the Master all the time, in as vicious ways as those other villains. The wiley bastard just always managed to slip through the net. Still if you go by the New series, then the Doctor is a hypocrite and a racist.

The Doctors attitude towards regeneration, as well as regeneration in general in New Who are polar opposites too.

In the Classic era NONE of the Doctors viewed regeneration as death. They all simply viewed it as an advanced form of healing where the Doctors body broke down, and repaired itself, but in doing so, changed appearance.

Obviously his personality was affected by both the trauma of changing appearance, and also simply from living in a different body, but he never acted as though he wasn’t the same man underneath. In fact far from it.

In Caves of Androzani, the Fifth Doctor makes a distinction between regeneration and death to his companion Peri. In The War Games, though the Second Doctor is annoyed at being forced to regenerate, he does not treat it as a death. He refers to it as a change of appearance and isn’t that bothered when the Time Lords offer him a choice of his next appearance.

In the revival however every incarnation of the Doctor has treated regeneration as a death. They all say that everything they are dies, and some new man goes sauntering off and they are dead. They all fear regeneration, though 11 puts on a braver face than 10 and 12 (which wouldn’t be hard lets be honest.) He still treats it as a death and even says goodbye to Clara, which he shouldn’t do if he is still 12.

The idea of all the incarnations of a Time Lord makes zero sense when applied to Classic Who. Why was the Second Doctor more bothered about being fat than dying? Why did the Master try and prolong his life by stealing regenerations? If each incarnation is a different person, then why the hell would he bother? He’ll die once he regenerates anyway?

Also why did the Doctor and Romana refer to her regeneration as a change of body “you can’t go around wearing copies of bodies?”

Also why did the Fifth Doctor and the Seventh Doctor both go over old times with the Brigadier? They never met him. If we go by New Who, then it was some other man who died ages ago. The Brig should really not be of any importance to the McCoy or Davison Doctor.

Also in New Who it was said that the Doctor can only regenerate when he is mortally wounded, but if he dies before the process can begin then he will die for good.

In Classic Who however, the first, third, fifth, sixth and seventh Doctors ALL died, and were even dead for a few minutes before regenerating. In fact the fourth and second Doctors were the only two who were still awake.

Also in the revival a Time Lords regeneration is often shown to blow up its surroundings most of the time, which never happened or was discussed as a possibility in Classic Who. (You’d think that he would have warned Ben and Polly, Sarah and the Brig, Teegan, Nyssa and Adric, and Peri all of whom would have been killed if ANY of the first 5 Doctors had regenerated like 10, 11 and 12 did.

Also why did regeneration always look different in the original series? The directors and producers made a point of this, that each regeneration, much like each Doctor was different. In New Who however the reverse is true and each regeneration not just for the Doctor, but every time lord looks the same.

Also the Doctors origin and story arc of becoming a hero in New Who is different to what we saw in Old Who.

In Old Who we saw Hartnell gradually become more heroic over the course of three years, whilst in New Who the Doctor says that he became a hero when he chose to call himself the Doctor as he made a promise to never be cruel or cowardly again.

Yeah I don’t think you can say the Doctor stopped being an asshole after he chose to call himself Doctor!

Then of course there is the major oversight in Moffat’s part by having the Classic era Doctor flee Gallifrey because he is terrified of a prophecy involving the Daleks, and the Classic era Doctor not meeting them until well after he has left.

Also even just in characterisation and behaviour, then the New Who Doctors never really meshed with the old.

All of the original 7 Doctors were portrayed as much older, wise, colder and level headed characters. The Doctor was very much the epitome of the stiff upper lip type of hero in Classic Who. We never saw him cry over the entire course of the 26 years, he never completely lost his cool. He’d get angry sure, but he’d never scream, stamp his foot and do something that.

He also tended to view the younger women he travelled with as surrogate daughter figures. In a way characters like Vicki, Victoria, Zoe, Jo Grant, Nyssa and Ace, all of whom he loves like daughters are replacements for Susan, his first companion and grand daughter.

The New Who Doctor meanwhile is a very immature, very emotional, is prone to tantrums, or letting his emotions get the better of him, such as with the Racnoss, the Family of Blood or his notorious “I COULD DO SO MUCH MORE!” rant at Wilf in The End of Time. He also falls in love with various human companions such as Rose and Clara.

Even physically the New Who Doctors tend to dress in less flamboyant, more modern clothing which is the opposite of how the Old Doctors used to dress.

Finally all of the Classic era Doctors were shown to be formidable hand to hand fighters, save for the Second.  They all regularly used to beat their enemies into submission too. The First Doctor would often whack his foes over the head with his stick, and even mentioned that he loved fighting when overpowering a Roman centurion, who he even toyed with!

The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Doctors were also shown to regularly overpower and knock out multiple men at once in stories such as The Green Death, Inferno, Day of the Daleks, Genesis of the Daleks, The Seeds of Doom and The Visitation.

The 6th Doctor was also shown to overpower and beat an armed (and homicidal) police man almost half to death in Attack of the Cybermen, and overpowered and smothered Shockeye to death in The Two Doctors.

Finally the Seventh Doctor not only overpowered the Master in their fight in Survival, but he also regularly knocked out much larger and seemingly stronger men unconscious with just one finger!

Many assume that the Doctor wasn’t an action hero, because he was obviously a more cerebral character but that’s not true. He was like Sherlock Holmes in that whilst he primarily outwitted his enemies, he wasn’t afraid of using his fists if need be.

Sherlock Holmes Tough Guy

The New Who Doctors meanwhile are never shown to display any fighting skills. Even when in young, strong bodies like 11 and 10 they NEVER use their fists against their enemies.

The 9th and 11th Doctors don’t get involved in any physical fights of any kind, (though 11 does knock out Bracewell, that’s pretty much it and  it doesn’t exactly show what a great fighter he is, biffing an old guy when he isn’t looking.)

Ten and Twelve meanwhile are shown to be skilled fencers at least in their fights with the Sycrocrax and Robin Hood, which is one trait that carried on throughout almost all of the Classic Doctors too.

Still we never see Ten and Twelve get into fist fights, and over power multiple men whilst unarmed like the Third and Fourth and even Fifth Doctors regularly did.

The New Who Doctors really only follow the same basic formula of the originals. All are mysterious time travellers, all want to explore (though even the the basic motivation of the Doctor wanting to see the universe has changed. In Eccelston’s era he says that he travels because his world is gone, whilst in the Capaldi era he only left because he was scared of the prophecy.)

Of course that’s not to say that New Who never got the Doctors character right. Matt Smith’s interpretation during his first year as the Doctor I thought was the very close to the character for the most part, and Matt was one of the best actors in the role.

Still again, Matt Smith aside, most of the time it was hard to imagine the New Who Doctors as being the same as the original.

See what I mean? Once again when you try and imagine the old Doctor as being the same character as the new one, you laugh.

Other Discrepancies

Old Who states that the Zygons home planet was destroyed by a solar flare, whilst New Who states that it burnt in the first year of the Time War.

Old Who and New Who have different dates for the destruction of the earth in the future, and both show the earth being destroyed under different circumstances with humanity being at different stages. In New Who the human race has expanded out into space and had children with other races to the point where there are apparently no “pure” humans anymore. They are also the major power in the universe, so they no longer even need the earth hence why they are happy to let it burn. They later end up terrorforming another planet called New Earth as their home however.

In Classic Who meanwhile humanity by the time of the earths destruction were a tiny desperate group living on one spaceship, which was set to go to a planet called Refusis, alongside an alien race called the Monoids.

The Brigadier according to New Who was desperate for the Doctor to salute him. This was NEVER mentioned in Classic Who, at any point.

Finally according to New Who, Sarah Jane Smith was in love with the Doctor, whilst according to the original series their relationship was never romantic.

Why This Idea Is For The Best

In my opinion New Who and Classic Who being split into two separate universes is better for both series for a number of reasons.

Number 1 it lets a lot of baggage off of New Who. Be honest here most of the hatred New Who gets is because it isn’t faithful to Old Who. Its not unreasonable for people to be angry at New Who for this, as it was billed as a sequel to the original, yet basically threw away as much of the originals characterisation and lore as it seemingly could!

However if taken as simply being an alternate universe version, then well a lot of Classic era fans I don’t think would have quite such a bad feeling towards it. I’m not saying that dross like Dark Water/Death in Heaven would ever be seen as classics, but still overall I think a lot of New Who, particularly the Tennant era would be seen in a better light.

New Who would just be on the level of the Cushing movies. Great fun (for the most part) but not actually a proper part of the show.

Also for New Who and indeed any other sequel to the original which would follow this formula it would allow them to pick and choose whatever they want from the original series rather than be forced to follow every single part of its canon blindly.

Also I feel that making New Who an Classic Who into separate universes would stop the series from falling into the trap that Marvel comics have, where essentially everything important has to be reset to the status quo at some point.

As all of Marvel’s main output has been set in the same universe since the 60s, Marvel can never really do anything big like kill off a major character such as the Green Goblin, Captain America and Wolverine without someone bringing them back at a later date due to their popularity.

Sure there are some notable exceptions like Gwen Stacey (though even then a clone of Gwen did appear and is still alive.)

This means that we can not only never finish say Spider-Man’s story, but we also can’t do things like have him get married, have children or anything that might change the status quo of Spidey being a young hero who fights bad guys.

Doctor Who due its formula would have fallen into this trap anyway, even if New Who hadn’t been as unfaithful as it possibly could.

We could never resolve the stories of villains like the Master, Davros, the Daleks. Someone could write the perfect ending for them, but then 5 or so years later another writer would completely undo it, because obviously the show can’t lose such a big icon. Similarly big developments that can go on for years like Gallifrey being destroyed, or earth being made aware of aliens in the Russell T Davies and Steven Moffat era would also always have to be undone eventually too and the status quo restored.

Personally I think they should have had used up all 13 Doctors and then had the Doctor die for good, before going on to another universe.

Of course New Who kind of got to the last Doctor a bit too quickly (another cardinal sin of the makers of New Who was the way they wasted so many regenerations, by not using Paul McGann, basically driving Eccelston out after a year, making David Tennant count twice. Even Matt Smith and David Tennant should have done 4 seasons each rather than three.)

Still whatever the case, I think that we should just jump to the chase and say that Classic Who and New Who take place in alternate universes. That way New Who can actually have an ending and finish its storylines without finishing Doctor Who.

DC comics used this formula in the 1960s and I think it worked very well. DC revealed that all of their stories from the 30s-50s took place on an alternate universe (rather confusingly called earth 2,) to the current stories (which was called earth 1).

This allowed them to reboot their series, whilst not throwing everything about the originals out, and it allowed the original versions of their characters to meet the new versions too, such as in the story, The Flash of Two Earths, where the Flash from Earth 1 (Barry Allen) after experimenting with his super speed accidentally crossed over into Earth 2 and worked alongside the original 1930s-40s Flash, Jay Garrick, who had aged realistically since we last saw him.

It also allowed DC to end the original versions of their characters too. The 30s-50s Batman for instance eventually retired, married a reformed Catwoman, and had a daughter with her, Helena Wayne who became a superhero called the Huntress and would cross over to Earth 1 where she would meet the younger version of her father, who she came to call her Uncle Bruce.

DC unlike Marvel could eventually end their most iconic characters stories whilst still keeping them around.

I personally would love to see a story where the New Who Doctor travels to the universe of the original Doctor, and we get to see an old school Doctor in a frock coat, who travels in a TARDIS that looks like the original on the inside. We can also see his earth in 2017 with far more advanced technology, and where the Cyber invasion of the 1980s is a historical fact and mankind has colonies on other planets by the 2010s, and the Daleks resemble their old series counterparts and Davros looks the way he does in Remembrance of the Daleks.

Also in terms of the future of the franchise then it would free it from the baggage of New Who.

I reckon New Who is going to be cancelled very soon, and when it does lets be honest, who would want to carry Doctor Who on?

By casting a woman in the role Chibnall has opened up a huge can of worms for casting the next Doctor. What happens if they want to cast a man? There is going to be outrage from the feminist audience. We’ll be hearing about how its transphobic to want to change the Doctor back to a man, about how its sexist, and at the same time from the people who didn’t want there will be more (correct) accusations of pandering to the PC brigade etc.

Chibnall has marched the franchise into a minefield and made the casting of each Doctor, previously something that people looked forward too, a very ugly situation. What producer or writer would want to take that on? Of again Chibnall didn’t need to land us in this ugly situation. As I have pointed out before he could have just brought Romana back as a supporting character and then spun her off into her own show, but I won’t go over that old argument again.

At the same time because of the shows established and beloved history then I don’t think a full reboot would go down tremendously well either.

A reboot however that ignores New Who and follows on from the original series would be a good compromise. The viewer could decide which one was the real sequel. Then when the third version of Doctor Who finishes in say 10 or 20 years if it has a good run, then the fourth version of Doctor Who could ignore New Who and the third version.

Obviously when I see these alternate sequels to Classic Who would ignore New Who, I don’t mean that they would get Paul McGann back. They’d just have the New Doctor show up, not mention any previous adventures, establish him, and then at some point in his second or third year, he’d casually mention “I’m on my 9th life” establishing this as a direct sequel to the original.

You might think that this would alienate new fans, but most of them have been unhappy with the direction New Who has gone in for the last few years too.

Also this doesn’t erase New Who. It just means that it isn’t the definitive take on what happens next.

I don’t think its fair personally that the makers of New Who get to decide the ultimate fate of the Classic era characters since they had no hand in creating them.

Its kind of like Sherlock Holmes. Only the original stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle are considered canon. All of the sequel stories by various different authors are not definitive. They can be taken as being definitive by their fans, but aren’t the official version.

That’s only fair as no one else has a right to decide how Conan Doyle’s stories should end. Now fair enough the Classic era of Doctor Who wasn’t written by one author, but still most of its creators were involved in some capacity right to the end. Terry Nation for instance still had creative control over the Daleks until the very end of the show, whilst Barry Letts helped JNT cast and create the Ainley version of the Master.

I might add that many of the people who created the original Doctor Who and its icons have/would have hated the New Doctor Who as well. Terrance Dicks for instance hated Missy the female Master, considering her an insult to the memory of Roger Delgado, whilst Terry Nation was famously protective of the Daleks, and never wanted them to appear in stories with other monsters, or ever be given human emotions or traits. He hated The Evil of the Daleks for instance which features the Daleks being infected with the human factor.

Nobody involved in original series is involved in New Who, so I don’t really see why it is anymore official than any other piece of fan fiction?

In my opinion Classic Who should stand as its own piece of fiction. Every single sequel, including New Who, and the hypothetical sequels that ignore New Who, are just one groups idea of what the show should be. None of them are official.

However rather than simply write the sequels all off as remakes, we could have them all occupy alternate realities to each other (alongside the two Cushing movies, and Doctor Omega, Doctor Who’s literary predecessor) and you the viewer can decide which if any take place in the same universe as the original, but at the very least you know they all take place in the same multiverse.

Doctor Who Multiverse

Image result for multiverse

This in my opinion is how the relationship between the various different versions of Doctor Who works. In regards to Big Finish and the comic books, you can split them off into whatever universe you want. Some Big Finish audios can easily take place in N-Space, whilst others that feature River Song would obviously have to take place in M-Space.

N-Space: (Classic Who) The universe that the original Doctor Who series takes place in. In this reality the Doctor was a pioneer among his people before he left Gallifrey. He never visited Davros as a boy, and as a result Davros removed all concepts of mercy and compassion from them. This meant that the Daleks shot their creator, but Davros survived and later split their race into two factions, making them less of a threat to the Time Lords, but a longer lasting threat in the universe.

The earth became aware of aliens in 1986 thanks to the Cyber invasion, though its technology was already much more advanced, leading to the great space age and colonisation of other worlds from the 1970s to the 2020s.

M-Space: (New Doctor Who) In this reality the Doctor visited Davros as a boy and saved him from a minefield.

This seemingly minor action had ripples throughout the history of the universe. The Daleks as a result of having some mercy, spared Davros and kept him as a slave.

As a result the Daleks advanced much more quickly and became sworn enemies of the Time Lords long before the Doctor was born. As a result of this the Time Lords were more advanced when the Doctor grew up, and so his personality was changed by this.

The First Doctors early adventures with the Daleks would have also went differently in this universe as they would have been more advanced, and he would have already been familiar with them.

Perhaps the First Doctor was the first to meet Davros for instance in this reality?

It was also a different renegade Time Lord who became the Master, once again explaining the vast differences in personality.

C-Space: (Doctor Who AARU films) The universe the Peter Cushing movies take place in.

In this universe the Doctor left Gallifrey at an earlier point in his first incarnation. He left with a much younger Susan and his other grand daughter Barbara.

Just like in N-Space (as seen in The Edge of Destruction.) This Doctor visited the 4th Universe (or rather another version of it. Lets assume there is a version of the 4th universe adjacent to every parallel version of the Doctors universe.)

We know from the Edge of Destruction that the Doctor lost the TARDIS in the 4th Universe. Now in this reality the TARDIS was badly damaged when he lost it, and the Doctor in getting it back was mortally wounded and regenerated into his second incarnation (who in this reality resembled Peter Cushing rather than Patrick Troughton.)

The second Doctor, Susan and Barbara were able to make one last trip in their damaged TARDIS to the earth in the 60s. There the Second Doctor going under the alias of the eccentric human scientist Doctor Who tried to repair his TARDIS which caused its interior to change shape.

This version of the Doctor, alongside Susan, Barbara and a human male she was in a relationship with (Ian) would go other adventures in their rebuilt TARDIS as seen in Doctor Who and the Daleks and Daleks Invasion Earth 2150 AD. We don’t know the details of this Doctors later incarnations or adventures however.

Z-Space: (Doctor Omega) The universe Doctor Omega takes place in. In this reality, the Doctor left Gallifrey with Susan round about the same time as his N-Space and M-Space counterparts did.

Like them he visited the 4th Universe, but here his TARDIS was almost completely destroyed when he lost it. The Doctor however was able to preserve one small part of his former time machine, which he cannibalised into a time ring.

He then used this time ring to travel to the earth in the early 20th century with Susan. There he tried to build a new TARDIS from the ring, but ended up creating the Cosmos instead, which he later used to resume his adventures in time and space with human companions. (Leading to the events of Doctor Omega)

Susan meanwhile stayed on earth, having grown attached to this time and planet just like her counterpart did in N-Space.

In this universe the Master also never became a villain. He still left Gallifrey to become a renegade, but here he bumped into the first Doctor and Susan at an early point before his descent into darkness, and before their visit to the 4th universe;

The Doctor and Susan were both able to convince the Doctors old friend that the path he was on was wrong, leading to him becoming a hero like the Doctor.

The Master of this universe eventually goes under the alias of Professor Helvetius. he develops a fondness for earth too and remains in contact with the Doctor and Susan (even saving the Doctor from Mars as seen in Doctor Omega.)

Not much is known about this Doctor beyond his life as the first Doctor.

D-Space: The universe that Star Trek takes place in. We know from the crossover, Assimilation, that Doctor Who and Star Trek exist in the same multiverse, so this is part of the Doctor Who multiverse as well (or Doctor Who is part of the Star Trek multiverse depending on which you prefer.)

As to why the Time Lords, Daleks and Doctor Who aliens don’t exist in Star Trek, and the Star Trek aliens don’t exist in the Doctor Who universes, I see it like this.

In the Who universes, the Klingons who we know had various wars on their home planet, wiped themselves out and never spread into space, whilst life simply never evolved on Vulcan. The Vulcan we see in Power of the Daleks, a lifeless husk, is an alternate version of the one in Star Trek where life simply never evolved.

In the Trek universe meanwhile the Time Lords were similarly terrified of the Daleks and sent an agent to alter with their past. However in this universe the Doctor was never born, so they sent in another agent who not only failed, but was captured and tortured by Davros, and told him everything.

As a result of this the Daleks advanced even greater than they did in any other universe and they and the Time Lords wiped each other out in a war, away from humanity, before either race could spread out into the universe.

As a result of this the Daleks never invaded the earth in the 22nd century, and so humanity was able to advance a lot more quickly, creating the Federation.

The Sontarans meanwhile wiped each other out in a war, whilst the Borg are an alternate version of the Cybermen. Since we never find out the origin of the Borg, lets say that they came from the Trek universe’s version of Mondas, but rather than do full conversions, they only partially converted themselves, creating the Borg instead.

Unlike the Whoniverse version of the Cybermen, the Borg as they came to be known didn’t invade earth, and found a way to exist outside of Mondas and settled in the Delta Quadrant.

The Voth meanwhile are an alternate version of the Silurians of course.

Thanks for reading.

 

 

Vampire Stories That Should Be Adapted For Film and TV

Image result for Vampires painting

There have obviously been many, many, many Vampire films and television series over the decades.

Like all other genres, some Vampire films and television series have been inspired, others fairly unoriginal, but still very enjoyable, and others just plain awful.

Whilst many horror fans may feel that Vampires are somewhat overused nowadays, personally I’m always happy to see a new Vampire story. To me they are the most interesting and varied monsters, so I think there’s always a new angle a writer can bring to them.

With this in mind the following are Vampire stories from other mediums that haven’t sadly received that much attention, but that I think would potentially make brilliant films and television series.

Let me know what you think, and if there are any overlooked Vampire stories you’d like to see on the big or small screen.

Fray

Image result for fray buffy

 

What’s it about?

Image result for fray buffy

Fray is a comic book mini series created by Joss Whedon, the creator of Buffy and Angel and is set in the same fictional universe as those two series.

Fray takes place in the future of the Buffy/Angel universe, in a time when technology has advanced but little else has. Vampires are public knowledge too, but most people believe them to simply be a breed of mutant and they are referred to as lurks.

Aside from Vampires most Demons and supernatural creatures have vanished from the earth. They were apparently wiped out in a battle that took place in the middle of the 21st century, described as the ultimate battle between good and evil. (It is implied that it was Buffy and the Scooby gang who fought in the battle.)

Now however after over 100 or so years, Demons are being brought back into our world through dark magics, and as a result a new slayer is called for the first time in over a century to battle them, Melaka Fray.

Things become more complicated for Fray however when her brother Harth ends up becoming the new Vampire king of Manhattan.

Why It Would Be Great

Image result for fray buffy

Fray is definitely Joss Whedon’s best comic book work. Its setting in the far future with hover cars, mutants, and death rays, is a very unusual setting for a Vampire story and could I think help it to stand out from other pieces of Vampire fiction. It would need a larger budget to do its setting justice, but that might not be a problem given Joss Whedon’s recent success.

Fray is also a somewhat more unusual leading character than Buffy too. Unlike Buffy or even Angel she is perfectly willing to murder evil people, including her own watcher, (who murdered someone close to her and framed a Vampire in order to inspire Fray to hunt the undead.)

Fray in many ways is more of a hothead, yet also at other times more practical than Buffy or Faith. She doesn’t tend to let her personal problems affect her life to quite the same extent as Buffy.

She’s also a bit more unpolished compared to other female heroes too. Fray carries a massive scar that runs down her face, similar to the Wishverse version of Buffy.

Finally another reason I think a Fray series would do well is because of its connection to Buffy and Angel. Both series are still rightfully regarded as classics and have massive followings. As seen with the success of the Buffy and Angel comics, many people evidently want more stories set in that universe.

I don’t think that you could bring Buffy and Angel back to television now however.

Its not because the concepts or style are outdated, its more simply because I think too much time has passed for the cast. Angel and Spike for instance are meant to be immortal characters, and whilst James Marsters and David Borearnaz have aged very well, ultimately as it is 15 years on then they have changed perhaps a bit too much.

Fray however could continue the story and universe, and you might even be able to have Buffy characters pop up in the series from time to time. For instance one issue of season 8 of Buffy sees her travel forward into the future and even work alongside Fray. This could easily be adapted as an episode with Sarah Michelle Gellar reprising her role.  This same issue also reveals that Willow at some point tragically gave into being Dark Willow again and has become a major villain in Fray’s time, working alongside Harth.

Image result for fray buffy

Buffy and Fray in the future take on Dark Willow.

It would be an absolutely sensational story arc to have Dark Willow be the main villain of a season of Fray. Though it might be too controversial for Buffy fans, depending on what way they went with it.

Overall I think Fray is just screaming to be adapted as a television series. With its interesting setting and premise, unique and gritty female lead and its connection not just with Buffy and Angel, but to Joss Whedon, a major cult figure. I think it would be guaranteed to develop a very devoted cult following at the very least.

The Cast?

Image result for dana delorenzo

Dana Delorenzo would in my opinion be the best choice for Fray.

For those of you who don’t know who she is, Dana Delorenzo is an American actress best known for playing Kelly Maxwell, a main character on the horror series Ash Vs Evil Dead.

Though it sadly only lasted for 3 series, Ash Vs Evil Dead has still developed a very large and devoted following, and Delorenzo’s foul mouthed, short fused Demon slayer is without doubt the most popular character in the series alongside its lead, Ash himself.

Delorenzo is also an impressionist too. She used to be a professional Amy Winehouse impersonator due to her rather staggering physical resemblance to the late singer. She was even in an Amy Winehouse tribute band.

I honestly can’t think of anyone better to play Fray than Dana. As you can see she could handle the physicality of the role perfectly. She’d also be able to capture the more gritty aspects of the character too, better than a lot of other actresses. How many leading actors do you think would be happy to do a scene where their heads were dumped in toilet water by a Demon puppet, perving them up like Dana did in Ash Vs Evil Dead?

Dana’s personality as Kelly also matches Fray in that on the one hand she is quite level headed and practical, but on the other she has quite an explosive temper. Finally Dana also has the right look for Fray. Short, more exotic, darker good looks, and a constantly angry expression on her face.

Image result for fray buffyImage result for dana delorenzo

Image result for kelly maxwell ash vs evil dead angryImage result for fray buffy axe

In my opinion Delorenzo would be as well cast as Fray as Sarah Michelle Gellar was as Buffy.

As for Harth, Fray’s Vampiric brother, I think Robbie Kay would be a good choice. Kay is a young and very talented actor who is probably best known for playing an evil version of Peter Pan in Once Upon A Time.

Image result for Harth FrayImage result for Robbie Kay

Robbie’s malevolent version of Peter Pan was originally a lazy bum named Malcolm who gave up his only son Rumplestiltskin in order to return to being a boy and live forever on the magical island of Neverland.

Pan returns many centuries later to try and murder his great grandson Henry and steal his heart in order to prolong his own miserable life. He also attempts to curse the town of Storybrooke where Rumple lives, condemning his son to the worst fate of all.

Robbie Kay was amazing as Pan. I’d rank him as one of the greatest television fantasy villains of all time. Kay’s Pan was charming, suave, and witty on the surface, yet underneath there was a real horrible, sneering, cruelty to him. He was like that horrible bully at school that pretended to be your friend only so that he could humiliate you before he sticks the knife in and twists it.

Kay was also brilliant at doing the old man in a young man’s body too. In the scenes where he encounters his son Rumplestiltskin as an adult (played by Robert Carlyle) you buy that Kay is Carlyle’s father, as utterly ridiculous as it might seem.

Harth in many ways is similar to Pan. Like Pan he is a relative of the main hero. He has a boyish, somewhat friendly look, but underneath is very cruel, manipulative and cold. He also like Pan is not above pretending he still cares about his loved ones to his advantage, (when he secretly despises them) and he is also again despite his young appearance, the fearsome and tyrannical leader of a powerful group of supernatural creatures.

There are two problems however with Robbie’s casting. First of all his accent doesn’t match Dana’s. He could adopt an American accent, but his natural English accent is part of his screen presence. Also he might be a bit too young to play Dana’s twin brother.

Dana is 35 years old. She could easily pass for at least 10 years younger (not that 35 is old of course.)

Still whilst Dana can pass for her early 20s no problem, Robbie does look like a teenager. You could possibly get round that by having it that Harth was sired as a teenager and its been a few years for Fray, but obviously Harth hasn’t aged.

As long as he could do a good American accent then Robbie for me would be the perfect choice for Harth.

Kelly vs Peter Pan. Please someone make this happen!

The Legacy of Kain Series

Image result for the legacy of kain

What’s It About?

Image result for the legacy of kain

Set in the mythical land of Nosgoth, this series follows the adventures of Kain, formerly a young nobleman who is resurrected as a Vampire by the Necromancer Mortainus. Kain as Vampire initially despises his condition and seeks to find a way to turn back before eventually embracing his destiny and becoming the king of the Vampires.

The series sees Kain constantly struggle against the Circle of Nine, powerful sorcerers who control the fate of Nosgoth. In various entries in the series Kain even manages to change the history of Nosgoth, turning it from a land where Vampires are all but extinct, to one where Kain rules a massive Vampire empire.

Later entries in the series follow Kain’s rivalry with his son, Razziel. Razziel, also a Vampire is thrown by Kain into a bit of never ending torment after defying him, but manages to survive only to re-emerge later as a mutated soul devouring Vampire.

Razziel is condemned to a slow torturous death by his father only to return as a more powerful adversary later.

Whilst Razziel seeks to destroy his father, the two nevertheless do work together in other entries to try and in their eyes, save Nosgoth.

Razziel and Kain’s somewhat complicated relationship.

Throughout the series Kain wavers between an anti hero and an outright villain, but he always remains convinced that he is doing the right thing.

Why It Would Be Great?

Image result for the legacy of kain

The Legacy of Kain is easily one of the greatest video game series ever made.

Of course not everything that works in a video game works in other mediums, but I think a television series of the Legacy of Kain would translate really well.

On tv I think it would stand out somewhat more. We don’t see that many Vampire television series or films that take place in a mythical fantasy land like Nosgoth. They usually take place in modern day or in Gothic surroundings.

Also Kain and Razziel are very unusual leading Vampire characters. They are truly monstrous in appearance. (Razziel is missing the lower half of his jaw!) Most good guy Vampires are portrayed as sexy like Spike, Angel, Vampirella etc for obvious reasons.

Also Kain and Razziel are a little bit more complex than other Vampire protagonists too. They aren’t motivated by being in love with someone, or even in just in being a better person. They both want to challenge destiny, defy the will of the gods and shape the world in a way that they believe to be better.

The fact that The Legacy of Kain also deals with time travel too is also a somewhat unusual subject for Vampire fiction.

The Legacy of Kain television series would need to have a large budget to do its exotic and colourful settings justice, but still if done right I think Legacy of Kain could be a Game of Thrones style gritty, violent fantasy series.

The Cast?

Image result for Simon Templeman

Kain would have to be played by Simon Templeman who voiced the character in the original games. The character would have to be made older, but that’s okay. Small price to pay to get Simon Templeman back. Templeman to me has the best voice for a villain.

Among his other notable roles include The Angel of Death in Charmed, the psychotic spectre Pervayne in Angel, and Doctor Doom is the classic 90s animated version of the Fantastic Four.

Sadly however Michael Ball the voice actor for Razziel is too old to play the character. He is 80 years old! Instead I think Michael Fassbender would do a brilliant job at capturing the characters passion, fanaticism and more complex personality.

Vampirella

Image result for vampirella

What’s It About?

Image result for vampirella

Originally the character of Vampirella was portrayed as an alien from the planet Drakulon, where blood flows in rivers. As the blood begins to dry up however due to the planets two suns, Vampirella is sent to earth to try and find a way for her kind to survive. It is said that centuries ago another member of her kind, Dracula visited the earth and was able to survive on the planet. Vampirella discovers that this is because her species can survive on the blood of humans.

Though giving into her thirst initially, Vampirella eventually is able to control her dark urges and works to help fight the evil members of her kind who were created on earth by Dracula, (who also goes on to become her archenemy.)

Many decades later when Vampirella was revived her origins were changed so that she had been sent from hell by her mother, Lilith, the mother of all Vampires to help mankind. Lilith was initially believed to be seeking redemption for her sins in creating the Vampire race, but it was later revealed that she had her own evil plans for her daughter.

Why It Would Be Great?

Image result for vampirella

Vampirella is the original Vampire superhero. There had been benevolent Vampire characters in fiction before Vampirella, such as most notably Carmilla Karnstein. However these characters were usually just love struck, mopey heroes who wanted to give up being Vampires and have a normal life.

Vampirella marked the first time we saw a Vampire actively hunt other members of its kind and other supernatural creatures such as Witches, Demons and Werewolves.

Also whilst super strength and other incredible abilities had been a feature of Vampire myths throughout the ages, Vampirella was really the first time where these powers were used in a more overt way like a superhero.

We wouldn’t just see Vampirella overpower her victim like Dracula. We’d see her jump hundreds of feet through the air, beat up dozens of guys at once, move at lightening speed, dodge and catch bullets etc.

In this respect Vampirella is really one of the most pivotal characters in Vampire fiction, helping to pave the way for the likes of Blade and Angel. Sadly however despite this whilst she has a following, Vampirella remains somewhat overlooked in comparison to other Vampire characters.

Its amazing that save a terrible 1996 straight to video film there has never been a proper adaptation of the character either. Apparently there was an attempt to make a serious film version by Hammer in the 70s which would have starred Peter Cushing as Van Helsing, and Caroline Munro as Vampirella, but sadly it was never made.

I think there could be a lot of value in a Vampirella tv series. Most brooding Vampire heroes tend to be guys, like Angel, Blade, Spike, Mitchell from Being Human. It might be interesting to see a female version of this type of character. Vampirella also had an interesting collection of supporting characters and villains culled from various myths and Vampire stories such as Lilith that could be exploited too.

As for which of her origins to use, well I think you could maybe merge both of them together so as to incorporate elements from the characters entire history.

You could have it that Vampirella instead comes from an alternate universe where Vampires have overrun humanity. Perhaps in this universe, Van Helsing failed to stop Dracula when he was in London during the events of Stokers novel. Remember that in Stokers original novel, Dracula is only in London so that he can use the British empire to spread Vampirism around the world like never before and eventually overrun humanity.

Maybe in Vampirella’s universe Dracula succeeded after killing Van Helsing and now humans are nothing but cattle, with there being rivers of blood and all other supernatural creatures having been enslaved by Vampires too, just like Draculon from the comics, but at the same time its effectively a hell dimension like her later origins.

Maybe the alternate world has even been renamed Draculon! Of course in the first episode you’d have Dracula and Vampirella, the last hope for the last group of human resistance accidentally get transported to our reality whilst dueling with each other (in our universe Dracula just as in Stokers novel was killed by Van Helsing in the early 20th century, explaining why Vampires haven’t overrun our earth.)

You could also later have Lilith be the one who engineered Dracula and Vampirella to be transported into another universe through a spell like in Vampirella’s later origins, so that she could take over in Dracula’s absence. However after she takes over Lilith finds out that the humans the Vampires feed on have been hunted so extensively that they are dying out, and so she decides to lead her army to our earth.

Much like with Buffy, Vampirella also fights various other monsters such as Demons, Werewolves and Witches and so the stories wouldn’t have to just stick to Vampires either.

The Cast?

Its hard just whittling it down to one choice for Vampirella, but I’d say my top choice would probably be Katarina Law.

Best known for playing Nyssa Al Ghul in Arrow, Katarina has the right look for the part, can cope really well with action roles, and is a great actress all around who could easily carry her own series.

Related image

Famke Janssen best known for her roles in various action and cult films such as Goldeneye, the X-Men film series, and The Faculty would make a brilliant Lilith too. She’s great at playing really nasty villains and she’s physically quite imposing too.

 

The Monster Club

Image result for the monster club

What’s It About?

Image result for monster genealogical chart

The Monster Club is an anthology horror novel by R Chetwynd Hayes. It was adapted as a film in 1980. I’m only going to be talking about the film here as sadly I haven’t had a chance to get a hold of the book yet, though its on my to do list.

The films premise sees a horror author attacked by a Vampire named Erasmus, who pretends to be a homeless man. Erasmus does not kill the horror author however after recognising him and invites the author for a drink at the local monster club.

There Erasmus tells the author three real stories about monsters.

The first story is about a Shadmock named Raven. Shadmock’s are hybrid monster creatures, who kill using a deadly whistle which burns their victims. Shadmock’s can’t always control their whistle however and will sometimes unleash them on their victims in a moment of anger or stress.

Raven is a wealthy, kind hearted individual, who keeps away from people so as not harm anyone. Unfortunately however he soon becomes the target of two con artists, Angela and her boyfriend George.

Raven falls in love with Angela and even proposes to her. Though Angela does develop a genuine friendship with the Shadmock and doesn’t want to hurt him. George forces her to go along with the scam. Things become too much for Angela however when she meets Raven’s strange monstrous relatives, and later when Raven finds Angela trying to steal the money from his safe, he willingly hands it over to her pitifully telling her “You could still love me”.

Angela however having finally snapped from the pressure screams at Raven that she could never love him as he is a hideous monster and Raven in grief unleashes his whistle which completely destroys Angela’s face. When Angela returns to George, he is driven insane by the sight of her mutilated face and ends up in a catatonic state for the rest of his life.

Related image

Angela after the Shadmock’s whistle destroys her face. Ironically her final words to her boyfriend before sending him into a permanent catatonic state are “you could still love me.”

The second story revolves around a Vampire who still has a normal human family. Unfortunately despite seemingly being reformed the Vampire is still the target of a group of dedicated Vampire hunters. The Vampire however after tricking their leader is able to turn him, resulting in the Vampire hunter being slain by his own men.

The final story sees a film director named Sam stumble upon an old town named Loughville whilst searching for an atmospheric setting to shoot his new film.

As soon as he arrives in Loughville, Sam is confronted by several decrepit old men who tell him he will never leave. When he tries to get away in his car, Sam finds it has been sabotaged and is attacked by the residents.

Barely escaping to a nearby house, Sam soon meets a young woman named Luna. She explains to him that the residents of the village are hideous flesh eating Demons called Ghouls. She says that she is a half human, half Ghoul, and that her mother was a traveller who stumbled upon the village where she was raped by the Ghouls, and then eaten alive after she gave birth to Luna. Luna says that the monsters have devoured countless other travellers who have strayed too close to the village and tells Sam that the only place he will be safe is in the local church.

Sam barely makes it to the Church, which the unholy monsters can’t enter. Whilst there he discovers the rotting skeleton of a priest as well as his diary, which details the chilling circumstances of how Loughville came to be overrun by the Ghouls.

Originally Loughville was just a normal town, but at some point its people discovered a Ghoul lurking in a local graveyard. The villagers wanted to kill the abomination, but the Priest foolishly thought he could rehabilitate the monster and took it into his house.

Later however he discovered the beast feasting on the corpse of one of its victims. He chased the Ghoul away, but by then it was too late and the monster was able to summon a horde of Ghouls who quickly overran Loughville.

The Priest escaped to the church, but he was too scared to try and escape and eventually died of dehydration in the church. The final entry in his diary mentions that even as he writes he can hear the howls of the ravenous Ghouls outside.

The Ghouls turn on Luna for helping Sam and try to eat her. Sam is able to ward them off with a cross and get Luna inside the Church. Luna then warns Sam that soon the Elders will return to the village. The Elders regularly make visits to the London underground where they snatch unsuspecting victims. Luna states that the Elders are far stronger than the regular Ghouls and that they won’t escape if they return.

Sam and Luna make a run for it through the woods, carrying a cross to ward the Ghouls away. Unfortunately just as they are about to escape, Luna’s own Ghoul father kills her by throwing a rock at her head.

Sam escapes to the motorway meanwhile where he is picked up by two policemen who promise to help him. However the policemen drive back to the village and explain to Sam that they are actually the escorts for the elders when they visit London, whose car Sam can see driving behind them.

To Sam’s horror the car arrives back in the village square where the monsters swarm the car, and the two policemen turn round revealing their monstrous teeth to the petrified film director who is then eaten alive.

Image result for monster genealogical chart

Sam finds out the hard way that there is sometimes corruption in the Police force.

After entertaining the author with the three stories, Erasmus insists that he be made a member of the Monster Club. Despite the fact that humans aren’t monsters, Erasmus is able to convince the owner of the club (a Werewolf) that humans are evil by listing all of the horrible things they have done to each other and the author is made an honorary member.

Why It Would Be Great

Related image

Okay now I know that this book has already been made into a film in 1981 starring horror icons John Carradine and Vincent Price. The film is great fun and at places genuinely terrifying such as in the Ghoul story.

Still I think that it could also be the basis for an interesting television series. I would keep the same basic premise for the television series as the film and the book, but change a few things around for practicality sake. I would have the horror author from the book arrive in a city, famous for its ghost sightings, and monster stories to get inspiration for his latest book, only to discover that the stories are real!

He would just as in the movie befriend Erasmus, who in this version would be a reformed Vampire. The Monster Club would in turn also be a place for reformed Monsters who use their powers for good to chill out after a day of saving the world.

The main characters aside from Erasmus would be Raven, the son of the Vampire from the second story, and Luna, (who I would reveal had survived being hit on the head. The way I see it, she’s half Ghoul so she has to have some kind of special Ghoul powers. Maybe she was stronger than she thought, and awoke a few hours later, slipping away from the Ghouls who also thought she had died?)

Together they would be a group who fight monsters such as Vampires, Ghouls and Werewolves. The series would blend humour and genuine horror together just like the original film and novel.

The book and film have such rich backstories and mythology for their monsters its a shame we don’t get to see more, which obviously the tv show would exploit.

The book features an interesting idea of Vampires, Ghouls and Werewolves being the three original monster races, with all of the others like the Shadmock being hybrids of some kind.

I’d love to see some of the other monster hybrids in action and see their powers. Its a shame that we only get to see a Shadmock. Also how do the different monster breeds view each other?

Maybe some hybrids consider themselves superior to the original monsters as they have all of their powers and fewer of their weaknesses?

Added to that a lot of the characters in the three stories I feel have more potential to exploit in a tv show. Luna for instance has potential to be a really interesting heroine. A half human, half Ghoul who at first finds it hard to adjust to human society, who has a lifetime of horror in the Ghoul village to overcome (including watching her own mother be eaten alive by hordes of monsters, including her own father!) Then there is also the fact that Luna herself was forced to eat the remains of the Ghouls victims too!

Similarly the Shadmock is a tragic character who could be so torn over the guilt at destroying the woman he loves he is determined to make up for it.

At the same time the Vampire character from the second story could also be made into a darker character. Perhaps he keeps his wife and son around simply as a cover? Maybe his wife is being forced through hypnosis like the Priest in Dracula Has Risen From The Grave or Renfield in the Lugosi Dracula to protect him during the day, but every minute she is struggling to break free. We could also see how the Vampire abuses his son in an attempt to crush all humanity out of him so that when he is older he can turn him into a more effective Vampire.

The boy however would escape his father, and devote himself to killing his father, becoming a Vampire hunter, whilst his father would be determined to make his son pay for blowing his cover too.

The Vampire hunter (played by Donald Pleasance in the film) who is turned could also an interesting villain for the main characters. Much like Gordon Walker in Supernatural he would be a Vampire who hates being a Vampire but can’t control his bloodlust and so he ends up being dangerous to everyone and everything around him.

There are also a number of other characters from the anthology who could make effective villains. Angela for instance would be a great archenemy for Raven. After he destroyed her face and made her an outcast like him, she would be determined to make him pay.

Luna meanwhile would have the Elders and her own Ghoul father as her foes. It would be cool if they made the Elders (who we don’t actually see in the film) look like the Ghouls in these terrifying illustrations we see in the priests account of how Loughville fell.

Related image

Ghouls are very under represented in horror movies and television series compared to other favourite monsters like Vampires, Demons, Witches, Zombies and Werewolves. We never see them as the main villains in any major franchise for instance, so a Monster Club tv show could finally give them a big role. 

Again it feels like we only scratch the surface of the Elders in both the book and the film. We know that they are more powerful than regular Ghouls, that they travel to the city and snatch people in the London underground to bring back to the Ghoul village. We also know that they have eyes and ears outside the village, including most disturbingly of all, in the police force!

There is so much potential in the Ghouls backstory. We could see stories involving the Elders creeping about the dark streets of London, picking people off, or stories that explore how they have agents across human society in the police force, or even in other areas such as the government, maybe even the entertainment industry! We could see how there are hundreds of towns like Loughville across the world, and they are all in some way connected, with the Elders working through a network with one another.

We could see how the monsters have even managed to take over modern cities, albeit in more discreet ways than Loughville as they have to work under the radar.

I would also love to see a story where Luna returns to Loughville to destroy it and we get to see the town in a greater detail, including the cages where the Ghouls keep their victims locked up, as well as the remains of Sam and of course the return of Luna’s abusive, monstrous father.

There’s an entire wealth of stories just waiting to be used in the universe R Chetwynd Hayes created.

The Cast?

Image result for Ingrid Oliver

I think that Noel Fielding would be a great choice for the role Erasmus. For Erasmus you’d need someone who is quite optimistic, yet has quite a dark sense of humour. Someone who can happily tell their victim that their blood was the nicest he ever drank and hope they’ll take it as a compliment.

Noel is a great comedy actor and he has experience playing weird and over the top monsters like the Hitcher, the Spirit of Jazz, Tony Harrison and of course Old Gregg!

I am sure he could come up with a suitably over the top and lovable personality for Erasmus.

I’d also love to see Noel play other monster roles in the series too. I think he would do a brilliant job as one of the Elders too. Of course his performance as the Elder would have to be more frightening. I think it would be interesting to see Noel try and tackle playing a a proper horror movie monster. A lot of his characters like the Spirit of Jazz and The Hitcher are bordering on being genuinely creepy. You can imagine how with a little tweaking the Hitcher could be a genuine horror movie villain. A green skinned monster who enjoys stabbing and raping people!

As for who could play the horror author, well I think Noel’s comedy partner, Julian Barratt would be excellent.

Julian is a great comedy and serious actor. He’s really good at playing pompous know nothing know it all’s and I think he could bring a lot of humour to the author character, yet not too much that they couldn’t have him be involved in serious storylines.

As for Raven I could definitely see Reece Shearsmith playing him. Shearsmith who is best known as a member of the League of Gentlemen is a lifelong horror fan and I can see him coming up with an interesting look and somewhat more nuanced performance for the tormented but hot tempered Shadmock.

As for Luna I think that Ingrid Oliver would be great. I admit I LOVE Ingrid Oliver so I pretty much want to cast her in anything. Still I think she would bring a lot of vulnerability and strength to the role as seen with her performances as Natalie in Peep Show and Osgood in Doctor Who.

The Witches

Image result for the witches

What’s It About?

Image result for Anjelica Huston the Witches

A Roald Dahl novel, The Witches revolves around an old former Witch hunter and her grandson (neither are named in the novel, but in the film the grandmother is named Helga, whilst the boy is named Luke.)

Helga warns Luke about Witches who are said to be Demons that take on human form. Witches despise children above all else and torture and kill them using their spells.

According to Helga Witches are all bald, have purple eyes, long talons, and square toes which they cover up in various ways when luring children away to murder.

Despite Helga’s warnings however Luke is later captured by the Grand High Witch of England (who poses as the head of a children’s charity!)

The Witch uses Luke as a test subject for her new potion, which turns him into a mouse!

Luke and Helga soon discover that the Witches are attempting to spike candy bars all over England with this poison and turn every child into a mouse!

Fortunately however with Luke’s help, Helga is able to turn the tables on the Witches and spike their own food with the poison, causing them to all turn into rats where they are hacked to pieces in a hotel.

The ending of the book and the film differ from this point. In the film one of the Witches (played by Jane Horrocks) reforms and reverses the spell turning Luke back into a boy. In the book however there is no good Witch (as such a thing simply cannot exist.)

Thus there is no way to turn Luke back from being a mouse, and he will only live another 9 years. Still Luke and his mother decide to hunt down the remaining Witches and wipe them out using their own poison.

Why It Would Be Great?

Image result for the witches

Okay I know there are two things I have to address. First of all this is not a Vampire story, and second, its already been adapted.

However I’m going to make an exception in including the Witches here. First of all whilst it might not be a Vampire movie it does still follow all of the tropes laid down by Vampire stories. Its basic plot is somewhat similar to the two modern day Hammer Dracula’s, Dracula AD 1972 and The Satanic Rites of Dracula starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee for instance.

Both revolve around an old grand parent, who used to be a monster hunter, both see them come across their archenemy, the alluring, but utterly loathsome leader of a race of monsters. Both see the leader of the monsters target their enemy’s grand child, and both see the monster using aspects of the modern world to keep hidden in plain sight, whilst intending to launch a plague with horrifying effects.

Also whilst the 1990 Witches film adaptation is one of my favourite films, I think that it might be quite interesting to base a television series around the Witches.

The series would follow Luke and Helga travelling the world killing Witches. It would have to take a few liberties to be adapted. Much like the film, Luke would have had to have been turned back into a human after the Witches were destroyed.

You could include the reformed Witch character from the film if you wanted, or you could just simply have it that after slaying the Grand High Witch, Helga was able to find a way to reverse the potion. She is a Van Helsing style expert on the occult after all. It shouldn’t be too hard.

You’d have it set about ten years after the events of the novel, with Luke now being 18 and you’d have to add at least one or two more characters so it wasn’t just Luke and his grandmother all the time.

Also I think you would need to change it so that the Witches were not an all female race of monsters. I don’t think the original novel was sexist because of this. In fact quite the opposite. I think its great that women got a chance to play one of the scariest monsters in all of horror. Normally the most terrifying monsters are men, like Dracula, the Daleks, Freddy Krueger etc,  whilst female monsters and villains in general such as Catwoman tend to be more sympathetic. So it was good to see a female monster for once who was evil as you could imagine.

However in the current climate I think having a show about a young man go around killing female monsters would just stir things up. The SJWs and the anti SJWs would probably both try and claim the show. You’d get people saying the show encourages violence against women, and you’d get people saying that the Witches are a metaphor for feminists, and Luke is a symbol of men fighting back against Third Wave Feminism.

Its sad but its true that in the current climate almost nothing can be apolitical anymore. Of course its the SJWs fault for trying to find sexism in EVERYTHING. Its only natural that the anti SJW side would soon start to do the same and slap their agenda on everything they can. Still that’s the way things are, so I think it would be better to simply have it that Warlocks also exist in this version and they are the same as Witches.

I wouldn’t bother to have there be any power struggle between Witches and Warlocks either so as not to get it dragged down in any more feminist vs anti feminist crap. Just have some cells be commanded by a Grand High Witch and others by a Grand High Warlock.

In keeping with the book, then the main villains would all be Witches, with the Warlocks usually just being mooks. The Grand High Witch would still be heroes archenemy.  The same way that most Vampires we see in Buffy are men, even though we know that women can be Vampires, then this would just be the same in reverse.

I think the Witches would offer more different roles for women than we see in other genre series.

The role of the grandmother is almost always one that is occupied by a man. Whether that’s Peter Cushing, Ruper Giles, Abraham Whistler, Bobby Singer. The crusty old mentor figure who is a paternal figure to the younger heroes, who knows everything there is to know about Vampires, Demons, Witches and monsters, who has countless books on the occult, who loves reading about the occult, who is old, but still tough as an old pair of boots and at times quite ruthless.

The Witches also wouldn’t have to be bound just to Witches all the time. At the start of the book, Helga mentions that there are various other monster species including Ghouls, but none of these creatures make an appearance.

In the television series however you could do episodes that focus on these monsters. I think you could actually have The Witches and Monster Club television series take place in the same universe, and even have crossovers between them. I think their style would mesh as they are both very British and both whilst having moments of genuine terror, also have a somewhat tongue in cheek aspect to them too.

The Cast?

Image result for Jenny Agutter

For the role of the Grandmother I think that Jenny Agutter would be marvellous. Jenny Agutter is a highly respected British actress known for her wide range of roles in various film and television series such as Call the Midwife, Logans Run and An American Werewolf in London.

She’s good at playing quite practical, level headed characters, but at the same time she also has a very warm, caring aspect to her too as seen in the poignant final moments in An American Werewolf in London where she attempts to talk David down.

As for the Grand High Witch, you’d need to get someone who much like Anjelica Huston is strikingly beautiful, yet can also play a grotesque monster really well.

I think that Lucy Lawless best known for playing Xena the Warrior Princess would be an amazing Grand High Witch. Lucy obviously looks amazing normally, but when she wants to she can really ham it up gloriously as a grotesque monster, as seen in many episodes of Xena where Xena gets turned into a Demon, a Vampire, and a monster of some kind. She’s also a brilliant villain as seen in Spartacus Blood and Sand, Ash Vs Evil Dead and even Xena herself before she was reformed.

Image result for Lucy Lawless dark hair

Don’t tell me you couldn’t see her as the Grand High Witch.

Katey Sagal an actress best known for her roles in Futurama, Sons of Anarchy and Married with Children would also make a great Grand High Witch. Like Lucy Lawless and Anjelica Huston she is physically quite imposing and she can do nasty really well too.

Image result for katey sagal

Another great choice for the role would be Michelle Gomez. Now I absolutely despise her most well known role, that of Missy, the female version of the Master in Doctor Who. However in all fairness that’s not because I dislike her. I think that everything about the character of Missy from why it happened, to the way it was written was terrible. The actress almost didn’t matter.

Michelle Gomez, Missy aside is a good actress, and she is certainly good at playing crazy and nasty people. I could easily see her playing a really menacing Witch. Whilst she’s not physically very tall, in the original novel the Grand High Witch is actually said to be very petite in both frame and stature so Michelle could actually be a more faithful interpretation than even Anjelica Huston’s.

Image result for michelle gomez

Of course as there is meant to be more than one Grand High Witch then you could have all 3 actresses play Witches at various points in the series. Why settle for one marvellous, crazy, shameless ham actress?

American Vampire

Image result for american vampire

What’s It About?

Image result for american vampire

American Vampire is a comic book series created by Scott Snyder, Rafael Albuergqueqe and Stephen King. Its premise revolves around the idea of there being various different species of Vampires, giving rise to the different myths and legends over the centuries.

The series follows an outlaw named Skinner Sweet who is the first of a new breed of Vampire, immune to many of their standard weaknesses and limitations such as sunlight.

The series primarily follows his life throughout the 20th century as well as his battles with other Vampire breeds, and his somewhat complicated relationship a young woman named Pearl Jones, who he turns in order to save, and who then goes on to wage war against a pack of European Vampires who had ruined her life as a human.

Why It Would Be Great?

Image result for american vampire

American Vampire has a particularly interesting premise with its blending of different Vampire myths and settings across various different periods in American history. Its Vampire protagonists are also not really good guys either. More villain protagonists who are slightly less evil than the Vampires they are facing. Skinner Sweet is a sociopathic murderer even before he becomes a Vampire!

I think it might work better as a film series than a television one.

The Cast?

Image result for michelle rodriguez

For Skinner Sweet I think Boyd Holbrook would be excellent. Holbrook is best known for playing the sadistic villain Donald Pierce in Logan. With Skinner he could give us a Vampire protagonist that is genuinely difficult to like, but still engaging on screen.

Michelle Rodriguez meanwhile would be great for Pearl. Who plays tragic, badass action heroines better than her?

Tomb of Dracula

Image result for tomb of dracula

What’s It About?

Image result for tomb of dracula

Tomb of Dracula was a long running Marvel comic. It told the history of Dracula, showing his life as Vlad the Impaler, when he first becomes a Vampire, when he kills the then current king of the Vampires, Nimrod and takes his place, his attempts to spread Vampirism across the world, his battles against the Van Helsing family and his own half human, half Vampire daughter, Lilith and his many deaths and resurrections over the centuries.

Later series see Dracula battle the Night Stalkers a group of Vampire hunters which include Drake, Dracula’s human descendent, Rachel Van Helsing, reformed Vampire Detective Hannibal King, half human, half Vampire Eric Brooks (Blade) and Quincy Harker, a descendent of Jonathan Harker.

Why It Would Be Great?

Image result for Tomb of Dracula

Obviously there has already been an adaptation of Blade, and I liked the Blade trilogy. It was in its own way innovative and influential.

Still it wasn’t really faithful in anyway to the original source material. Its versions of Dracula, Blade, Hannibal King and Frost were all drastically different to the Marvel versions, whilst characters like Quincy Harker and Rachel Van Helsing were replaced with the Whistler family. Other characters like Lilith were omitted completely meanwhile.

Personally I’d love to see a version that stays closer to the original. The Marvel Dracula could actually be the definitive version of Stokers Vampire.

It manages to capture all of the elements that we see in the most famous versions of Dracula. There’s the physical, savage aspect and the sadism of Christopher Lee, the hypnotic, sinister gentlemanly qualities of Bela Lugosi, the romantic qualities of Dracula’s like Jack Palance, Frank Langella and Gary Oldman, and finally he also captures the arrogant, Vampire King who wants to rule the earth aspect of Stokers original Vampire.

I think the television series based on Tomb of Dracula would probably feature the Nightstalkers as the main characters, but that would be okay. We could still see Dracula’s long history unfold via flashbacks.

I think it would also be better if they set it in the 1970s too. Whilst the stories could be adapted to modern day fairly easily, I think that the 70s setting would help the series stand out more.

The Cast?

For the role of Quincy Harker I think Tim Curry would be an excellent choice. Tim Curry needs no introduction. He is one of the greatest British actors of all time, famous for his wonderfully over the top performances in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Legend, Clue, Muppets Treasure Island and IT.

Sadly Curry suffered a stroke in 2012 and now uses a wheelchair. Fortunately he can still speak, and continues to act, having done both voice over work, such as in Over The Garden Wall, and live action work, such as the 2016 remake of The Rocky Horror Picture Show where he played the Narrator.

Now the character of Quincy Harker is in a wheel chair too, so physically there wouldn’t be any problems in Curry’s current condition. Also I think Curry would be right for the role as Harker is an old eccentric, very British, stiff upper lip type character that Curry plays so brilliantly in films like Clue.

Image result for tim curry wheelchairRelated image

As for Dracula himself I think Aidan Gillen would be good. He is a brilliant villain as seen with his performances in Game of Thrones and Shanghai Knights, however he is also able to bring a certain gravitas to his performances that would help to flesh the Marvel Dracula out.

Image result for Marvel DraculaImage result for Aidan Gillen

For Rachel Van Helsing meanwhile I think Heida Reed would be brilliant. Whilst best known for her role in Poldark, what really made me think she would be great was her performance as Joecyln Peabody in the recent audio version of Dan Dare, a similar brainy heroine who fights monsters. She’d have to dye her hair blonde, but other than that I think she would be excellent.

Image result for heida reedRelated image

For Hannibal King I’d like to see James McAvoy as the famous Vampire Detective. King is supposed to be a very thoughtful, sensitive character which is why Ryan Reynolds, no offence intended to the man, didn’t really do the character justice.

Image result for James Mcavoy long hairImage result for Hannibal King original

For Blade I think D.B. Woodside would be an excellent choice. He has already played a kick ass Vampire hunter, Robin Wood in Buffy the Vampire Slayer season 7, and his recent role as Uriel in Lucifer further shows how well he can cope with action and genre roles too.

Image result for D.B. WoodsideImage result for Blade marvel

Finally for Lilith I think Morven Christie would be great. Morven is a character actress who is known for playing somewhat complicated, tormented, even villainous characters, so I’m sure she’d be able to get into the characters complex personality no problem.

Image result for morven christieImage result for lilith dracula

The Federal Vampire/Zombie Agency

Image result for federal vampire and zombie agency

What’s It About?

Image result for federal vampire and zombie agency

The Federal Vampire/Zombie Agency is a website that is written from an in-universe perspective. It was later adapted into a comic book miniseries.

It details an alternate history of the world where Vampires, Zombies and Werewolves were public knowledge with humanity throughout its entire history. The Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency was set up to deal with the threat these monsters posed to humanity.

Vampires, Zombies and Werewolves are not supernatural creatures in the Federal Vampire/Zombie Agency universe. They are the result of mutations and viruses, and all of their powers, and specific weaknesses are explained away through rational means.

The Vampires in the Federal Vampire/Zombie Agency are truly hideous, pitiful creatures who live in squalid little caves, are impotent, and their bodies literally rot away into nothing.

Killing them is seen as an act of mercy by the FVZA.

Why It Would Be Great?

Image result for federal vampire and zombie agency

The Federal Vampire/Zombie Agency would be the basis for a really dark and frightening Vampire television series.

Its definitely the anti Twilight, anti Vampire Diaries in that it makes being a Vampire look like the most horrifying thing imaginable.

Vampires in the FVZA are bald, ugly, rotting, impotent monsters who live in caves, and fight each other for dominance.

The fact that its Vampires are also created through rational and scientific means could also help the series stand out somewhat from almost all other popular pieces of Vampire fiction which are obviously more fantasy based.

The Cast?

Image result for peter capaldi

The leading character in the FVZA series would have to be Doctor Pecos, the world’s greatest expert on Vampires.

Personally I think that Peter Capaldi would be brilliant as Pecos. Capaldi is great at playing the older, angry, insufferable genius type. Sadly during his tenure as the Doctor he was somewhat wasted, though I won’t go into why again here as that’s been covered many times before.

Still hopefully Doctor Pecos would make a better use of his talents. In my opinion Peter Capaldi needs to play a Vampire hunter. He has the right look for it. He kind of reminds me a little bit of Peter Cushing, arguably the greatest onscreen Vampire hunter of them all.

Capaldi is a massive fan of Peter Cushing and even bases his autograph on Cushing’s so I think if given a chance to play a Cushing style Vampire hunter/expert he would really relish the chance.

Thank you for reading, and let me know which overlooked Vampire or supernatural stories you’d like to see adapted.

 

My Own Fiction

I’ve been out of action for the past few months. 2018 has unquestionably been the worst year of my life. Not only have I had to deal with yet another bout of depression, but three close family members have also tragically come down with very serious, life threatening illnesses in the last month.

Needless to say I might not be back for a long while. In the meantime however I have decided share some of my own fiction here. I wrote all of these stories many months ago, but recently I decided to split them up into chapters.

Originally I wrote them all as one story, but they were all a bit too much in one go, so I hope this way they are more digestable.

These are all the very first stories in their respective series. Please let me know what you think.

The Circus Master: The Curse of Lakos

The town of Lakos has existed for the past several hundred years isolated from the horrors of both the world of man and Demon alike. Now however that’s about to change when the Circus of Csaz comes to town. The people’s only hope is an embittered, broken Warlock named Mestron. Can they trust him? And just what is the secret behind the Circus Folk.

The Curse of Lakos Part 1

The Curse of Lakos Part 2

The Circus Master: Part 3

The Circus Master Part 4

Robin Hood Vampire Killer: The Phoney Vampire King of England

Albion in the 12th century is a land in chaos. Its rightful king is waging a war half way around the world, most of its people are living in poverty, and bloodsucking monsters hold all the power.

Albion’s only hope is a former outlaw and lord, Robin of Loxley. 

Robin Hood Vampire Killer: The Phoney Vampire Killer of England Part 1

Robin Hood Vampire Killer: The Phoney Vampire King of England Part 2

Robin Hood Vampire Killer: The Phoney Vampire Killer of England: Part 3

Robin Hood Vampire Killer: The Phoney Vampire King of England Part 4

 

 

I’m Back

I’ve been very quiet on this and my other blogs recently. Its not because I no longer enjoy doing them. I’ve had quite a rough 2018 so far with my depression having returned. I simply didn’t have the energy to devote my time to my work here, but fortunately I’m feeling better and there will be more articles coming soon.

I also hope to share some more of my original fiction here soon too.

 

Stock Characters in Vampire Fiction

 

Image result for peter cushing van helsing

 

Image result for Buffy Summers

Image result for Blade

Vampires are unquestionably the most popular supernatural creature. There’s far more you can do with them than you can with other favourites like say Werewolves, Zombies and Ghosts. Vampires can be both the perfect hero and the perfect villain. They can also be integrated into far more settings than many other types of monsters. There have been Vampire westerns, Vampire spy stories, Vampire detective stories, Vampire teen dramas and even Vampire superhero films.

Despite this however there are still a number of character types that we see replicated again and again in many of the most celebrated Vampire stories across all mediums, and in this article I am going to run through them, how they came into being, the most famous examples, as well as what my favourites are.

Just about any popular piece of Vampire fiction of the last 100 years or so will usually have at least two or more of the following characters. I’m not knocking them for doing this of course. I’ve used many of these characters in my own Vampire fiction and I’ll do so again. You don’t have to be totally original. As long as you do something new and interesting or even just enjoyable with an old idea. Who cares?

Still the following character types certainly seem to be the most popular with authors of Vampire fiction. Many of these character types may also be blended together as well, but these basic templates always persist.

We will also be looking at characters in some non Vampire, but supernatural series like Charmed. After all though they may not have Vampires as the main villains, they still ultimately follow the same tropes laid down by Vampire stories.

Also most supernatural series tend to feature a kitchen sink of supernatural creatures too. Even if they aren’t the main threat or focus, Vampires, Demons, Zombies, Ghosts, and Witches are bound to appear at some point in your average supernatural themed series these days anyway.

The Good Guys

1/ The Peter Cushing Style Mr Exposition Guy

Image result for Rupert GilesImage result for Peter Cushing Van Helsing

Originator: Peter Cushing’s Van Helsing (obviously)

Other Notable Examples: Rupert Giles (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Professor Grost (Captain Kronos Vampire Hunter), Abraham Whistler (Blade franchise) Wesley *Wyndam Pryce (Angel), Bobby (Supernatural), Master Kau (Mr Vampire), Professor Abraham Setrakian (The Strain) 

Peter Cushing’s iconic performance as Van Helsing in 5 Hammer Dracula films, “The Horror of Dracula”, “The Brides of Dracula”, “Dracula AD 1972”, “The Satanic Rites of Dracula”, and “The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires”, helped to lay down the template not just for this type of character, but Vampire hunters in general in popular culture.

Prior to Cushing’s performance as Van Helsing, the Vampire hunter was not really a classic horror movie character. There had certainly been no films that featured a Vampire hunter as a main character. In the classic Universal horror movies, the monsters were always killed by angry villagers, the bland leading man, their own loved ones, or by themselves.

Their deaths were also always presented as tragic moments, with the audience almost always having sympathy for monsters like the Wolfman, the Frankenstein’s Monster and Dracula’s Daughter when they died.

The character of Van Helsing obviously did exist in both Stokers original novel, and the 1931 adaptation of Dracula starring Bela Lugosi, where he was played by Edward Van Sloan.

Still he was very different to the Van Helsing we would later recognise from popular culture. He wasn’t a Vampire hunter per se. He was simply an eccentric scientist who had many interests, with study into the occult being one of them. He lives an otherwise normal life, and certainly has not devoted his existence to hunting the undead. Indeed Dracula is the first Vampire he has ever actually encountered.

Though he does supply our heroes with the knowledge needed to defeat Dracula, and slays the Vampires three brides, he is ultimately not the one who finally kills Dracula in the book (though he does offscreen in the 1931 film.)

Cushing’s Van Helsing meanwhile was re-imagined as being someone who did devote his entire life to destroying Vampires. Cushing’s Van Helsing, travelled from town to town hunting them, believed it was his duty to exterminate the undead from the face of the earth, and was also a much younger character who would fight the monsters in one on one conflicts. Finally he was also presented as Dracula’s ultimate nemesis who fought with him many times, and was the only person who could match the legendary king of the Vampires.

Cushing’s Van Helsing was also the lead character, and played by a far better known actor than the one who played Dracula. (At that point Christopher Lee was virtually an unknown, whilst Peter Cushing was a very well respected television actor.)

This would pave the way for other films and television series in the ensuing decades to focus on the Vampire or monster hunter, rather than always the monster such as Buffy, Blade, Charmed, Evil Dead, Mr Vampire film series etc.

Added to that traits of Cushing’s Van Helsing, specifically the person who travels from town to town, saving people from Vampires, yet is often blamed by the ignorant locals for the killings the Vampires carry out (as he is always there at the scene of the crime.) Can be found in characters like the Winchester brothers from Supernatural, Captain Kronos, Blade and Whistler and even Ash from the Evil Dead franchise.

Cushing’s Van Helsing is really the daddy of all Vampire/monster hunters, but whilst his influence is far and wide reaching, I think its fair to say that he created a very specific type of Vampire hunter that we have seen replicated in certain characters more than others.

Cushing’s Van Helsing was very much a British gentlemanly, stiff upper lip, no nonsense, serious, dedicated character. There wasn’t any room for little quips, or jokes after he slew a monster like there would be with later characters such as Buffy, Blade, the Winchesters and Ash.

He didn’t hunt Vampires because of some vendetta, or because he was the chosen one or anything like that. Van Helsing simply felt it was the right thing to do to free the world of this unquestionable evil, and he never complained about not being able to have a normal life, or wanted to give up being a Vampire killer either.

At the same time however Cushing’s Van Helsing could also appear somewhat cold and ruthless. He is so utterly devoted to destroying Vampires that at times it could seem like he was willing to do anything. In the above clip for instance he is willing to leave Lucy in her nightmarish state as a Vampire for a short while longer to track Dracula. His actions make sense of course, but understandably to those who knew and loved her in life, it seems abhorrent to even suggest leaving her like this. Even when Van Helsing stakes Lucy at Arthur’s request, we still see a slightly colder side to him.

When she screams in agony, her brother Arthur can’t even look, but Van Helsing doesn’t react at all, showing how hardened he has become to the horrors around him.

Cushing’s Van Helsing had a will of absolute iron. Very few things could faze him either emotionally or physically. We can see this in The Brides of Dracula when after having been bitten by Baron Meinster, Van Helsing rams a seering piece of hot metal into his throat to cauterise the wound.

Cushing’s Van Helsing also whilst being able to take care of himself in a fight, lacked the super strength, and cool gadgets of later Vampire hunters like Buffy and Blade. Instead he had to rely on his wits and knowledge of the Vampires weaknesses. Killing Vampires, even the lowliest minion of Dracula was shown to be a dangerous, drawn out process in the Cushing movies. It wasn’t something our hero did in spades to show how badass they were like with later Vampire killers such as Blade or Buffy.

Van Helsing genuinely felt like he was fighting for his life, and he was famous for often being forced to improvise and turn anything he could into a weapon against Vampires, from candle sticks, to the sails of a Windmill, (both of which he used to form a cross), to mirrors that he used to deflect sunlight onto a Vampire, to even a shower (with clear running water being a weakness of Vampires in Hammer movies, which is something I always personally hated as it kind of undermined their menace.)

At the same time however underneath Cushing’s Van Helsing’s level headed, rational, seemingly unbreakable exterior, lurked a great anger and passion. Whilst he isn’t motivated by hatred, sometimes his strong sense of morals cause his disgust towards the monsters he fights to push him over the edge.

Cushing’s Van Helsing was also in the movies Dracula AD and Satanic Rites of Dracula, a very paternal character. In both movies, Dracula seeks to make his grand daughter, Jessica, into a Vampire to punish the entire Van Helsing family.  The later Van Helsing movies with Cushing, which were made when he was older also show him take on the role of a mentor, even father figure to the young action heroes such as in The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires.

Cushing’s Van Helsing, much like his literary counterpart is obviously the worlds greatest expert on Vampires, Demons and the supernatural in general. He has an entire library on the paranormal, and would often have to explain how to kill Vampires both to the other characters and through them, the audience too.

Finally Cushing’s Van Helsing, whilst viewing Dracula and the other monsters he faces as repugnant, nevertheless is somewhat fascinated by them. Studying and fighting Vampires is a moral crusade he feels he must do for the good of humanity, yet its also bizarrely a hobby for Van Helsing too.

You can see all of these traits replicated beat for beat in many leading and supporting Vampire hunter characters.

Master Kau played by the late Lam Ching Ying, the main protagonist in the classic Chinese Mr Vampire film series followed Cushing’s template perfectly.

Kau was a taoist priest who fought Vampires, Ghosts, Demons and other monsters. He used a variety of spells and enchantments to not only slay monsters, but tame them. He even kept some tame Vampires as pets. In the movie Vampire vs Vampire, his adopted son is a friendly Vampire child called “Wee Okay Boy”.

Obviously Mr Vampire was a brilliant character and Lam Ching Ying brought an incredible physicality to the role. Still you can see how he was essentially a Hong Kong version of Van Helsing.

Kau much like Cushing is an ultra serious, no nonsense Vampire killer. He hunts Vampires, Ghosts, and Demons much like Van Helsing because he thinks it is the right thing to do. Kau even has compassion for the monsters he hunts. He doesn’t see them as monsters, more souls that are not given a chance to properly rest.

At the same time however just like Cushing’s Van Helsing, Master Kau can come across as a ruthless, callous individual at times because he is so dedicated.

In the movie Spooky Encounters, Master Kau tries to exorcise a young Ghost lady who is not doing anyone any harm. In fact she still looks after her ill mother who is unaware that her daughter has died.

Kau however not only tries to banish her, but also reveals that she has died to her mother which breaks the mothers heart. Kau’s own assistants even attack him for his ruthless actions, but we later discover that he was actually protecting both the mother and her daughter. In the Mr Vampire universe, Ghosts regardless of whether they are evil or good will draw the life out of whatever human they spend too much time with.

Ironically this was why the Ghosts mother was ill in the first place, with the daughter being unaware that she was actually killing her own mother.

Whilst much like Van Helsing using Lucy to find Dracula, Kau may have seemed callous to the family of the loved one who had been cursed, he was ultimately helping them.

Just like Cushing’s Van Helsing there are times when Kau can blow his top despite his iron will and serious demeanour, though usually its in more comical ways, directed towards his bumbling assistants.

Master Kau is also someone who despite being a devastating fighter, is not able to kill Vampires in a straight fight, and often has to use his wits and resources to bring them down.

Finally Master Kau much like Cushing’s Van Helsing is not only portrayed as the greatest expert on Vampires (and thus has to provide exposition on the monsters.) But he also is a much older character and serves as a mentor, even father figure to the younger monster hunters around him, such as Sammo Hung’s character, “the fat man” who appeared in various Hong Kong horror movies.

Whilst they may not have become mainstream hits in the west, the Mr Vampire movies still nevertheless have a huge global following, and among genre fans around the world, Lam Ching Ying is usually regarded as one of the greatest on screen Vampire hunters of all time.

Rupert Giles is obviously another iconic Vampire hunter that follows the Cushing template to a T. (Joss Whedon even based Giles somewhat on Cushing’s performance as Van Helsing, and indeed the Watches Council who originated from Britain were essentially an organisation of Peter Cushings.)

Giles much like Cushing’s Van Helsing is a British gentlemanly expert on Vampires, who has countless books on the subject and who often has to give exposition to Buffy, her friends and the audience on Vampires, Demons and other monsters.

Giles just like Van Helsing is also somewhat fascinated by the supernatural creatures he faces. He even smiles with delight when finding out that there is a Werewolf loose in Sunnydale, commenting that he’s pleased to get a chance to read up on one of the classic monsters, with Buffy commenting “he needs to get a pet”.

Giles hunts Vampires and Demons because he believes it must be done to protect humanity just like Van Helsing too rather than because of a vendetta, or because its his calling. He also has to often convince Buffy to fight them in the earlier episodes and even just take her calling seriously.

Giles like Cushing’s Van Helsing is also much older, ultra serious, no nonsense character, who generally keeps a level head in tense situations.

However once again like Cushing’s Van Helsing, when his loved ones are threatened, he can completely lose it as seen when Angelus murders his lover Jenny Calendar and Giles responds by burning his house down, and beating the Vampire to a bloody pulp with a flaming baseball bat!

Giles like Peter Cushing’s Van Helsing is more than capable of fighting and killing Vampires, but again he obviously can’t take on hordes of them at once, so he tends to have to rely on his wits and skill more when fighting one.

Giles can also like Van Helsing and Master Kau can appear quite ruthless and callous at times. Indeed all Watchers in the Buffyverse are. A Watcher’s job is to basically go to a 16 year old (sometimes even younger) girl, take her away from her family and tell her that she needs to spend the rest of her, (consequently very short), life fighting Vampires and Demons.

There are many examples of Giles clashing with Buffy and other characters over his more callous methods, such as most memorably in the classic 5th season finale, The Gift. Here Giles is actually willing to murder Buffy’s 14 year old sister, Dawn Summers to save the world. Again his logic is sound just like Van Helsing’s with Lucy’s or Kau’s with the Ghost Lady, but its still pretty shocking to see Giles, argue in favour of murdering someone who is essentially like a daughter to him. “Yes we bloody well are!

Dawn isn’t the only member of the team Giles is shown to be willing to sacrifice however. In season 7 he actually attempts to kill Spike, along with Robin Wood, when Spike becomes a liability to the team thanks to the Firsts ability to control Spike.

Then of course there is Giles ruthless murder of Ben, the human host of the evil Goddess Glory, (the most dangerous, and powerful adversary of Buffy at that point.)

Finally Giles much like Cushing’s Van Helsing is also a fatherly figure and mentor to those around him, such as Willow, Faith, Anya, Dawn and of course Buffy Summers herself.

Wesley who began on Buffy and later crossed over onto Angel also followed this template. Not quite to the same extent of course. Wesley was a younger, more naive character than either Cushing, Kau or Giles, and when he did toughen up in the later series he became a much harder, more violent, even unstable character.

Still Wesley like Cushing, Giles and Mr Vampire is an expert on the occult. Like them he regards Vampires, Demons and the supernatural as evil monsters that have to be destroyed, but he is also fascinated by them, with study into these creatures being his greatest passion. In contrast to Buffy who wants to always quit being a slayer, in both instances when Wesley gets fired by Angel, he honestly doesn’t know what else he can do with his life.

Wesley is also obviously very much the stiff upper lip, ultra serious Vampire killer. Though there is some humour with the character, its more unintentional on his part, like when he dances and he has no idea how stupid he looks.

Wesley still takes hunting monsters 100 percent seriously and never makes jokes or anything like Buffy.

Wesley is also shown to be very ruthless and callous just like Giles in both Buffy and Angel. He is happy to leave Willow in the care of the Mayor and Faith (who will surely torture and kill her) to stop the Mayors plan. He also memorably steals Angel’s child to avert a prophecy that Angel will murder his own son, and doesn’t hesitate to strike the Demon Illyria in the head with an axe whilst it has taken control of the woman he loves, Fred (for all the good it does).

Abraham Whistler meanwhile also fulfils a similar role to Blade. In the classic 90s Spider-Man series where the character was introduced and voiced by actor Malcolm McDowell, he was very much a prim and proper older British character like Cushing and Giles. He was also a scholarly expert on Vampires who supplied Blade with knowledge on how to fight Vampires and weapons. He was also both a mentor and father figure to Blade.

In the 90s/00s Blade movie series, the character of Whistler was played by American actor and was re-imagined to be a lot more rough around the edges. His cause for hunting Vampires is also a lot more personal in the film series as well. Still he nevertheless serves as the older, father figure to Blade and the expert on the occult too.

Finally the character of Bobby from Supernatural also fits this template too as again he is the older, father figure to the Winchesters, the expert on the Supernatural, the character who can’t slay Demons as easily as the young heroes, but is still as tough as an old pair of boots and wiley.

The Peter Cushing character is probably the most prolific Vampire hunter character in all of fiction. Most Vampire hunting teams from the Scooby Gang, to Angel Investigations, to the Nightstalkers will have a Peter Cushing type, stuffy old English guy, with countless books on Vampires, who knows everything about them, and serves as the father figure to the group as a whole, and who keeps them in line.

The reason for this is because the Peter Cushing character, unlike a lot of other Vampire hunters who tend to always take centre stage, can be both a leading character and a pivotal supporting character.

There are many advantages to having him as the lead over other Vampire hunters. The Vampires are at their most terrifying when he is the leading character, as again he genuinely struggles against them, unlike the later superhero Vampire hunters such as Blade and Buffy who can undermine their menace when they curb stomp 20 of them without breaking a sweat.

Of course I love these brilliant fight scenes as much as anybody else, but you can see what I mean. Vampires in these instances do kind of become less threatening as we always see them get mowed down in droves. And its by someone who is making jokes about how easy it is to kill them!

With the Cushing character as the lead however you get the impression that taking even one Vampire on requires the utmost preparation, training and knowledge, and even then its still a dangerous experience.

Still in the stories about more modern superhero Vampire hunters like Buffy and Blade, the Cushing character is not obsolete. In fact he is probably the most essential after the main hero themselves, as its through him that the writer can explain what is going on, and develop their own supernatural lore and mythology.

Personally I’d say this is my favourite type of Vampire hunter. I’ve always loved the more old fashioned, fatherly, somewhat eccentric professorial type of hero, who relies more on his wits like The Doctor, and Sherlock Holmes (its no surprise that Peter Cushing played both of these characters too.)

I think it would be interesting to see some more female counterparts of this type of character. I’m not saying that I care about representation or anything self indulgent like that, but since these characters are always men then it might be quite interesting to see a woman play a similar type of character of the old wise mentor, who has to survive on her wits rather than physical strength, and is actually interested in studying the occult.

Of course again rather than just lazily turning an existing male character into a woman, it would be interesting to see someone come up with a new female character like this.

We have seen at least one female version of the Peter Cushing style monster hunter already. The main heroine in Roald Dahl’s version of The Witches. Simply referred to as the Grandmother in the novel, and Helga in the film, she is really a female Peter Cushing almost beat for beat.

She is an expert on Witches, Ghouls, Demons and various other supernatural creatures. Like Cushing’s Van Helsing, she finds them evil and loathsome, but at the same time, has a weird fascination with paranormal creatures. You can sees this when she tells her grandson about the Witches. She clearly LOVES to talk about them.

She also obviously fulfils a parental role to the main character of the novel, (who is named Luke in the film adaptation.) Not only is she his grandmother, but she also raises him too after the tragic death of his parents.

The Grandmother also has a very similar dynamic with the Grand High Witch that Peter Cushing’s Van Helsing had to Christopher Lee’s Dracula in the modern day Hammer horror films.

Both are sworn archenemies who have faced one another many times in the past. One is the old wise Monster hunter, the other the dark, alluring, but utterly loathsome leader of a group of famous monsters, Vampires and Witches.

In both cases the leader of the monsters even targets the grandchild of their archfoe, (Jessica Van Helsing, and Luke respectively.) The monster in both cases foolishly thinks that because their archenemy has now aged and seemingly become frail, that they can’t possibly threaten them, which ultimately allows their old foe to outwit and destroy them once and for all.

Both letting us know what goes bump in the night. 

Both dropping the ball and letting their archenemy get near their grand child.

Both destroying their archenemy in a very undignified and unpleasant way. 

In the film adaptation, the Grandmother was played by the late Mai Zetterling, whilst the Grand High Witch was played by Anjelica Huston.

Both were brilliant in the roles, and to be honest I think Anjelica Huston as the Witch scared me when I was younger more than any Vampire. I mean I love Vampires the most, but all a Vampire can do is just kill or torture you. Being trapped in a painting for 60 years like Erica however is much worse!

Imagine being trapped in one little farmhouse, with nothing to do, no one for company, and worse, being forced to watch the world go by, knowing that all the years of your life were being wasted, watching your family grieve for you. I’d take getting strangled to death by Christopher Lee over that any day.

Sadly however whilst The Witches is rightfully regarded as a cult classic, the Grandmother character hasn’t really entered into popular culture like Van Helsing or Rupert Giles, so this character still tends to always be a guy in most works.

The Outcast, Freak, Good Guy Vampire/Supernatural Superhero

Image result for Angel buffyImage result for Blade

Originator: Vampirella

Other Notable Examples: Blade (Marvel), Lilith (Marvel), Angel (Buffy and Angel), Spike (Buffy and Angel), Cole (Charmed), Castiel, (Supernatural), Hellboy (Hellboy), Spawn (Spawn), Crowley (Supernatural), D (Vampire Hunter D)

This character in many ways took over from Cushing’s Van Helsing as the new main male hero in Vampire fiction.

This character is usually a Vampire, but he may be some other type of supernatural creature (a Demon is usually the most popular after a Vampire.)

This character is a member of a race that is normally completely evil, but for some reason, he will be a good guy. He will also as a result have devoted himself to fighting other evil members of his kind and ultimately wiping them out. His Vampire or Demon powers will obviously make him a great asset, if not the greatest asset to any team of Vampire hunters he is a part of.

Sometimes this guy will be good just through his own force of will, but usually its because there is something special about him. He may be half human, (Angel who has a human soul, Blade who has a human mother, Cole whose father was human, or Castiel in season 5 when his powers are stripped.) He may have been raised by humans (Hellboy) or he may have been experimented or cursed on and be forced to reluctantly fight the good fight (Crowley, Lilith, Spike, and to some extent Angel too, who only became good after the Gypsies cursed him.)

Point is these creatures are viewed as freaks by the rest of their kind regardless if they are good or not which is partially why they are on our side. Your regular Demon, Vampire, even Angel will refer to this character as a traitor, freak, or mock their humanity.

We can see this the way that Darla tries to kill Angel when he has a soul, the way that other Vampires call Blade “the Daywalker” with disgust, and perhaps most notably in the brilliant Vampire Hunter D series of novels, where the main protagonist D, is a Vampire/human hybrid that both Vampires and humans regard as a filthy mongrel.

Of course ironically when this character embraces his evil side, he will actually be among the most evil of his kind (Angelus the most flamboyantly sadistic Vampire, Cole who was one of the Charmed ones most dangerous enemies and killed hundreds of Witches, Crowley who was one of the Winchesters most evil and dangerous adversaries.)

This character may have even started out as the most dangerous enemy of the heroes (Spike, Crowley, Cole) and they may also flip flop between being good and evil. This usually won’t be their fault. They will often be taken over, or lose their humanity in some magical way. For whatever reason they will be the most unpredictable member of a monster hunting team, and will usually be disliked, or at least not trusted by most of the other members.

Look at Angel famously going bad in season 2 of Buffy, all the times Castiel has fucked up badly for the Winchesters, Spike going evil in season 7 of Buffy thanks to the First, and the many, many, many times that Cole flipped from good to bad.

There will usually be one member of the team who is loyal to this monster above all else, even when it would probably be better for them to just get rid of him, they’ll still protect him. Examples of this obviously include Buffy with Spike and Angel, Phoebe with Cole and even in a non romantic way, Dean with Castiel.

Of course the person who defends this benevolent monster will also later after one too many betrayals come to hate their former friend/lover more than anyone else, and may even try and kill them.

This character also has a habit of dying (after being killed by members of the team) and coming back again and again too.

In many ways its not hard to see why this character ended up becoming the most popular leading male character in modern Vampire fiction.

I personally prefer the Cushing/Van Helsing Vampire killer (though I do love this type too of course.) Still this character was a lot younger, more romantic, and could also take Vampire movies into more of an action oriented direction, allowing them to properly compete with big blockbusters and franchises.

These characters could jump through the air, beat up dozens of Vampires at once and withstand getting shot by hordes of bullets, and thrown off of buildings!

Whilst this character is almost always male, its worth noting that the first ever version of this type of character was actually a woman.

Vampirella, created in the 1960s, was really the first Vampire superhero. We had seen good guy Vampires before of course, but none of them had been comic book characters who used their Vampire powers to fight other Vampires, and other supernatural creatures such as Demons.

Still whilst Vampirella initiated the idea, it was definitely Blade that set the template that these characters were to follow.

Originally introduced as a supporting character in Marvels Tomb of Dracula series. Blade was initially not a Vampire/human hybrid.

In the comics his mother, whilst pregnant with him had been bitten by the Vampire Deacon Frost. She died just after giving birth to him and Blade as a result would gain some Vampiric powers. He aged much slower than a human, and he was also immune to a Vampires bite too.

It was in the classic 1990’s Spider-Man The Animated Series however that Blade was re-interpreted as a half human/ half Vampire superhero. In this series his origins were altered. Now his mother had fallen in love with a Vampire and bore him a child that she later abandoned.

This child had the superhuman strength, speed and healing of a Vampire, but none of their weaknesses. Sadly he also inherited their inhuman thirst for blood, which he has to suppress every day. Blade (real name Eric Brooks) was later found by a man named Abraham Whistler who trained him to fight other members of his kind, as well as other supernatural threats.

Elements of both the animated and comic book origin were later fused together for the Blade trilogy starring Wesley Snipes, with its version of Blade’s mother being bitten and killed by Frost like the comic book version, but Blade also becoming a full Vampire/human hybrid as a result like his animated counterpart.

With Blade you can see so many traits of later characters like Angel. He is a miserable, brooding loner, who is scared of getting close to people, his attempts to control his thirst are treated very much as a metaphor for a recovering alcoholic, and even in terms of his look, Blade dresses in long, black, leather and trench coats too, which is usually the look for these types of characters like Spike, Angel and Cole.

Blade had a huge influence on Angel in particular. There are some strong similarities in their story arcs.

Both Angel and Blade are special, human Vampires who can feel guilt and sorrow for their actions, and both end up living in the gutter, until they are found by a man, who in both cases is named Whistler, who takes them off the streets and teaches them to control their thirst and use their powers for good.

Joss Whedon was/is a massive fan of Blade and Tomb of Dracula and has mentioned it as an influence on the tone and style of Buffy.

Of course Angel would also add a lot to this character too. He would add more of a romantic aspect to this character, which wasn’t really there with Blade.

There have been a few other female examples of this type of character aside from Vampirella. Lilith, Dracula’s anti hero daughter in Tomb of Dracula, who predated Blade was another example. In fact Lilith in some ways actually has more in common with the Blade of both Spider-Man the animated series and the later films than the comic book version did.

She like him is a half human, half Vampire that shares all of their powers, and none of their weaknesses. She also shares their thirst which she struggles to control, and she regularly feuds with her parent who is a Vampire (Dracula in her case, Mirum in Blade’s.)

Image result for Lilith Dracula

Lilith, the original Daywalker.

Ruby played by Lucy Lawless (Xena the Warrior Princess) from Ash Vs Evil Dead also loosely fits this template.

Still overall this character is usually male, perhaps because it tends to be more popular among female viewers ironically when it is male.

It makes sense in a way. As this character will also often be in love with, or utterly devoted to someone to the point where it takes over their entire character like Cole and Spike, a lot of young female viewers would probably find it demeaning to see a woman chase a guy all the time, and even get punched in the face by him, yet still come back for more.

When its a guy however, then that coupled with the fact that he is a badass monster killer, ( and not completely just some creepy guy who is obsessed with her.) And is willing to die for her, get tortured for her, fight off being a monster for her, can lead to this character becoming something of a romantic fantasy for young girls.

I’m not knocking the fan girls for this of course. Everybody has pin ups, its completely natural, and hey the need for this type of pin up has led to some great stories, like the whole Buffy and Angel story arc (which is my favourite story arc from Buffy.)

Still I think this could explain why this character is overwhelmingly male. It was really once the romantic aspect was added to this character from Angel on, that his fate as, as well a he, was solidified.

3/ The Reluctant Vulnerable Strong Female Hero

Image result for Rachel Van HelsingRelated image

Originator: Rachel Van Helsing

Other Notable Examples: Buffy Summers, (Buffy) Charmed Ones, (Charmed) Cordelia Chase (Buffy and Angel), Mandy (Mandy the Monster Hunter), Annie (Being Human)

This character is in many respects the polar opposite to the Cushing/Giles type of Vampire Killer.

This character to start with is obviously a woman. She is also much younger, more vulnerable and also above all else does not want to be a Vampire killer.

She just wants to have a normal life, and will still try to have one, even whilst fighting Vampires. In contrast to Van Helsing who devotes his every waking minute to reading about Vampires, this Vampire killer will be desperate to still go to college, have a relationship with someone who is not aware of the supernatural, have a family, and have a career outside of monster busting.

Image result for Buffy Summers

At the same time however, whilst she might be more reluctant to fight the paranormal, she will also be the greatest Vampire fighter of them all. She’ll kill scores and scores of them without breaking a sweat, and strike fear into their hearts like no one else.

We can see these traits replicated in Buffy, the Charmed Ones and Cordelia Chase (who develops into this type of character on Angel) and Mandy the Monster Hunter. Incidentally whilst this character is obviously almost always female, we do see a few male counterparts too. Sam Winchester from Supernatural, in the earlier episodes at least tended to fall into this category.

Buffy was obviously the character who propelled this type of Vampire hunter into popular culture, but it is worth noting that she was not the first character like this. Rachel Van Helsing who appeared in Tomb of Dracula in the 1970s was kind of a proto Buffy in some ways.

Rachel was obviously the descendent of the legendary Vampire hunter, Abraham Van Helsing. The Van Helsing family in Tomb of Dracula were Vampire hunters even before Abraham, with Rachel merely being the latest in a long line.

Like Buffy however at first she doesn’t want to follow in her predecessors footsteps, but she soon ends up becoming Dracula’s new archenemy. Like Buffy she also has a Peter Cushing style, stuffy old English mentor who becomes like a father figure to her (Quincy Harker) and later a boyfriend (Drake) who feels inadequate compared to her as a Vampire hunter like Buffy’s boyfriend Riley.

Rachel much like Van Helsing was also created to try and reverse the image of the little blonde girl in horror movies who would always be lured away and torn to bits by the monster. This would be a common trait among other similar characters that would follow in Buffy’s wake too. They’d often take what had been seen as a weak, demeaning role for women and make it strong, such as Cordelia who was the stereotypical valley girl even after she matured.

Image result for Rachel Van HelsingImage result for Buffy Summers

Image result for mandy the monster hunterImage result for Phoebe Halliwell blonde

From Rachel Van Helsing, to Buffy Summers, to Mandy, to Phoebe Halliwell, the stereotypical image of young blonde women in Vampire and horror stories has certainly improved quite a bit in the last few decades.

Obviously of the two, Buffy was the better character, and again I’m not knocking Joss Whedon for possibly taking influence from Rachel Van Helsing. Everyone takes inspiration from something else and at the end of the day, for me Buffy and Angel are the greatest supernatural themed television series ever made.

Still its quite interesting that a lot of the things that Buffy became an icon for, Rachel Van Helsing did about 20 years earlier.

Whilst there are undoubtedly many reasons why Rachel is still relatively obscure and Buffy is beloved, I think that ultimately it can be boiled down to the fact that Buffy was her own character whilst Rachel was kind of trapped in the shadow of her more famous relative.

This Buffy/Rachel type of hero has really become the third main Vampire hunter character alongside the Cushing style exposition guy, and the freak hybrid Vampire hunter. Whilst Buffy is easily as well known as Van Helsing (and far better known than Blade or Angel or any other similar character.) Ultimately as this type of character was more recently introduced than the others, then we haven’t seen quite as many imitators yet.

There are some areas where the Buffy/Rachel type of character is superior to other Vampire hunters and others where she is weaker, depending on your tastes.

The Buffy type of hero will tend to drag supernatural stories into soap opera territory. Obviously a part of her character is that we focus on how she juggles her everyday life with being a monster hunter. We’ll see her struggle at college, at school, at her job, going on dates, or even just spend a lot of focus on her relationships with the people around her like her friends, her family etc.

Many fans and critics have said that they prefer this take on not just a Vampire hunter, but a superhero in general, as it helps to flesh these larger than life characters out more, make them seem more human, or even relatable.

Spider-Man similarly made a huge impression on young male readers for being a more vulnerable, down to earth, relatable hero back in the 1960s. In many ways Buffy is kind of like a female Spider-Man.

On the flip side however some people have criticised the likes of Buffy and the Charmed ones for being too whiny.

Whilst I agree at times we did see Buffy complain a bit too much about her calling, in some respects I think this actually made her seem more heroic than other Vampire killers.

The thing you have to remember about the Peter Cushing/Giles type of character is that they actually in some ways like the life they are living. Yes okay no one wants to see their loved ones hunted by Vampires, but as we have been over for a character like Van Helsing, Giles or even Helga from the Witches, they are actually interested in the supernatural. Their free time is spent reading books on paranormal creatures, they can’t wait to give a big bit of exposition about Vampires or Witches.

With the good guy Vampire character like Blade meanwhile, we similarly have someone who chooses to live that kind of life. Okay he doesn’t really have a choice, but still he doesn’t want to, or even know how to just settle down. He wants to go out there and kill monsters almost every second of every day.

With the Buffy/Rachel type of hero however, we have someone who could give it up if they wanted to, who never asked to be part of a war against the forces of evil, and who is basically having to give up all of her aspirations, hopes for a normal life, maybe even her loved ones simply because other people have decided her fate for her.

Its understandable that in contrast to a guy like Van Helsing, Buffy would be a little bit more bitter, and even just terrified. Still the fact that she always without fail, overcomes her fear, if anything makes her more heroic, and yes more human too.

I think the reason that Buffy/Rachel type of character, the Blade/Angel type of character, and the Cushing/Giles type of character have become kind of the big three for Vampire killer characters, aside from the fact that they have starred in the most popular Vampire franchises, is also because they all go really well together.

The Buffy/Rachel type of character being younger, more unsure of herself, obviously needs a paternal figure, and someone to tell her all about monsters, which obviously the Cushing/Giles character can do.

At the same time the Cushing/Giles type of character who is often older, even quite frail needs someone young and strong fight the strongest monsters and creatures out there, so the Buffy/Rachel character is just as useful to him.

Finally the Buffy/Rachel character and the Blade/Angel type of character are obviously a fantastic pair to put together. It can get complicated when you have a Vampire in love with a human, but having a Vampire be in love with the greatest Vampire killer of them all just makes it all the more uncomfortable for both characters, and consequently a more exciting dynamic for the viewers.

These three characters despite being polar opposites in some cases, are such a brilliant fit for one another that its no surprise that they are almost always put together.

The Buffy/Rachel type of character is unquestionably the most popular Vampire hunter of them all to more modern fans and viewers at least.

Young girls obviously love her, because she is not only an empowering role for women, but she is presented as being strong because she is feminine too.

Young boys meanwhile like her because of, well obvious reasons. She’s beautiful, strong, intelligent, down to earth, and brave.

Again the fact that she is more recent than other types of Vampire killers is why we haven’t seen quite as many imitators, but give it time.

The Buffy/Rachel character manages to bring Vampires and Demons into everyday surroundings like no other before her and so in that respect I think she will always be one of the most popular.

4/ The Vengeful Crusader

Image result for dean winchesterImage result for Jack Crow Vampires

Originator: Captain Kronos Vampire Hunter

Other Notable Examples: Blade (Blade), The Winchester Brothers (Supernatural), Jack Crow (Vampires), Tom McNair (Being Human), Kelly (Ash vs Evil Dead) Charles Gunn (Angel), Robin Wood (Buffy) Hansel and Gretel (Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters)

This character is probably the most prolific after the Cushing/Giles character.

This character hunts Vampires and Demons because they killed somebody close to him in the past, usually a family member.

This character will have devoted the rest of their life to exterminating every single Vampire or Demon they find. They will often kill them in far more brutal ways too. In complete contrast to Cushing and Lam Ching Ying respectfully performing the last rites over a slain Vampire, these guys will blow bits of them off while they are alive, stab them hundreds of times, and burn them in holy water.

They will usually have the most impressive arsenal of Vampire and Demon hunting weaponry. Guns that fire stakes, bombs that filter out UV light, even water pistols filled with holy water!

The Vampire or Demon that killed their loved one will often be their archenemy who they spend years chasing. It will also often not just be any old Vampire or Demon that killed their loved one, but a legendary, feared monster, maybe even the leader of their race. It makes sense really as if this character is supposed to be the ultimate Vampire/Demon killer, then the Vampire/Demon that manages to avoid them would have to be pretty special too.

Also there is quite a nice irony that perhaps the leader of the Vampires/Demons who thought he would lead his race to glory, ended up creating their kinds worst nightmare without even realising it.

This character will also perhaps be a bit more ruthless in terms of dealing with human allies of Vampires and Demons. He will kill and even torture ordinary humans who choose to side with Vampires and Demons just as often. Sometimes the writer will use these scenes to show how unstable they have become in their hatred for the undead.

This character was really created by the classic and underrated Hammer Horror film, Captain Kronos Vampire Hunter.

Captain Kronos was essentially like the Winchester Brothers of the 70s. He was dashing, handsome, swashbuckler who travelled from town to town, hunting and killing Vampires alongside his Cushing exposition style, father/mentor figure Professor Grost.

Kronos was motivated by the death of his mother and sister at the hands of Vampires. Both were actually turned into Vampires, though we never see the Vampire that turned them.

He had special anti Vampire weapons, and he often killed them in more explicitly gory ways that reflected his anger towards the undead.

Other characters who would follow this template include Jack Crow, the main hero of John Carpenters overlooked cult classic Vampires.

Crow, played by James Woods, became a Vampire hunter when his own father was turned into a Vampire and killed his mother.

Jack now leads a team of Vampire slayers who kill the undead, first by unloading tons and tons of bullets into them until they can’t move before dragging them helplessly into the sunlight. He also collects their charred skulls as trophies!

Jack is even more vicious than Kronos. In one character defining moment, he goes as far as to torture a priest who with holds information about the leader of the Vampires from him. He beats the Priest, cuts him and tells him how as he had no trouble killing his own father who had become a Vampire, then he would have no problem killing him. The priest gives in almost instantly as he knows Jack isn’t lying!

In some ways Jack was actually my favourite example of this type of character. Others like Kronos, and the later Winchester brothers were still a bit too polished for what is supposed to be a dangerous, fanatical character.

Jack Crow however did seem in some ways as unpleasant as the monsters he was facing. You got the impression that fighting Vampires had crushed almost every bit of compassion out of him. All that’s left is just raw anger and hatred and that’s the only reason he fights Vampires. Its not even because he cares about helping people anymore.

Blade also followed this template to a degree too. Again Blade also obviously not only followed, but helped to set the good guy Vampire character template in popular culture. Still as I said in the introduction, many of these characters can be merged together, and with Blade he obviously followed the Kronos template as well as his own too.

Blade’s mother had been killed by a Vampire, and so he hunted them because he hated them (as well as because it was the right thing to do.) His mother had also been bitten by Frost, the leader of the Vampires too.

As you can see Blade also tended to kill Vampires in a slightly messier, albeit more creative way than the likes of Buffy and Peter Cushing and showed no mercy to their human allies.

Other more minor examples of this character include Robin Wood and Charles Gunn in the Buffy and Angel franchise.

The Winchester brothers from Supernatural meanwhile are probably the definitive take on this type of Vampire killer for most people.

Supernatural is after all the longest running paranormal themed series of all time (stealing that distinction from Charmed.) Like all long running cult series, its quality has gone up and down at various points, but overall I would definitely rate it as a classic series, and Sam and Dean Winchester are both brilliant characters. Jensen Ackles and Jared Padelicki’s chemistry is truly unique and the show overall has also offered some brilliant new takes on old classic monsters like Vampires and Demons.

Still Sam and Dean follow the Kronos template almost beat for beat. Both hunt Demons because their mother (and fiance in Sam’s case) were killed by a Demon (much like with Blade and Frost, it was the king of the Demons, Azazeal that killed their mother.) Both travel the road trying to find this monster, whilst hunting other Demons. Both have a Cushing style, exposition guy (Bobby) to help them, both have special anti Demon weapons. Much like Kronos they are presented as a more romantic interpretation of this type of character, as opposed to Jack Crow.

Whilst this character is usually a male, there are some female examples. A recent female example is Kelly from Ash Vs Evil Dead. Kelly’s mother and father were both killed by, and turned into Deadites and so much like Kronos and the Winchesters not only is she motivated by hatred, but she tends to kill her the Deadites in a lot more explicit ways (which is really saying something considering the Deadites are ALWAYS killed in gruesome over the top ways.) Kelly is also hinted to be a bit unstable too.

Dean Winchester and Kelly would make a brilliant couple. They are probably the most well matched pair of Vampire/Demon hunters along with Cushing’s Van Helsing and Helga from The Witches.

This character is quite a good compromise of the main three types of Vampire killer, which is probably why it is so popular among both writers and audiences.

Like Cushing’s character, these Vampire hunters are often ordinary humans and so they can’t just curb stomp Vampires and Demons like Buffy and Blade. The monsters still retain their menace, but at the same time, as these characters are often younger, and are equipped with special Vampire killing weapons, then they can be involved in more action packed sequences than the Cushing Van Helsing character can.

Also as he is younger, then he can be a much more conventional, romantic character too as seen with the Winchesters and Kronos, so you can retain the pin up and romantic elements of characters like Angel and Buffy too.

This character doesn’t always have to hunt Vampires, as seen with Sam and Dean, who though Vampire hunters, still hunt Demons and evil spirits more. Demons are also the monsters who killed their loved ones and who they have obviously have more of a personal hatred for.

The grown up versions of Hansel and Gretel, from the horror/action movie Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters meanwhile fulfil this trope perfectly but they obviously hunt Witches instead of Vampires.

5/ The Slacker, Every Man, Bumbling Hero

Image result for Xander HarrisImage result for Ash evil dead

Originator: Ash Williams

Other Notable Examples: Xander Harris (Buffy), Doyle (Angel), Fatman (Close Encounters of the Spooky Kind), Shaun (Shaun of the Dead)

This character is usually male. He’s not exclusive to Vampire stories, but since he does tend to pop up in a lot of Vampire/Demon stories then I felt he should be included here.

This character is obviously not the worlds greatest expert on the occult like Peter Cushing, he’s not the chosen, greatest hero of all time like Buffy, and he’s not a badass, super strong Vampire. He’s just an ordinary guy. He’s not even particularly fit or strong, and doesn’t seem to be that bright. In fact on paper he seems to be quite down on his luck, is maybe is a bit of a nerd, if he has a job, then its a low paying one, and even among his friends, he is generally seen as a bit of a moron.

He will also have an eye for the ladies, but unlike with Dean Winchester and Spike, they usually won’t like him.

Of course when the chips are down he will end up being brave, resourceful and a hero, though he may fuck up a few times along the way and even make things worse before he makes it better.

This character was really brought into the horror genre with Ash Williams, the main protagonist of the classic Evil Dead franchise, played by Bruce Campbell.

Ash was just an ordinary guy who had been thrust into a horrible situation, when all of his friends (and even his sister and girlfriend) are possessed by the spirits of Kandarian Demons.

He stumbled his way through the situation, fucked up lots of times, and even lost his hand (which he later replaced with a chainsaw.) Still throughout it all he did always try and do the right thing, and gradually over the course of the three movies and later tv series he did become a more competent hero, thought he never becomes a full blown conventional hero. He doesn’t always save the day, still tends to bumble his way through things, and also has a more childish, jokey attitude towards the paranormal than other characters like Dean Winchester or Van Helsing.

The massive influence of the Evil Dead series on popular culture would see similar characters like Ash emerge in heroic roles, such as Xander from Buffy, and Shaun from Shaun of the Dead.

All of these character thought distinct, do still kind of follow the Ash template of not being trained monster hunters, being more jokey in the face of danger, screwing things up and making them worse, being seen as an idiot by people around him, but still being brave and occasionally saving the day through his hidden intelligence.

Whilst Ash was really the template for this type of character in western horror movies, he was predated by Sammo Hung’s character, simply referred to as the Fatman who appeared in various Chinese horror movies, Close Encounters of the Spooky Kind, Spooky Encounters, and The Dead and the Deadly.

This character was a well meaning, but slow witted normal man, who again had to stumble his way through his battles with monsters, Demons and Vampires.

In Spooky Encounters, the Fatman would develop a father son relationship with Master Kau from the Mr Vampire series. The bumbling, every man hero often goes well with the Cushing style Vampire hunter. The Cushing character can serve as a stern father figure to him, give him a chewing out when he fucks up, and generally keep him in line, though at other times, the more down to earth, normal character can put the stuffy, pompous, Cushing style hero in his place too. We see this dynamic with Giles and Xander in Buffy too.

Whenever this character is the lead then the story has to be a bit more comedic. Close Encounters of the Spooky Kind, The Evil Dead, and Shaun of the Dead are all horror comedies, and Xander also tended to bring the comic relief to many episodes of Buffy.

6/ The Magic Junkie

Image result for Willow Rosenberg

Originator:  Father Shandor

Other Notable Examples: Willow Rosenberg (Buffy), Sam Winchester (Supernatural)

Though not as common as other examples, this character has appeared in a few prominent pieces of Vampire fiction.

Essentially this is someone who tries to fight fire with fire. They’ve seen how their friends struggle against the forces of darkness and come to believe that ordinary people will never be able to take down Vampires, Demons and Monsters, so they will turn to the black arts to fight them.

Their friends will warn them about this. Maybe even fall out with them, or shun them, or abandon them over it, but they will still think they are doing the right thing.

Father Shandor, who first appeared in the Hammer movie, Dracula Prince of Darkness was really the first example of a character like this.

In the movie he was played by Andrew Keir, and was a bad tempered, shotgun wielding monk who had little time for the idiots around him. Despite his rough manner however, he was still nevertheless a brave and heroic individual who eventually slays the newly resurrected king of the Vampires, Count Dracula.

The character proved popular enough that he would be given his own spin off comic book series, Father Shandor Demon Stalker.  In this series Shandor travels to a Demon dimension in order to rescue his friend who has become trapped there after a spell went wrong.

Shandor is despised by all of the other priests in his monastry for using the black arts, even though he only does so to fight Demons and Vampires. Though Shandor is successful in rescuing his friend from the hell dimension. In the process he is cursed by a Demon and when he returns to our universe, he finds that he cannot touch anything without killing it.

Banished from the Monastry and human society, Shandor goes on to travel the world using his new Demon powers to continue to fight the forces of darkness.

Whilst Shandor was a very original character at the time, sadly he is a relatively obscure character today. It would really be Willow Rosenberg that would propel this character into being one of the classic stock paranormal hunters.

Willow, played by Alyson Hannigan, was Buffy’s best friend. Though initially being nothing more than a computer whizz, Willow over the course of the shows 7 seasons, slowly became an incredibly powerful Witch.

Much like Father Shandor, Willow initially believed that she had to use her magic to battle the forces of evil, and she was a valuable ally in this respect. Her magics are what bring down the main villain of season 4, Adam.

However eventually the magics consume her, she becomes reckless, arrogant, abuses her powers, and at one point even brainwashes her girlfriend, Tara (and attempts to do the same to Buffy.) Though she does try to control her addiction to magic, eventually after the death of Tara she goes insane and becomes Dark Willow, who nearly destroys the world!

Willow’s descent into Dark Willow, much like characters such as Angel and Blade’s attempts to control their thirst, is treated very much as a metaphor for drug and alcohol addiction, (with Willow even crashing a car she and Dawn are in whilst driving under the influence of Magic.)

Supernatural would go down a similar route with Sam in season 4. Sam much like Willow discovers that he has magical powers. Specifically the ability to draw Demons out of their host bodies and destroy them completely. At first Sam thinks he is doing great work with his new powers. Not only can he destroy the Demons, but he can save their hosts too.

Of course Dean thinks that Sam’s powers are evil, and even turns on him at one point. Things get worse however when it is discovered that Sam’s powers are fuelled by drinking the blood of people possessed by Demons.

Just like with Willow, Sam’s dependence on his powers, as well as the Demon blood that gives him them is treated as a metaphor for addiction to drugs.

These stories were among the interesting and nuanced in both series. They served as a more sympathetic metaphor for addiction, as we saw how two good people fell into such bad habits.

Indeed in both cases you can understand and even agree with them at first when they start using this dark power. Willow’s dark magics allow her to take on Glory, and play a key role in the hell Goddesses downfall, whilst Sam’s Demon powers allow him to remove the Demon without killing the humans they take over.

However as time goes on you can see how not only reckless they are, but how it begins to change who they are too, slowly but surely, and how ironically whilst their addiction only happened to make themselves seem stronger, its now brought them to their lowest point, with Willow sprawling on the floor begging Buffy not to leave her, and Sam being dependent on the blood of the monsters he used to fight or else he’ll go crazy.

Of course both stories were very controversial among fans, particularly fans of Willow and Sam who naturally hated seeing their favourite characters in such awful states, and doing such awful things, like Willow’s cruel taunting of Dawn, telling her everybody would be happier if she died, or Sam turning his back on his brother for a Demon!

But again personally I thought it was better to have two such normally reasonable and kind people be seduced by the dark forces, as it showed how strong they were, and again was a better metaphor for addiction, by showing how it can affect people who have everything to live for.

Its not just the stereotypical image of addicts being either criminals, or even just people who are depressed and drink and take drugs for distraction. You can get people who have the best quality of life, like Willow who has brilliant friends, a loving girlfriend, yet still ends up falling into this bad habit.

7/ Genre Savvy Hero

Related image

Originator: Peter Vincent

Other Notable Examples: The Frog Brothers (The Lost Boys), Bruce Campbell (My Name is Bruce), Ghostfacers (Supernatural)

This character is someone who knows about Vampires, monsters and the supernatural from movies. He might be a huge geek, or he might be someone who stars in monster movies, but the point is he’ll have a more romantic idea of what its like being a Vampire killer before he actually encounters one.

He’ll be shit scared at first, but much like the everyman hero he will eventually become more heroic and brave, though never a conventional hero.

The movie that really brought this type of character into popular culture was Fright Night.

Released in 1985, Fright Night revolved around a young fan of horror movies, Charlie Brewster discovering that he lives next door to a Vampire named Jerry Daindridge. Charlie is forced to go to his favourite horror actor, Peter Vincent for help. Peter Vincent was named after and based on Peter Cushing, with Vincent much like Cushing being known for playing Vampire killers

At first Vincent is portrayed is terrified, but as time goes on he rises to the challenge and helps Charlie save his girlfriend Amy from Jerry.

Fright Night though only released as a B-movie proved to be very successful and influential on the genre. It was the first of its kind really, to poke fun at the genre in an affectionate way, yet also be a good Vampire movie in its own right.

The fact that its characters were either fans or had starred in Vampire movies meant that they could recognise a lot of the cliches and staples of Vampire movies when they were encountering them themselves.

Among the other examples of these types of characters in Vampire and supernatural films and television series include the Frog Brothers in The Lost Boys and The Ghost Faces in Supernatural.

The Frog Brothers, much like Charlie Brewster are big fans of horror movies, though unlike Charlie they tended to fancy themselves as big macho Vampire killers, but of course they get a rather nasty surprise when they meet a real Vampire and much like Peter Vincent, even when they kill a Vampire its a clumsy, awkward fight where they constantly panic.

The Ghost Facers meanwhile tend to take after the Frog Twins more in that they are wannabe monster hunters who’ve seen Peter Cushing and Buffy kill monsters on tv and think it looks easy. Though even when they do encounter monsters it doesn’t burst their bubble and they even attempt to make a tv show out of their battles against the supernatural which goes about as well as their attempts to be big sexy monster hunters.

Finally Bruce Campbell’s ficitonalized version of himself in My Name is Bruce is essentially a more sleazy version of Peter Vincent. Like the real Bruce Campbell, he is known for playing monster hunters and is asked to fight a real monster by one of his fans. Like Peter he chickens out at first before stepping up and doing the right thing.

This type of character would prove popular enough to appear in stories beyond the Vampire and even horror genres.

Galaxy Quest for instance, though not a Vampire movie follows the Fright Night template bit for bit.

Both Fright Night and Galaxy Quest revolve around actors who are known for playing monster hunters/heroes, who are down on their luck (and are parodies of real life genre icons, William Shatner and Peter Cushing.) Both are asked by their fans to help fight a real life example of the type of monsters/villain they always beat on tv. Both at first think their fans are just having a joke, and when they discover the truth they both want to run away, before finally facing their fear and becoming the hero their fans always thought they were.

These characters are popular, as for those who like the genres they are parodying, then they can be as effective heroes as any other for serious stories, yet to people who don’t like the genres they are parodying then they can be quite enjoyable send ups of all the cliches and staples of the genre.

8/ Vampire Detective

Related image

Originator: Hannibal King

Other Examples Angel: (Buffy and Angel) Nic Knight (Forever Knight)

The Detective genre has been merged with the Vampire genre more frequently and more successfully than any other.

The Detective genre and Vampire genres tend to take place in similar, gloomy, gothic surroundings. Little dark alleyways, seedy little bars, corrupt, crime laden underbelly’s of big city’s where someone can go missing and no one will even notice are the perfect environments for down on their luck detectives and Vampires.

The first ever Vampire Detective was Hannibal King, a recurring character in Marvel Comics series Tomb of Dracula. Hannibal had been turned by Deacon Frost, the same Vampire that killed Blade’s mother. Unlike all other Vampires he resisted the urge to feed on humans, and still continued to function as a detective tracking down both regular and paranormal criminals.

King eventually came into conflict with Blade who mistook him for a common Vampire at first. Blade eventually saw that King was different and together they would form a paranormal agency, the Nightstalkers who faced Dracula, Frost, and various other supernatural threats.

Hannibal King would go on to influence Angel, when the latter gained his own series and became a Vampire detective. Angel and Gunn’s relationship was somewhat similar to Hannibal King and Blade’s.

In both cases you have a character (Gunn, Blade) who live on the streets, hunt Vampires and who despise them fanatically because a family member was killed by Vampires (in both cases it was a young female relative who later became a Vampire and who they then had to kill.) This character then meets a goodguy detective Vampire who is a more reserved, quiet, contemplative character (Angel, King) and at first they try to kill them, and refuse to believe that a Vampire could be a good person, before eventually coming to see that King and Angel are different, after which both Blade and Gunn become part of a paranormal detective agency with Angel and King.

Another example of a Vampire Detective was the Canadian series Forever Knight. Here the Vampire in question, Nick Knight much like the later Angel, is on a quest for redemption after having spent hundreds of years killing people.

Forever Knight was somewhat different however in that he did not face other Vampires or supernatural creatures that often like Hannibal King or Angel. His series was often actually a straight detective series, though much like Angel there were often flashbacks to his mysterious past.

Other examples of Vampire Detective stories include the short lived American fantasy series Moonlight, another Canadian series named Blood Ties, and finally Nightwalker: The Midnight Detective, a Japanese series that revolves around a private detective who is secretly a Vampire named Shido and who by night fights Demons and other monsters including the Nightbreeds.

The Vampire Detective is an effective trope, but it can end up getting a bit more repetitive than some of the other examples on this page, as it is obviously tied to a specific genre.

9/ The Romantic, Conflicted Vampire

Image result for dracula's daughter

Originator: Carmilla Karnstein

Other Examples Angel (Buffy), Spike (Buffy), Lestat (The Vampire Chronicles), Dracula’s Daughter (Dracula’s Daughter), John Mitchell (Being Human), Salvatore Brothers (The Vampire Diaries),  Gary Oldman’s Dracula, (Dracula 1992), Frank Langella’s Dracula (Dracula 1979), Edward Cullen (Twilight)

Now obviously there can be overlap between this good guy Vampire and other characters like the Vampire Detective and superhero Vampire character.

Still I feel that this character is their own trope that doesn’t always have to be associated with the other two types of heroic Vampires.

This Vampire character can be either male or female just as often, unlike other characters who tend to largely be one gender.

This character will be a centuries old Vampire who in the past may have been one of the most evil. However they will renounce their evil ways when they meet someone they fall in love with who is good.

Unlike Blade who wants to control his thirst for human blood because its the right thing to do, this character is motivated solely by being in love which in some ways can make them seem more unsympathetic, yet in an odd way more human and relatable.

As a result of this, this character isn’t a Vampire hunter per se. They might be, but most of the time this Vampire just wants to try and live as normal a life as they can. Compare Mitchell from Being Human to Blade for instance. Yes Mitchell occasionally helps people and takes on Vampire kings like Herrick, but he’s not out every night actively hunting Vampires like Angel or Blade. Same applies to Carmilla, Lestat, and the Salvatore brothers.

These characters are more likely to be involved in a love triangle than in fighting monsters and they all tend to be quiet, mopey and brooding characters.

Finally this character may also be LGBT too. Carmilla, Dracula’s Daughter, and Lestat are all bisexuals.

In fact Dracula’s Daughter was even advertised as giving female viewers “a weird feeling”.

Image result for dracula's daughter she gives you that weird feeling

Of course some have naturally interpreted the association of Vampirism with homosexuality to be homophobic. It doesn’t help that they refer to women being attracted to women as “that weird feeling” in the poster for Dracula’s Daughter.

Still I think that most of the time, certainly in stories like The Vampire Chronicles and even in the older works, like Carmilla and Dracula’s Daughter, the good guy Vampire was used as a sympathetic metaphor for LGBT people. Much like LGBT people would have been at the time films like Dracula’s Daughter and stories like Carmilla were made, then the reformed, romantic Vampire is a character that is rejected by everyone simply because of who they are.

Humans obviously view them as freaks, but so will regular Vampires. Their love is also be seen as forbidden by all around them too.

Obviously its not a perfect metaphor, as in all fairness its understandable that humans might reject a Vampire, since they are monsters that kill people! Still no metaphor is perfect. The mutants in the X-Men are used as a metaphor for LGBT people (and other persecuted minorities.) However much like with Vampires, and unlike with LGBT people, you can kind of understand why some people might be a bit scared of mutants considering they can (and frequently do) shit like this.

Similarly the Daleks are good metaphors for racial hatred and the Nazis, but again they are obviously far more cartoonish, over the top and evil than even the most twisted and bigoted humans throughout history.

So no metaphor is completely perfect, but still at their core this type of Vampire character would have undoubtedly captured the feelings of loneliness and having to hide the knowledge of who you love, and ultimately just who you are that many LGBT people would have sadly been forced to live with.

This type of Vampire lead is the most popular among mainstream audiences. Most people like a good love story, and these characters are also often played by conventional attractive leads too.

Among hard core genre fans these characters tend to be a bit more polarising however. Obviously some examples such as Angel and Spike are very popular, but others tend to be viewed as more sappy, weak characters. I think a lot of genre fans also prefer Vampires to be evil monsters, so again something like True Blood which turns Vampires into sexy, misunderstood, tormented anti heroes, is obviously not going to be that popular among the Buffy, Peter Cushing crowd.

10/ Agent of Anti Paranormal Organisation

Originator: Hellboy

Other Notable Examples: Gabriel Van Helsing (Van Helsing), Riley Finn (Buffy)

This type of hero isn’t that popular. Hellboy is practically the only major iconic example. The 2004 Van Helsing though having developed a cult following, was largely a flop, whilst Riley is similarly one of (if not the) most disliked character in Buffy.

I think the reason as to why this character is less popular is perhaps because they are less vulnerable than other Vampire hunter characters.

The likes of Sam, Dean, Peter Cushing, even Buffy and Angel, all kind of had to do it themselves in terms of finding things out about monsters, getting weapons to fight them, and even just convince the authorities that they weren’t serial killers!

With this character however they have the backing of an entire organisation behind them, so they have access to an endless supply of weaponry, knowledge on Vampires and even cover ups for the police. There’s very little that can actually threaten them.

Still that’s not to say you can’t ever make these characters work as we have seen with Hellboy, but I think its more of a challenge than with other more famous Vampire hunter characters.

The Darkhorse character Hellboy who worked for the organisation called the B P R D really laid down the tropes that later versions of this type of character would follow.

There are many similarities between Hellboy and the Hugh Jackman version of Van Helsing for instance. Both are supernatural beings (a Demon and an Angel respectively) who arrived on earth under mysterious circumstances. Neither knows why they were sent to earth, and both were found by an organisation that hunts the paranormal, who took them in, and trained them to be warriors for their cause, whilst helping them try to understand their past.

Both also have a connection to their archenemy too, Rasputin and Dracula, though we don’t find out much about either’s mysterious link to the head Demon, or Vampire.

I think the fact that Jackman version of Van Helsing followed this template was why it didn’t really work. Its an enjoyable monster mash, and Hugh Jackman as always is great in the role.

However he isn’t really Van Helsing. Obviously I don’t expect Van Helsing to always be the same in every adaptation. The Cushing Van Helsing was younger and more dashing than the one from the novel.

However the two defining traits of Van Helsing’s character are that he is the greatest expert on Vampires, and that unlike Buffy and Blade, he is just an ordinary man who hunts Vampires. He followed in a long line of scholarly, gentlemanly heroes like Sherlock Holmes, and he was created to be Mr exposition and a way for Stoker to develop his supernatural world and creatures.

The Jackman version of Van Helsing doesn’t know anything about Vampires, Demons or monsters. In fact he has his own standard Cushing/Van Helsing who tells him about Vampires, called Carl.

He also is not just an ordinary man, being a former Angel, who becomes a Werewolf and kills Vampires using his superpowers.

Whilst the Cushing Van Helsing did do something new with the character, it still stuck to the core principles of his Stokers version, but when you look at Jackman’s version you can never imagine him as Van Helsing.

If the Jackman Van Helsing had been a totally original character then I think he would have been better thought of. Its kind of like the 98 version of Godzilla for instance who similarly did not resemble the character he was supposed to be.

The Bad Guys

1/ Vampire Supremacist

Image result for the master buffy

Originator: Bram Stokers Dracula

Other Notable Examples: The Master (Buffy), Herrick (Being Human), Deacon Frost (Blade), Alpha Vampire (Supernatural), Mr Snow (Being Human), Valek (Vampires), Azazel (Supernatural) Muriel (Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters)

My favourite type of Vampire villain. This guy is the antithesis to the romantic, conflicted Vampire who just wants to be human.

This Vampire will LOVE being a Vampire. He will regard his species as the ultimate race, obviously far above humans, but also above other supernatural creatures too. (If there are Werewolves around he will usually hold them in a special kind of contempt.)

He will want to create a world where humans are rounded up into cages like animals, bled slowly, and tortured for the Vampires amusement. (Again other supernatural creatures may get a similar treatment too.)

There will often be an alternate what if scenario where we see the Vampire Supremacist has succeeded and created this “perfect world”. All of the main heroes, (except for one who is able to turn things back) will either have been killed in the most horrific ways, or worse become the Vampire Supremacists most vicious minions, such as in the Buffy episode The Wish or Being Human’s 4th season.

This Vampire will be fond of going into big grandiose speeches about the superiority of Vampires and why they should rule the world such as the following.

Buffy: The Wish

The Master: Behold the technical wonder that is about to alter the very fabric of our society. Some would say such an advancement goes against our nature. I say to them. Well I don’t say anything to them because I kill them. Vampires! Undeniably we are the worlds superior race. Yet we have always been to parochial. Too bound to the mindless routine of the predator. Hunt and kill, hunt and kill, titilating? Yes. Practical? Hardly. Meanwhile the humans with their truly plebian minds have brought us a truly Demonic concept. Mass production!

Blade

Frost: Let me tell you what we are. We’re the top of the fucking food chain. Tonight the blood gods coming and everyone in his path will be turned. How are going to cure the whole fucking world.

He will also get angry when his human enemies think they can threaten him. He won’t just look down on humans, he will literally regard them as filth, and may even live under ground because he can’t stand being among them. He will absolutely despise any display of “humanity” he sees among his Vampire minions too.

Supernatural

Alpha Vampire: When your kind first huddled round the fire, I was the thing in the dark, and you think you can harm me! 

Of course he will be a complete hypocrite too in many of his beliefs. He will regularly murder his Vampiric minions in the most horrific ways for trivial failures, in spite of all of his brotherhood of Vampires shit, and will generally show no regard for them whatsoever.

The reason for this is because his belief in Vampiric superiority stems simply from the fact that he is one. If he were a human then he would be the most fanatical Vampire hunter. In some ways this kind of character reminds me of Eric Cartman in the classic South Park episode Ginger Kids.

In this episode Cartman goes on about how much he hates red haired people (he even compares them to Vampires), until Kyle sticks a red wig on him in the middle of the night. Believing he has suddenly become a ginger, Cartman leads a “red power” movement to conquer and exterminate all non red heads. He even says “I will not be part of a god damned minority!”

That is pretty much what the Vampire Supremacist character is. He’s not going to be part of a race that skulks in the shadows, lives in fear of their existence being found out by humanity. He’s going to make sure that his people are the master race for himself.

Yet another example of this characters hypocrisy is the fact that whilst he will often rant about hating human emotions and weaknesses etc. He will still have a favourite lackey that he will love like a child, and whose death may even break him.

Physically this Vampire also may look more monstrous (The Master, Mr Snow) again to highlight how little humanity he has and how much older he is.

This guy will also be far more powerful than any other Vampire. In fact he will probably be immune to most of their weaknesses and whenever our hero tries to take him on in a straight fight it will end in a curb stomp in his favour unquestionably. He will also kill various other Vampire hunters to show how badass he is. The hero will have to use some kind of trick, or dirty tactic to finally take him out.

He will also be very fond of badass boasts too like commenting on all the Vampire hunters he’s killed. He might even boast about having killed a famous figure in history. His age will never be revealed, but he will casually mention having been at an event which establishes him as truly ancient, like the fall of Rome, or he might even mention having met cavemen!

This character to me is the best type of Vampire villain for many reasons. To start with he can give us a Vampire villain that is evil, yet we can kind of understand in a way.

In many ways we don’t really have the moral high ground against Vampires. At the end of the day Vampires kill what they regard as lesser creatures to survive, just like we do. Indeed considering human beings don’t actually have to feed on animal flesh, where as Vampires in many pieces of Vampire fiction DO have to survive on human blood, humans actually could be considered worse.

Of course you might argue that Vampires treat their human victims worse than we do our animals, but really that argument doesn’t hold much water when you consider how poorly animals are treated.

So really in what way are Vampires worse than us? Obviously yes we are not going to root for Vampires, because we are their prey, but at the end of the day, we can’t really say that Vampires are worse than human beings. As Doctor Wu said in Jurassic World “monster is a relative term, to a canary a cat is a monster. We’re just used to being the cat.”

If Buffy, Peter Cushing and Dean Winchester go home and have a chicken leg, or a lamb chop or a cheese burger or a few strips of bacon for tea, well then they are complete hypocrites. This Vampire character will be aware of that, which can lead to a very interesting confrontation that does genuinely make the viewer question the heroes righteousness, even though they are up against a monster that is genuinely evil.

Added to that this Vampire also being so powerful, can help Vampires to regain some of their menace too in things like Buffy and Blade, where we see regular Vamps get overpowered and killed easily all the time. This guy will show you that a Vampire, provided its able to live long enough, can still be a truly unstoppable foe, even against the ultimate Vampire killers.

The great irony is that it was Bram Stokers version of Dracula that created this type of character, yet almost all versions of Dracula are not depicted this way.

Stokers Dracula is not a romantic character. He is an arrogant monster who has lived for hundreds of years, and he seeks to make Vampires the dominant race on the planet. This is why he travels to England as he hopes to use the British Empire to spread Vampirism like never before.

Like all of the usual Vampire Supremacists he has his favourite lackeys, but is willing to abandon them for his own safety. He also gets angry when people like Van Helsing think they can threaten him, famously  ranting “They would play their wits against mine. Me who commanded armies and nations before they were even born. Fools!

Sadly however for some reason this aspect usually gets left out of Dracula’s character whenever he is adapted, and many versions actually turn him into more of a low key villain, pursuing someone out of revenge, or because he is in love with them. It would be nice to see someone actually portray the original Vampire king properly on the big screen after all this time.

This character doesn’t always have to be a Vampire. You can have a Demon Supremacist who fulfils all of the same tropes too.

Azazel the Yellow Eyed Demon from Supernatural is a Demon version of this type of character, beat for beat.

Azazel believes that his kind, Demons should rule the earth, and regards humans as little more than filth. He spends years trying to bring this plan about by freeing his father, Lucifer himself.

Azazel also looks unique (with his yellow eyes) and is immune to many standard Demon weaknesses too. He is a sadistic monster who enjoys killing women in the most horrific ways, yet much like the Master with Darla, he does genuinely love his Demonic children, Meg and Tom.

Azazel: (To Dean) As far as I’m concerned this is justice. You know that little exorcism of yours? That was my daughter. That one in the alley? That was my boy. You understand.

Dean: You’ve got to be kidding me.

Azazel: What? You’re the only one who can have a family? You destroyed my children. How would you feel if I killed your family? (Smiles at Dean.) Oh that’s right I forgot, I did. Still two wrongs don’t make a right.

Dean: You son of a bitch.

Azazel: You know, you fight, and you fight, and you fight for this family, but the truth is they don’t kneed you. Not like you need them. Sam? He’s clearly John’s favourite. Even when they fight that’s more concern than he’s ever shown you.

Dean: I bet you’re real proud of your kids too huh? Oh wait I forgot, I wasted em.

Azazel really walked into that one!

Another non Vampire and non Demon example is Muriel, the Grand High Witch and main antagonist from the movie Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters.

Muriel wishes to allow her kind to rule the earth, and she is obviously far stronger than your average Witch. Also whilst preaching about how her kind should come together to rule the world, she memorably sends her minions through the booby trapped woods to see if its safe!

Generally speaking however this character is usually a Vampire, though much like with other stock Vampire characters, a Demon is most commonly used in place of a Vampire as seen with Azazel.

2/ The Just Want To Watch The World Burn Vampire

Originator: Christopher Lee’s Version of Dracula

Other Examples: Angelus (Buffy and Angel), Evil Hal (Being Human), Frost (Blade), Count Karnstein (Twins of Evil)

The most frightening and vicious Vampire villain of them all. This Vampire is a monster right through to his core. He will have no redeeming features, and no plans or ambitions except to torture and kill people.

These monsters will be dangerous to everyone and everything around them, even other Vampires and their most loyal servants. Most of the time he will kill someone not for food, but for his own amusement. He will also prolong his victims torture for as long as he possibly can.

When these Vampires plan something big, then it will be the destruction of the entire world. We’re not just talking about the end of human society like a Vampire Supremacist. His plan will literally kill everything on the planet, including all other Vampires too, and even himself, but he won’t care. For him it will be the ultimate act of horror and the perfect way to go out.

Finally this Vampire will also get the most horrific death. A simple stake is too good for him. In order to really make the audience happy after building him up to be the most evil monster this Vampire will need to really get his just deserts.

Christopher Lee’s Dracula was the one who established this type of Vampire in popular culture. Lee’s Dracula was a bloodthirsty monster who in contrast to later versions of the Vampire count, had no love or affection for the women he went after.

Indeed Lee’s Dracula was probably the least romantic version of the Vampire there has ever been. He didn’t always kill his victims just to feed. In many movies such as Dracula Has Risen From The Grave, Taste The Blood of Dracula and Dracula AD 1972, Dracula attempts to turn his female victims into Vampires just to torture their father, fiance or relative who had wronged him in some way.

Lee’s Dracula would also rape his female victims too, as he would force them to sleep with him using mind control. Furthermore after making them into Vampires he would always discard, beat, or even kill his brides because he didn’t want to have to share his kills with them.

In Scars of Dracula, Lee stabs his Vampire bride Tanya to death with a silver blade, and has her body burned in acid, whilst in Dracula Has Risen From the Grave, he regularly beats Zena, his human bride and demeans her. Later when she fails to bring him another woman he plans to make into a Vampire, he tortures her and makes her into a Vampire, before ordering his servant to burn her to death!

In Taste the Blood of Dracula meanwhile he brutally murders one of his Vampire brides when she attempts to get close to him, and dumps her body in the canal for her brother to find. Finally in Satanic Rites of Dracula he is shown to keep his Vampire brides chained up in a cellar, with all of them having been reduced to the level of animals.

Lee’s Dracula also didn’t always kill his victims to feed on them. He often killed for his own amusement, and he often killed his victims in the most horrific ways.

In Scars of Dracula, Lee’s version of the Vampire dispatches a horde of bats to devour all of the women and children in the town. Its one of the most disturbing moments in any Vampire film, as the men of the village, having believed they have finally rid themselves of Dracula after burning down his castle, arrive back at the church where they believe their wives and children were safe, only to find their mangled remains scattered all over the former house of god. Even the local priest himself declares the church to now be a place of evil!

Dracula’s treatment of Klove, his most loyal servant is no better meanwhile. Whenever Klove steps out of line, Dracula beats him with a whip, and then sticks a burning hot sword into his whip wounds! In Dracula Has Risen From The Grave, another example of his horrific treatment of his servants can be found in the way he forces a priest to do his bidding through mind control.

The weak willed Priest is forced to carry out such horrors on Dracula’s command as burning young women alive, bludgeoning other priests to death, and kidnapping young women for Dracula to rape, kill and make into blood drinking monsters! The priest is awake throughout all of it, yet can’t resist the Vampires sadistic commands.

In Satanic Rites of Dracula, the Vampire finally decides to end the world. Having grown bored of his immortal existence, Lee’s Dracula desires to rest forever, but naturally wants to not only go out in a blaze of horror, but take down the entire world with him.

So he creates a plague that is spread by touch, and kills its victims in the most horrific way possible. It literally eats the flesh from the bones, and it stimulates the pain receptors of its victims to the absolute maximum they can be stimulated. It also kills its victims over the course of several days, and can infect and destroy any animal on the planet, not just humans.

Dracula intends to exterminate every single life form on earth with the plague, using his four carriers, (one of which he intends to be his archenemy Van Helsing, with Jessica Van Helsing meanwhile being turned into a Vampire, so that she will be immune to the plague, and be forced to watch as everyone and everything she knows and loves is destroyed!)

Dracula’s servants believed that he was only going to use the plague as a deterrent to force the world powers to obey their commands, and when one of them protests, Dracula actually forces him to infect himself using his mind control. Its one of the most gruesome scenes in the entire Hammer Dracula catalogue as we see the virus slowly eat away his flesh.

Finally Lee’s Dracula would also always suffer an extremely painful and humiliating death too. He was burned in the sun, drowned, impaled on a cross and melted into a puddle of blood, struck by lightening and set on fire, and trapped in a hawthorn bush and shredded.

Lee’s Dracula was the ultimate horror movie monster. A totally evil creature that was devoid of any conscience, who was as cruel to his servants and brides as he was to his enemies and victims, and killed people in the most horrific and painful ways, whilst also dying in the most spectacular and over the top ways too.

He made a huge impact on the horror genre, and naturally we started to see other Vampire villains created in a similar mould, including Count Karnstein from the Hammer movie, Twins of Evil.

Karnstein is shown to be a sadistic, bloodthirsty maniac even before he becomes a Vampire. He kills not just to survive, but for fun and has no regard for his Vampire brides who he regularly beats and sacrifices for his own survival.

There were also elements of this in Frost’s character from Blade. Whilst he wanted to take over for the good of his people, Frost was still an unrelenting sadist who didn’t always kill just to feed as seen here.

Frost also just like Lee’s Dracula suffers a truly heinous death (its definitely the most horrific out of the three main Vampire villains in the series.)

Vampires in general following Lee’s Dracula were made to be more sadistic monsters. For instance in Buffy all Vampires are shown to enjoy torturing their victims. To be fair though this was as a result of the rise of the Vampire hunter as a major character. If we are going to root for the person who kills Vampires, then the Vampire itself has to be a monster that we don’t mind be killed in the most horrible ways regularly.

Still Lee’s Dracula was really the first such example and in many ways the template for those who came after.

Definitely the most successful and iconic example of this type of Vampire after Lee’s Dracula was Angelus, Angel’s evil counterpart from the Buffy/Angel franchise.

Angelus is every bit as evil and twisted as Christopher Lee’s Dracula. He enjoys torturing his victims in the most brutal ways for hours, possibly days on end. He also enjoys breaking his victims psychologically as seen with the likes of Drusilla and Holtz whose loved ones he kills, and who he both drives insane. Angelus is also shown to take a particular delight in torturing and raping his female victims too such as Holtz’ wife or the gypsy girl he spent an hour torturing and raping to death.

Angelus: Chicks just love a good accent. Makes em all buttery in the nether regions. Isn’t that right Fred? You know I had a bit of an Irish brogue back in the day. If you like I can use it on you when I rape you to death!

Angelus also is shown to kill people more often for his own amusement than to feed. Arguably the most infamous example of this can be seen when he murders Jenny Calendar, Giles’ girlfriend and later places her corpse in Giles bed, setting things up to look as though she is waiting for him up stairs.

We later find out he has done this to his other victims too, including one instance where he snapped the necks of several infants and laid them in their crib for their father to find. It was only when the father leaned in to kiss them goodnight and felt how cold they were that he found out the truth.

Finally Angelus is such a bastard that even other Vampires hate him because he is just as cruel to them too. When Spike is in a wheelchair, Angelus sleeps with his girlfriend Drusilla, and taunts Spike about it for months on end until Spike eventually turns against him, allies with Buffy and beats Angelus with a crowbar.

Spike: Have you forgotten that you’re a bloody guest in my bloody home.

Angelus: And as a guest if there is anything I can do for you, any responsibility I can assume while you’re spinning your wheels… (looks over at Drusilla) Anything I’m not already doing that is.

Spike: NOW THAT’S ENOUGH (leans out of his chair to punch him, Angelus laughs.)

Similarly when he first meets the Master he insults the elder Vampire to the point where he beats him to a bloody pulp. I love the way Angelus as you can see here literally can’t stop being an asshole no matter what. Even when he is in the presence of someone like the Master who could kill him in like three seconds flat, he still insults him because he doesn’t know how to not be an asshole.

One thing the Master, Giles, Spike and Buffy all have in common is wanting to smash this bastards face in. 

Finally Hal’s evil persona in Being Human is similar in that much like Angelus he enjoys killing for fun. We can see this when he calmly chokes the Werewolf Larry to death, taunting him before hand, and calmly telling Larry “this is the real me!

The just want to watch the world burn Vampire is obviously not the most complex Vampire villain, but he is still nevertheless by far and away the most terrifying.

He really takes advantage of what it is that makes Vampires such effective monsters. Monsters like Zombies and Werewolves are not really evil. They are just animals who kill for food.

A Vampire however is a thinking creature that is aware that it has to kill other sentient creatures to survive. There are obviously many avenues you can go down as a result of this that you can’t with something like a Zombie, or even other thinking monsters like Demons and Witches who don’t have to kill to survive like a Vampire.

You can obviously have a Vampire try and find another way to survive, or you can have it look at it from a practical way of what its doing is no worse than what humans do to animals, or you can have it actually enjoy having the power to take people’s lives like Angelus and the Lee Dracula, which is all the more terrifying.

This character can obviously only be featured in the darkest type of Vampire story.

3/ The Broken, Vengeful, Twisted Vampire Killer

Originator: Daniel Holtz (Angel)

Other Notable Examples: Gordon Walker (Supernatural), Kemp (Being Human)

The dark counterpart to the vengeful crusader. This character is also quite a nice counterpart to the Vampire Supremacist as he is essentially the same character, just on the other side.

This character will hate Vampires because his loved ones were killed by them. There’s a good chance that he will have had to kill his loved one who was turned into a Vampire too. He will often carry something around that reminds him of his deceased loved one.

This character will seem like a hero at first, as ultimately he just wants to rid the world of Vampires like Buffy, Blade or Van Helsing. However as time goes on we will see that he is far more unstable and fanatical. He will want to kill any Vampire, or Demon regardless of its alignment, and he will also be willing to murder innocent people too. This character will also often suffer an ironic fate, maybe being turned into the very monster he hated, or being punished in the same way as he did others.

Daniel Holtz from Angel was really the first example of this type of character. Holtz was inspired by Xena’s archenemy Callisto. Callisto was a warrior who had been driven insane when Xena burned her village to the ground and killed her family. Callisto is even more embittered when Xena reforms and becomes celebrated as a hero, and tries to make Xena pay through any means necessary.

Holtz was a Vampire hunter whose family were murdered by Angelus. Much like Callisto, Holtz is even more embittered when the murderer of his family reforms and becomes a hero, and still tries to ruin his life any way he can. (Both Holtz and Callisto target the children of Angel and Xena, and ironically are only able to thanks to the misguided, but ultimately treacherous actions of the heroes best friend, Wesley and Gabrielle, both of whom the hero tries to kill afterwards.)

Holtz was a truly fantastic villain who was played superbly by Keith Szarabajka. Holtz would lay down almost all of the tropes that this type of character was to follow.

At first he seemed like he was a genuine hero, as he hunted Vampires to protect the innocent, and even in his feud with Angel he at first wanted to slay the Vampire to actually free his human soul from the torment he was in.

However as time goes on it becomes obvious that all he actually cares about is revenge, and worse he is willing to take away an innocent child’s life and turn him against his father, as well as manipulate other, broken and damaged people for his own ends, and even kill innocent people like Wesley.

Holtz is aware of how twisted he has become, even saying to his right hand woman Justine that he knows he is going to hell before he makes her kill him.

It was a great twist to have what would normally have been the main hero in any other Vampire story become the villain. Holtz is the same as Captain Kronos, Jack Crow, even Blade. All 4’s loved ones were killed by and turned into Vampires and all 4 have as a result devoted themselves to destroying them. With Holtz however unlike those characters he not only comes across a Vampire that isn’t evil, which throws the righteousness of his crusade into question, but its actually the same Vampire that killed his loved ones and so sadly he ends up becoming seen as a villain by the audience.

Another character that would follow a similar template was Gordon Walker from Supernatural. Walker much like Holtz lost a loved one to Vampires, his sister, who was also turned and who he later killed.

Walker at first seems like just another hunter, and he and Dean Winchester even bond. However it soon becomes apparent that much like Holtz he is a fanatic who views all supernatural creatures as being the same.

We see this when he captures and brutally tortures a reformed Vampire named Lenore (played by Amber Benson, best known as Tara on Buffy.)

Later Gordon tries to kill Sam Winchester when he finds out that he has Demon blood, though in the process he ends up getting a wonderfully ironic death when he is turned into a Vampire as punishment for the Vampires he has killed in the past.

Gordon is condemned to an eternity as the thing he hates. In Supernatural, the souls of monsters such as Vampires, Werewolves, Ghouls, Shapeshifters, and Djinns go to Purgatory when they die instead of heaven or hell.

Purgatory essentially resembles a giant never ending forest and the monsters hunt each other there for all eternity. Whenever they die in Purgatory, they will come back to life again and thus are doomed to die over and over again forever.

To me this was the greatest piece of lore from Supernatural, as it made the Vampires and Werewolves far more terrifying than ever before. In other pieces of Vampire fiction when someone becomes a Vampire its tragic, but at least they are freed when they are slain. Here however when you die you are still a Vampire, and worse, you are sent somewhere where you will never see your loved ones ever again, and be forced to fight and kill other monsters.

It doesn’t matter if you were a good person as a human before you became a Vampire, and it doesn’t even matter if you are a heroic Vampire who uses his powers to fight other members of your kind like Blade. Similarly you can be a Werewolf who does his best to make sure that you never escape on the night of the full moon and live a perfectly otherwise normal life, like George Tully from Being Human or Oz from Buffy.

When you die you are still going to Purgatory, away from your human loved ones who go to Heaven, where you will be stuck in your wolf or monster form, having to fight other monsters for all eternity.

With this in mind it truly is the perfect fate for Gordon a man who spent his entire life hunting Vampires, to spend eternity in the forests of Purgatory as a Vampire, hunting them and all of the other monsters.

On the one hand its his worst nightmare being the thing he hates, yet on the other, killing Vampires is what his idea of heaven would look like anyway. One can only imagine he will be chasing the Vampire who turned him forever, though at the same time he will be chased by many of the Vampires who he killed, including his own sister! That will be an awkward family reunion to say the least.

Finally another example of this type of character is Kemp from Being Human. Kemp much like Holtz saw his wife and children killed by Vampires and devoted the rest of his life to destroying them. Though he views Vampires as the most abhorrent supernatural creatures, he is still shown to want to wipe out Werewolves and Ghosts too, regardless of their moral alignment.

Kemp is also shown to be willing to murder innocent people in his quest, including his own assistant who he brutally stabs to death in order to exorcise Annie, and later Jaggat who he kills simply for associating with a Vampire, a Ghost and a Werewolf.

Much like Holtz, Kemp keeps a reminder of his wife and children’s death. Holtz would often sing the lullaby he used to sing to his daughter (and that he sang to her the final time he held her in her arms, after she had become a Vampire, just before he threw her into the sun.)

Kemp meanwhile carries the blood soaked bible he used to ward off the Vampires that killed his family.

Finally Kemp like Gordon Walker also meets a fitting end when Annie, a ghost he exorcised against her will, brings him into her dimension.

This character is obviously always paired against a more heroic Vampire or supernatural creature to show what a fanatic they are, but I think it would be interesting to see this type of character go up against the Vampire Supremacist too.

Obviously you’d still always need a good guy Vampire there, or else this character would just end up being the hero.

Still I’d love to see a Kemp/Holtz/Gordon Walker go up against a Master/Frost/Herrick/Dracula type of character. There’d be room for some brilliant conflict between these two fanatics, who in many ways are just the same, but on different sides.

4/ The Romantic, Conflicted Vampire

Related image

Originator: Dracula’s Daughter

Other Notable Examples: Jerry Daindridge (Fright Night), Count Dracula (Gary Oldman Version)

This Vampire is obviously similar to the good guy, conflicted romantic Vampire character like Lestat, with the key difference being that he just simply isn’t strong enough to give up feeding on humans.

He hates being a Vampire, will actually feel guilt over his actions, and will even fall in love, but ultimately he or she just won’t be strong enough to overcome being a monster. When they die they will often have a look of peace on their face, and may even thank the person who killed them.

Of course this character will still ultimately be a villain, and will still do absolutely horrific things. The fact that they will also often be a love rival for the main hero may also cause them to behave in a more deplorable way than other Vampire villains, as after all love makes us do crazy things.

This Vampire tends to be a polarising villain among fans of the genre. Obviously in some ways he can be a more complex type of villain than say the want to watch the world burn Vampire, but at the same time he can also be a bit more mopey, and is extremely limited compared to other Vampire villains as all he can really be in are love triangle stories.

5/ The Young Upstart Vampire

Related image

Originator: David From The Lost Boys

Other Notable Examples: Spike (Buffy and Angel), Frost (Blade film series only)

This type of Vampire much like the Vampire Supremacist LOVES being a Vampire, but its in a different kind of way.

Where as the Vampire Supremacist will develop an ideology about why his people are the rightful rulers of the earth, this guy will love being a Vampire in a more shallow way. He will love having super strength, being young and sexy forever, being able to fly, being able to drink loads, and smoke and not have to worry about his health etc.

He will be an adrenaline junkie, and have a real love for aspects of modern popular culture, like television series, music, and will often dress in modern clothing too (as opposed to other Vampires who tend to dress in more extravagant, old fashioned clothes.)

Finally this Vampire will be in some kind of conflict with the more old fashioned type of Vampire. Perhaps it will be because he is drawing too much attention to them with his antics, but whatever the case he will not behave in a way Vampires are supposed to, much to the annoyance of his fellow Vampires, and Vampire hunters alike.

David from the Lost Boys who was played by Kiefer Sutherland really pioneered this type of character. Though he wasn’t technically the main villain of the film, he was still nevertheless its most popular character and he would along with Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious be one of the three main inspirations on Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  (Spike’s relationship with Drusilla was inspired by Sid and Nancy, but James Marsters said he based his swagger, and cocky attitude on Johnny Rotten, even telling Joss Whedon “I’m going to give you Johnny”)

One of the main influences for Spike.

Still despite the influence of the Sex Pistols two front men, there is a lot of David in Spike. Even just physically the two are very similar, with their platinum blonde hair and dark leather coats.

Spike’s whole character is based on challenging what we think we know about Vampires.  He rejects the Master and the Order of Aulerius’ way of life from the start, even declaring “from now on there is going to be a lot less ritual and a little more fun around here”. He is also shown to embrace human culture, and have genuine romantic feelings for Drusilla. Later he is even shown to fall in love with a Slayer.

Spike went against what people believed Buffyverse Vampires could do, both in universe and in the real world, which is what made him both a popular and controversial character.

Finally another example of this type of character was Frost in the original Blade movie. As we have seen Frost embodied elements of other Vampire stock characters too, but there were definitely traces of this type of character in him too.

In the comics Frost was a much older, more mature character, and a Vampire supremacist, but for the 98 film he was a much younger, more modern, upstart who wanted to challenge the Vampire traditions of remaining hidden and blending into human society. Much like Spike did with the Anointed One, Frost kills the stuffy, more old fashioned Vampires and takes charge.

This type of Vampire villain though not as common as other types tends to still be very popular among fans and viewers. Not only is he often a lot younger, and more attractive than the stuffy old, often inhuman Vampire kings, but he is also a lot more fun too. He isn’t mopey, doesn’t spend all his time skulking in a crumbling old castle or a crypt. He actually does make it look like its cool being a Vampire. You get to play by nobody’s rules but your own, stay up all night, and kill anyone who pisses you off. What’s not to like?

The fact that he also doesn’t follow the usual Vampire traditions and expectations means that he is also obviously a much more unpredictable character than any other type of Vampire villain too.

6/ Hiding in Plain Sight Villain

Image result for D.D DenhamImage result for Wolfram and Hart

Originator: D.D. Denham (The Satanic Rites of Dracula)

Other Notable Examples: Grand High Witch (The Witches), Dick Roman (Supernatural), The Mayor (Buffy), Wolfram and Hart (Angel)

This monster will be a villain who not only has resources, but is a respected public figure. They will be a philanthropist, known to the public as a kind, generous person in their private life and be the last person anyone could suspect of any wrong doing. Of course behind closed doors they will be the worst, most deplorable monster.

D.D. Denham in the last (and in my opinion one of the greatest) Hammer Draculas really pioneered this type of character.

D.D. Denham was Dracula’s latest alias. To the public he was a powerful, eccentric, reclusive, but generous millionaire, but in secret he was not only capturing girls, torturing them and making them into Vampires, but he was also creating a plague to wipe out humanity!

In a way D.D Denham can be seen as an unintentional metaphor for men like Harvey Weinstein who abuse women and are able to use their connections and influence to not only get away with it, but actually be seen as respected and admired figures in most people’s eyes.

Lee’s Dracula was always portrayed as a sexual predator. He does rape his victims as well as kill them, and the fact that he can now get away with it in the modern world, (and even keep young women essentially as his sex slaves in the dungeon of his house.) Actually makes him more terrifying than ever before.

Like so many of the victims of scumbags like Weinstein, or the victims in grooming gangs in places like Rochdale, Denhams victims are completely ignored, with even Van Helsing not being aware for two years that Dracula is preying on these girls, who quickly go on the missing persons list and are then quietly forgotten about.

The Grand High Witch from Roald Dahl’s novel and the later film adaptation (where she was played by Anjelica Huston) may be an even more disturbing example meanwhile.

She was the head of the leading charity to help children in the United Kingdom. Furthermore all of the other board members of said charity were her minions. In Dahl’s story, Witches are Demons who hate children and use their magics to torture and kill them in horrific ways (like trapping Erica in the painting, or worst of all in the novel, turning children into hot dogs and feeding them to their parents whilst they are still conscious!)

There is a frightening moment in the book, when Luke is playing with his pets in a room the charity for children’s safety is about to take place in, and assumes that these people who love children, won’t mind a little boy playing with his pets whilst they set up their meeting.

He of course gets a rather nasty surprise when they take their faces off! (In the novel this essentially costs him his life, as unlike the happy ending of the film where he is turned back from being a mouse. In the book he remains a mouse at the end and is told that he will die in about 8 years, meaning he’ll only live to 16!)

Just as D. D. Denham was a perfect metaphor for sexual predators like Harvey Weinstein, then the Witches are a perfect metaphor for twisted individuals that target children such as Jimmy Savile who use their public status as a supposed “friend to all children” to both make themselves untouchable and gain access to victims.

Much like with D.D Denham and his victims who suffer in silence, what the Witches do to children as flamboyant as it may seem, has a certain real horror to it in scenes like this.

Here we have a boy attending a meeting that his parents think is made up of people who love children, but who actually want to do him harm, and who are relishing in the fact that he is alone in their company.

The Mayor in Buffy meanwhile is obviously similarly a metaphor for not only how politicians behind closed doors can have shadier personalities and motives, but also how they may even be in the pocket of a criminal underbelly who’ve helped them get to power (with Mayor Wilkins being a Demon worshipper who by paying tributes and making sacrifices to the monsters of Sunnydale has gained the influence and supernatural powers he has.)

Whilst the Mayor was a great villain of course, he was a slightly more humorous example of this type of character than the Grand High Witch and D.D. Denham. In one scene we see that he actually keeps human skulls and bones in his closet!

Joss Whedon played with this trope again in Angel of course with Wolfram and Hart, the Demonic law firm. Wolfram and Hart much like Mayor Wilkins could be used in a humorous way, with the joke obviously being Lawyers as Demons. Still there were obviously darker elements such as a senator who is served by Wolfram and Hart being willing to brainwash her rival into being a pedophile.

Being Human and Charmed also play with this trope too with Herrick, the Vampire king being the head of police, and Cole being both a Demon and a Lawyer too.

The Leviathans meanwhile in Supernatural were also corporate monsters, who played on conspiracy theories of those in the top trying to brainwash us by spiking our food and control how the masses think and act.

These villains bring monsters into our modern world like never before, and so naturally as the setting of Vampire and Demon stories has shifted to modern day, then these villains have become among the most common.

7/ Exotic, Otherworldly, Ghostly Vampire

Originator: Dracula (Bela Lugosi Version)

Other Notable Examples: Dracula’s Daughter, Dracula (Frank Langella Version), Dracula (Buffy Version)

This Vampire villain is almost like a Ghost. They will creep about in the shadows, live in old crumbling castles, and a greater emphasis will be placed on their hypnotic powers.

Unlike other Vampires who use their super strength and physical powers, these guys will instead place people under their thrall with just one glance.

There will always be a certain romantic aspect to these Vampires personalities. They may not be in love in with their victims, but they will at the very least not hate them. They will view turning someone into a Vampire as a positive thing as they are making them young and beautiful forever.

This Vampire will also often be somewhat more exotic looking and very beautiful physically, yet there will be a certain stiff, cold aspect to their mannerisms and appearance.

These were among the original movie Vampires and in some ways set the template for almost all who followed.

Bela Lugosi, the original and for many still the greatest Dracula, pioneered this type of Vampire in the original Universal version of Stokers novel. Lugosi’s Dracula was an alluring, attractive, icey character in contrast to the more savage, powerful monster from the book.

Lugosi even became something of a sex symbol for his role (at one point he received more fan mail than even Clark Gable!) This would of course twist the public’s perception of Vampires into being more attractive creatures in popular culture, setting the stage for later more romantic Vampires.

For the next few decades almost all film Vampires would similarly be portrayed as more hypnotic, otherworldly, charming characters.

Gradually however these types of Vampire characters would be phased out following the onset of the Hammer movies.

Hammer focused more on the Vampires physical powers, such as their superhuman strength, and the horror around Vampires was more visceral and explicit. Rather than watch Vampires creep about in the shadows, and hypnotise people, we would see them burst into a room with blood stained fangs, grabbing people by the throat and tossing them across rooms.

As the decades rolled on, later Vampire films and television series would expand on what Hammer started to the point where we have modern day Vampires jumping hundreds of feet in the air and ripping people to pieces.

You can see how Vampires physical prowess and powers overall have changed over the years.

This brilliant sketch from Armstrong and Miller pokes fun at how much Vampires have changed over the years.

Whilst this type of character may be seen by some as old fashioned, it still nevertheless set the template for romantic and appealing Vampires in general in popular culture, whilst the image of Dracula is still largely Bela Lugosi too.

The black widows peak, the long flowing cape, the penguin suit, and the thick Hungarian accent all come from Lugosi, rather than the Stokers novel.

Occasionally writers may return to this model such as the Buffyverse version of Dracula.

8/ Jiang Shi (Chinese, Hopping Vampires)

Originator: Chinese Mythology

Other Notable Examples: The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires, Mr Vampire, Mr Vampire 2, Encounters of the Spooky Kind, Mr Vampire 4, Vampire vs Vampire.

The Jiang Shi were originally completely different monsters to Vampires. They were undead monsters from Chinese mythology who fed on the souls of their victims. They were as single minded as animals, never spoke, only roared and had hideous rotting faces. Myths about the Jiang Shi developed entirely independently from European myths about Vampires, but when Western stories about Vampires began to make their way to China, then the Chinese began to associate European Vampires with their own Jiang Shi. Dracula was even referred to as a blood sucking Jiang Shi in the Chinese translation.

It would be in the 1970s Hammer movie, The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires that the Jiang Shi would actually be made into Chinese Vampires for the first time. The Jiang Shi in Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires were as single minded as animals like the Jiang Shi from myths. They also had hideous rotting faces, and whilst they drank blood, they could also steal people’s souls and turn them into mindless zombie servants (who like the Jiang Shi from myths would hop up and down when they moved.)

The Jiang Shi make their film debut.

Whilst The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires did introduce the Jiang Shi to film audiences and gave them more Western Vampire traits such as a thirst for human blood. It would later be the Hong Kong Mr Vampire film series that would cement their place as a classic movie monster around the world.

Starring the late Lam Ching Ying, the Mr Vampire film series led to a massive horror boom in the East, comparable to the one that Universal kicked off in America in the 30s and 40s, and that Hammer studios kicked off in Britain in the 50s and 60s.

The Jiang Shi from the Mr Vampire movies were referred to as both Jiang Shi and Vampires, and they had a number of traits of both European Vampires and Jiang Shi. They feed on blood like European Vampires rather than souls, but they have hideous rotting faces, are as single minded as animals, and move by hopping up and down like the Jiang Shi of myths.

Their weaknesses are also a combination of European Vampires and Jiang Shi. They are killed by piercing the heart like European Vampires, but are vulnerable to Chinese herbs and enchantments like the Jiang Shi.

The Mr Vampire films were hugely successful in China and Hong Kong, and they would develop a very strong cult following in the west too. From that point on the Jiang Shi have not only appeared in some Western works such as Kim Newman’s Anno Dracula series, but they are now almost always referred to as Chinese Vampires.

The Jiang Shi are almost always depicted as villains, but the most common heroic Jiang Shi in films is a friendly Jiang Shi child. This character will often be presented in a more comical way. He will be a sweet friendly boy who likes using his Vampire powers to play harmless tricks on people. The first example of this type of character was Wee Okay Boy in Mr Vampire 2.

Whilst there are myths about undead Demons that feed on people to survive in almost every culture. the Jiang Shi have undoubtedly become the most famous around the world, alongside the classic Western Vampire and Zombie.

9/ Degenerate, Aristocratic Vampires (British Vampires)

Originator: Christopher Lee’s Dracula

Other Notable Examples: Baron Meinster (The Brides of Dracula), Doctor Ravna (Kiss of the Vampire), Count Karnstein (Twins of Evil), Count Mitterhouse (Vampire Circus), Dracula (Marvel Version)

This Vampire is most commonly found in British fiction, and in many ways they could be considered British Vampires, the same way the Jiang Shi are Chinese Vampires.

These characters will have been aristocrats in life, and probably cruel, horrible people before they became Vampires too. In contrast to the Lugosi Dracula who lives in crumbling castles, these Vampires will live in polished, luxurious castles, filled with beautiful art and fancy furniture. He will be pompous, arrogant and dress in fancy over the top clothes. He will also be a colossal pervert, with his crimes almost always being sexual in nature.

Everyone in the local village will know this character is a Vampire, and they will want to kill him, but will be too terrified to even lift a finger against him. It won’t just be because of his power as a Vampire but his influence as nobleman or a count.

The Vampire will be aware of this and will always taunt and laugh at the villagers for being pathetic cowards.

Whenever the villagers do finally rise up and strike out against him, then it will end very badly for them. We see this in Scars of Dracula of course when the villagers attempt to burn Dracula’s castle, and in response Dracula sends bats to slaughter all of the women and children in the village who are hiding in a church, and in Vampire Circus, where Count Mitterhouse after being staked, curses the villagers that they will all die, their children will die and their town will die (all of which comes true!)

This character grew out of Hammer’s habit of portraying their villains as vicious members of the upper class. In movies like Taste the Blood of Dracula, The Curse of the Werewolf, and Frankenstein Created Women, the monsters are all created by spoiled rich brats, land owners and lords.

These Vampire characters continued this tradition brilliantly and served as the perfect metaphors for corruption and decadence at the top of society.

10/ Fists and Fangs, Thug Vampires (American Vampires)

Originator: The Lost Boys

Other Notable Examples: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Blade, Supernatural

The opposite to the British, Aristocratic, pompous Vampire. This Vampire will live in crappy, rundown, abandoned warehouses, mouldy old crypts, or even in the sewers.

They will grab people off the streets at night and kill them, though they may also take them back to their lair and torture them for their own amusement.

These Vampires can look human but will almost always revert to a more monstrous form when feeding. They will tend to dress in more toned down, normal clothes like leather coats and they will talk in a more casual, common way.

These Vampires are used as a metaphor for thugs, street predators, rapists and gang violence. A classic example of this can be found in the Angel Episode, Warzone.

Here the fight between Vampire hunter Charles Gunn’s team and a local pack of Vampires is written as being more like a gang war than anything else. When the Vampires all pile on top of Charles Gunn’s sister to feed on her, its treated almost like a gang rape.

Just as the British Vampires were the perfect metaphors for corruption at the top of society, these Vampires were excellent metaphors for the worst kind of scum at the bottom of society.

These Vampires only tend to pop up in American series like Blade, Supernatural and Buffy. Thus just as the Jiang Shi are the Chinese Vampires, the perverted, corrupt Aristocrats are British Vampires, then these guys can really be seen as the modern day American Vampire.

11/ Vampires Who Can Make Their Blood Into Weapons (Asian Vampires)

Originator: Vampire Girl vs Frankenstein Girl

Other Notable Examples: Vampire Detective

These Vampires appear to be quite common in Asian films and television series such as the Japanese film Vampire Girl vs Frankenstein Girl and the South Korean television series, Vampire Detective. They have the power when to turn their blood in weapons such as axes, swords or projectiles that can cut their victims to pieces.

These Vampires however are almost always presented as the protagonists, as after all a Vampire this powerful would be a lot harder for Buffy, Peter Cushing or Blade to kill.

These Vampires will tend to be somewhat more surreal, over the top and even somewhat comical compared to other Vampires.

Asian Vampires are fucking awesome!

12/ Ugly, Freak, Outcast Vampire

Originator: Count Orlock (Nosferatu)

Other Notable Examples: The Master (Buffy), Count Orlock (Klaus Kinski version), Nomak (Blade 2), Kurt Barlow (Salem’s Lot)

This Vampire character is utterly repulsive to look at. He will be bald headed, have rat like teeth, pale skin, and long, dirty talons.

He will usually be an evil Vampire that despises humanity and is not presented as being romantic on the surface, but underneath unlike the Vampire Supremacist he might be full of self loathing and guilt. He will only be so evil, and twisted because he has been rejected for ever his appearance, and knows he will never fit in.

This Vampire will show us how horrible it actually is being a Vampire. In a lot of other works Vampires can end up being more of a teenage fantasy. Being a Vampire can even look quite cool. You get super powers, never get sick, never age. Yes there’s the whole bloodlust thing, but even that often looks quite easy to control in certain films and tv series.

This type of Vampire however shows a different side to the myth. Here when you become a Vampire, you end up as an ugly, foul smelling, rotting, beast, condemned to spend eternity alone.

These monsters are both terrifying and pitiful, and ironically despite their more demonic appearance, in some ways they can end up having the most complex personalities of any Vampire villain.

In many ways this is the second most popular image of Vampires in popular culture after the attractive, alluring Vampire. In some ways, all Vampire characters can broadly be split into these two categories.

13/ Monster God

Originator: The Old Ones (HP Lovecraft)

Other Notable Examples: The Old Ones (Buffy and Angel), Lucifer (Supernatural), Eve (Supernatural), Captain Hatch (Being Human),  La Magra (Blade) The Dark Ones (Ash vs Evil Dead)

This character is an ancient monster responsible for creating the main race of monsters in the franchise, be they Vampires or Demons. He will have been sealed away in another universe many centuries ago and passed into legend, even among the supernatural.

Still the Vampires and Demons (who he may have created as a way of escaping) will naturally worship him, and seek to bring him back to our world so he can overrun humanity and allow the Vampires or Demons to finally rule the earth.

The great irony is that this monster will often not care for the Vampires or Demons he created. He will view them as nothing but cannon fodder at best, and may even be disgusted at them for some reason, and ultimately seek to wipe them out once they have fulfilled their use.

The Old Ones from Buffy followed this template beat for beat. They were the original Demons who ruled the earth and were far more powerful than any other breed. They created Vampires, after feeding on and infecting a human, who became the first Vampire.

Many Vampires want to bring the Old Ones (who were banished to another universe before human history began) back, including the main season 1 villain The Master, who in the season finale manages to open the Hellmouth and briefly bring the Old Ones back into our world.

The irony is however that the Old Ones are shown to regard Vampires as nothing but half breeds, and look down on the greatly as seen with the Old One Illyria. Had the Master succeeded in bringing the Old Ones back it probably would have spelled trouble for him and his kind, as they would have been Z-class citizens at best in the world the Old Ones would have created.

In Supernatural we see a similar relationship between Lucifer and the Demons (the main antagonists of the series.)

Lucifer created Demons in Supernatural before he was sealed away in hell. Azazel and many other Demons not only view him as their god, but seek to free Lucifer from his cage.

Unfortunately for Azazel and the rest of his Demons, Lucifer actually despises them. He does just regard them as cannon fodder to use in his war against the Angels, but actually despises them. Lucifer in Supernatural after all hates humanity because he views them as corrupt and decadent. Imagine what he must think of his own children!

Unlike the Vampires in Buffy however, at least one Demon in Supernatural, Crowley comes to this conclusion and tries to help Sam and Dean stop Lucifer, simply to save his own skin.

CROWLEY: I want you to take this thing to Lucifer and empty it into his face.

DEAN: Uh okay and why exactly would you want the Devil dead?

CROWLEY: Survival. Lucifer isn’t a Demon.  He’s an Angel remember. An Angel famous for his hatred of humankind. To him, you’re just filthy little bags of pus. If that’s the way he feels about you. What can he think about us.

SAM: But he created you?

CROWLEY: To him we’re just servants. Cannon fodder. If Lucifer manages to exterminate humankind, we’re next.

In Being Human, Captain Hatch (The Devil) similarly created Vampires, Ghosts and Werewolves and is shown to regard all of them as nothing more than fodder and a food supply.

Finally Eve in Supernatural is similarly the mother of all monsters, though unlike Lucifer she does actually care about her “children”. Still she fulfils the same basic idea of being a monster God who was sealed away for many centuries only to be brought back by her monster followers in the hopes that she can create a world where they will rule.

The original monster Gods were of course the Old Ones created by HP Lovecraft. The Old Ones were ancient monster gods who were banished from this universe and imprisoned centuries ago, with many of their servants wanting to bring them back.

Not only did the Old Ones serve as the inspiration for other primordial monsters, but other franchises such as Buffy and The Evil Dead would actually utilise Lovecraft’s Old Ones themselves.

3/ Other Supernatural Creatures

1/ Other Vampire Breeds

Originator: Hammer Films

Other Notable Examples: Marvel Comics, American Vampire, Fright Night 2011

Some pieces of Vampire fiction will play around with the idea of there being several different Vampire species.

There are many advantages to this of course. First and foremost it can allow you to to do various different types of stories, and it can also allow you to explore different Vampire myths too. As we have explored almost every culture appears to have its own myths about undead monsters or demons that exist by feeding on the blood or life essence of people. In India its the Vetala, in China its the Jianghsi, and in Europe its Vampires, but they are all essentially the same. Monsters who were once people, who have returned from the grave, who now feed on blood or at least the life force of the living, can only be killed by certain rituals, and are weak against certain herbs, foods and religious symbols that are sacred to their culture.

When you have multiple Vampire breeds you can obviously incorporate aspects of all of these wonderful myths and stories about Vampires from all over the world, and throughout history into your work, and it can also be quite interesting seeing how these different Vampire breeds view each other. For instance maybe the British style Vampires would view the American and Chinese Vampires as nothing more than runts, whilst the American Vampires may view the British Vampires as degenerate, stuck up, pompous cowards.

At the same time you can also show us how certain Vampire hunters might only be useful against certain breeds. For instance Buffy and Van Helsing wouldn’t know how to deal with a Jiang Shi that would be immune to all of their usual anti Vampire repellents, whilst the reverse would be true for Master Kau going up against a Western Vampire.

The Hammer movies were really the first to explore this wonderful idea. In The Brides of Dracula, the second entry in their Dracula series, Van Helsing reveals that there are many different types of Vampire and that the Vampire he is facing, Baron Meinster is of a different breed to Dracula’s.

Meinsters breed of Vampire is able to shapeshift and has greater hypnotic powers than Dracula’s, but they also lack super strength which Dracula’s obviously had.

In the later Hammer film Captain Kronos Vampire Hunter, Professor Grost reveals that there are as many species of Vampire as there are birds of prey, and the Vampire in question is shown to drain its victims youth rather than blood.

Finally The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires, the final Hammer Dracula film, sees Cushing’s Van Helsing travel to China where he battles Chinese Vampires who just like the myths are as single minded as animals, have hideous rotting faces, and can steal people’s souls.

Fittingly in the later Chinese horror movie, Vampire vs Vampire, the east’s greatest Vampire killer, Master Kau would come up against Dracula himself.

Vampire vs Vampire was actually intended to be an unofficial sequel to The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires, though Dracula is obviously played by a different actor.

Just as Cushing’s Van Helsing was inexperienced in dealing with Chinese Vampires, then Kau at first struggles to deal with Dracula as all of his usual anti Jiangshi weapons don’t work on the Count.

Marvel comics meanwhile would also play with the idea of there being various different Vampire breeds too, as would the recent comic book American Vampire written by Scott Snyder and Stephen King.

The idea of there being multiple breeds of Vampires is yet another idea that Hammer movies pioneered in Vampire fiction.

2/ Second, Feral, More Powerful Vampire

Originator: Nelapsi (mythology)

Other Notable Examples: Reapers (Blade 2), Turok Han (Buffy), Apocalypse World Vampires (Supernatural)

Obviously this is a similar idea to there being more than one species of Vampire, but this is a little bit more specific. This Vampire is the only other species of Vampire to the main one, and it is far more powerful, vicious and all around dangerous than the regular kind of Vampire.

It will also be far more hideous and monstrous looking than regular Vampires and will be as single minded as an animal, living for nothing but the kill. Regular Vampires will live in fear of it, and it might even kill and feed on them regularly. It will essentially be the Vampires, Vampire.

The Nelapsi were the first such examples of a second race of more dangerous Vampires. They originated in Slovakian mythology and were said to be so powerful that they could kill you with just a glare. They also could not be killed and could only be prevented from rising at night through certain rituals.

Whilst the Nelapsi have gone on to appear in a few pieces of Vampire fiction, sadly the second, more powerful race of Vampires has not gone on to be featured quite as prominently in other pieces of Vampire fiction. I think its a great idea personally, but still it hasn’t caught on quite as much as some other tropes.

Still both Buffy and Blade featured Vampires that Vampires fear. In Blade there were the Reapers, an attempt to create the ultimate Vampire, which instead created a mutant race called the Reapers who fed on both human and Vampire blood. The Reapers entered into popular culture for their famous, 3 way leech like jaws.

The Turok Han in Buffy meanwhile were described as being to Vampires, what Neanderthals were to humans, an ancient and entirely separate race.

Both the Turok Han and the Reapers also looked quite similar too. Both had bald heads, monstrous features, both never spoke, only roared, and both had similar powers, with both having a bone plate over their chests which protected them from staking for instance.

The Nelapsi and the Reapers and the Turok Han are such a simple idea, which is probably why the are so appealing. What are the monsters that keep monsters awake at night?

3/ Monster Supremacists 

Originator: The Scourge (Angel)

Other Notable Examples: Leviathans (Supernatural), Illyria (Angel), Glory (Buffy)

Similar to the Vampire Supremacist, this character will believe that his race are the chosen people, destined to rule the world and will seek to make humans into nothing more than cattle for his people, or wipe them out completely.

The difference is that he will be an original monster, and furthermore he will not only regard all of the classic monsters like Vampires, Werewolves and Demons to be lesser than his people, but he will regard them as inferior to humans as well. He may even plan on wiping them out, which will force humans and Vampires and Demons to enter into a very uncomfortable alliance with one another to bring him down.

The Scourge from Angel and the Leviathans from Supernatural both follow this template perfectly. The Leviathans are ancient monsters, older than Angels themselves. They are shown to view humans as nothing but cattle, but in quite an interesting twist they appear to view Demons and Vampires as being even less deserving of respect than humanity and memorably chew out both the leader of the Demons (Crowley) and Vampires (the Alpha Vampire) when they both attempt to make alliances with the Leviathans.

The Scourge meanwhile are pureblood Demons who despise any Demon species that is tainted with humanity and plan to wipe them all out (they regard Vampires as the lowest of all half breeds.)

Illyria meanwhile along with Glory from Buffy aren’t so much a monster supremacists like the Leviathans and the Scourge in that unlike either of those two examples, neither wants to kill other monsters that they regard as inferior per se. However they still demean them, have no quams about killing them, and regard them as filthy and repulsive.

Glory is shown to take a particular sadistic delight in torturing the Vampire Spike.

This monster can help flesh out the supernatural world the main characters live in as we can see how there is a hierarchy in the Demon world just like the animal kingdom and the monsters we fear the most like Demons, Vampires and Witches are ironically quite low on the pecking order.

Its also quite a nice irony to see Vampires, Witches and Demons that always seem so terrifying and powerful to us, get victimised and persecuted, like Spike and Tara ( a Witch) being tortured by Glory, or Crowley being helpless against the Leviathans who reject him as a bottom feeding mutation. It just goes to show you how there is always a bigger bully out there.

Image result for Glory tortures SpikeRelated image

Even Christopher Lee and Anjelica Huston would be small fish compared to Glory. 

4/ Werewolves

Image result for Werewolves

Originator: Return of the Vampire.

Other Notable Examples: Underworld Film Series, Being Human series, Van Helsing, True Blood, The Vampire Diaries, Twilight

Werewolves are the favourite sparring partners of Vampires in popular culture. There are almost too many examples to list across all mediums, film, television and video games.

The irony is however that its really a recent thing in comparison to how long Vampires and Werewolf myths have been around.  It only really begun in the 30s with Bela Lugosi, the most iconic (and for many still the greatest) Dracula who fought a Werewolf enemy in The Return of the Vampire. It wouldn’t be until the Underworld film series however that the trope became fully solidified in popular culture.

Vampires vs Werewolves has been used as a metaphor for everything from the Nazis persecution of the Jews such as in Being Human where we see Vampires in the bad future round Werewolves up into concentration camps, torture them, and brand them with L for Lycan. To even just rival football teams, such as in the comedy “What We Do In The Shadows” where the Vampire/Werewolf feud is presented as being more like mods and rockers, rangers vs celtic, IE a tribal, petty thing, than a full blown race war.

Still despite this, there are certain tropes that can be found in Vampire vs Werewolf stories. There will often be a love triangle between a Werewolf, a Vampire and a human woman. The Vampires will also have the advantage in terms of numbers and influence. It makes sense after all as Vampires have the power all of the time, whilst Werewolves usually only change on the full moon.

Vampires may even have driven Werewolves to near extinction, such as in Twilight and The Vampire Diaries and will often demean them in various ways (which can often lead to a Werewolf who becomes a badass Vampire hunter who kills scores of Vampires.)

Of course Werewolves and Vampires are often put together simply because they are also the two most popular monsters. Still over the years a number of writers have found a way to give the two monsters a very special relationship.

After Werewolves, Vampires tend to get paired with Demons the most. Vampires and Demons tend to more just regard each other with contempt however in things like Buffy and Charmed, rather than be sworn enemies like Vampires and Werewolves. Vampires and Demons may even in some instances be shown to be friendly with each other, such as in Angel, where the main Vampire hero works alongside several Demons.

Zombies meanwhile may often be paired with Vampires, but they will usually be their pets that they feed people too such as in the Blade film series or Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires.

Vampires and Ghosts meanwhile aren’t brought together that often in western popular culture (though there are a few exceptions such as Being Human and The Vampire Diaries of course.)

In Chinese horror movies however, the reverse is true, and Vampires and Ghosts appear together in many films. This is probably because Ghosts are far more popular film monsters than Werewolves in the east.

Rather than simply pit Vampires against Ghosts however, Chinese horror movies will often contrast their two most popular monsters by depicting them in entirely the opposite way, rather than simply have them fight.

The Ghosts in Chinese horror movies, are often female, and are presented as sympathetic characters. In the original Mr Vampire film for instance there is the Ghost of young woman who falls in love with Master Kau’s assistant after he lays a tribute by her grave. In life the woman had no family or friends. No one even came to her funeral, or notices her passing, except for Kau’s assistant which causes her to follow him home, where she eventually falls in love with him after seeing what a hero he is.

Unfortunately however because she is a Ghost, whenever they are together she ends up draining his life force, and Kau is eventually forced to chase her away. Even Kau however is shown to take pity on the lonely Ghost and ultimately spares her.

Spooky Encounters, a crossover film with Sammo Hungs Fatman character and Master Kau features a sympathetic Ghost lady who helps our main heroes defeat the evil Wizard.

The classic A Chinese Ghost Story film series meanwhile also revolves around a tragic female Ghost character, as does of course Rouge.

The Vampires meanwhile as we have been over in Chinese horror movies are almost always male, always presented as being utterly hideous in appearance, but as single minded as animals and have no desires except to maim and kill.

Thus Vampires and Ghosts in Chinese films serve as quite interesting foils for each others. The Ghosts are almost always beautiful, alluring and likable, whilst the Vampires are always scary, and monstrous. The Ghosts show Master Kau’s crusade as not being quite so black and white, as whilst he does ultimately have to exorcise them. Ghosts are not actually evil. They can’t help the fact that they will drain the life out of any human they get close too, so Master Kau can come across as cold and unfeeling when dispatching them. He is in a way murdering innocent people, but he has no choice as if he doesn’t then more innocents will die.

With the Vampires however it is of course completely black and white when Kau slays them, and we never doubt that is hero when he goes up against a roaring, bloodthirsty, ugly Vampire.

In some ways the first Mr Vampire movie almost feels like two different horror films merged together because of how it depicts its two main monsters. One a tragic, moving supernatural love story about a lonely Ghost, the other a straight forward, action packed Vampire flick.

Interestingly enough however, despite being two of the most popular supernatural creatures, Vampires vs Witches doesn’t tend to be a very popular pairing in any part of the world. They have appeared together in a few prominent works, like in True Blood, The Vampire Diaries and Buffy, but even then in a lot of cases they don’t have much interaction. Sometimes Vampires are depicted as being immune or at least having a greater immunity to a Witches Magic unlike other supernatural creatures.

We see this in Charmed, Sabrina the Teenage Witch and Buffy (where Vampires are immune to some, but not all magics, such as Glory’s spell that makes people forget she and Ben are the same.)

It would be interesting to see Vampires pitted against other types of supernatural creatures in the future.

Settings

Monster Club

Originator: Monster Club (R Chetwynd Hayes novel)

Other Notable Examples: Caritas (Angel) Willies Bar (Buffy) LL Secundo (Supernatural) Blood Clubs (Blade film series), Titty Twister (From Dusk Till Dawn)

As its name would suggest, this type of setting is a club, or a bar where monsters of different kinds go to relax, enjoy a pint of blood and socialise with other abominations.

It was first featured in R Chetwynd Hayes novel The Monster Club and the subsequent 1980s film adaptation starring Vincent Price and John Carradine.

The premise sees a friendly Vampire named Erasmus invite a horror author to the local Monster club where he tells him three stories about monsters for inspiration.

The stories include one about a Shadmock ( a monster hybrid) who is used by two scam artists with tragic results, another about a Vampire family, and finally one about a horror movie director who ends up trapped in a town called Loughville, that is populated by flesh eating Ghouls.

I must admit the last story about the Ghouls terrified me as a child. In fact I’d go as far as to say that this sequence and Erica being trapped in the painting terrified me more than any other two scenes in a horror movie.

In this scene below the film director manages to escape to a small church where he finds the skeleton of a priest, as well as his diary which details how Loughville was overrun by the Ghouls.

Ironically it was priests fault. He found the first Ghoul in a graveyard, and whilst the rest of the villagers wanted to kill it, he hoped that he could rehabilitate the monster. Despite his efforts however, he later found the monster feeding on the remains of one of the villagers it had killed and chased it away, but by that point it was too late, and the monster returned with more of its kind to take control of the village.

The Priest ended up trapped in the church where the monsters couldn’t enter. He was forced to listen as they tore everyone else in the village apart, before he eventually died of starvation.

The reason these two scenes scared me was because of the idea behind them. Blood and gore is horrible to look at, but a horrible idea sticks in your head for longer and keeps you up at night.

 

I’d always be scared when I went to bed that I would wake up in Loughville in the Church and hear the howls of the ravenous Ghouls outside!

Whilst the Ghoul story was terrifying, the actual Monster Club itself was portrayed in a very comical way with the monsters all being very friendly. Vincent Price’s Vampire character is by far and away one of the most likable monsters in anything, and at the end of the film, he even manages to convince the Club to include his human friend as a member.

In both Buffy and Angel we’d see two more Monster Clubs, Carritas and Willies. Much like Wyndham’s Monster Club, these were both portrayed in a more comical way, with the monsters singing Karoke and having a fun time.

Supernatural also featured a monster club in what was intended to be the pilot episode for its first spin off, bloodlines.

The Blade film series featured blood clubs where Vampires would gather together and literally drip blood from their ceilings. They’d often bring at least one live person in there to torture and kill for fun.

Obviously unlike Caritas, or Price’s Monster Club this was a far more terrifying depiction of the idea.

Finally the monster club would be the premise for Quentin Tarrantino and Robert Rodriquez Vampire trilogy, From Dusk Till Dawn which features a bar run by Vampires that lures truckers and passers by in to feed on.

I’d definitely rather visit this Monster Club.

The Monster Club is a fun idea. I think overall it tends to lend itself better to comedy. Even the From Dusk Till Dawn movies have a certain tongue in cheek aspect to them (much like the Evil Dead films.)

Still overall it can be adapted for moments of genuine horror too. Its always a frightening idea when you are alone with someone who is secretly a monster. Now imagine being in a room full of monsters!

Anti Paranormal Organisation That Goes Evil

Originator: The Initiative (Buffy)

Other Notable Examples: The British Men of Letters (Supernatural) Men in Grey (Being Human) Kemp and Lucy Jaggat’s organisation (Being Human)

These characters will be part of a secret underground military organisation who not only hunt Vampires, Demons, and monsters, but capture and experiment on them. They may even try and cure them, though often these cures will be brutal and even possibly lethal. (Spikes chip, the attempts at curing Werewolves in Being Human.)

There will often be someone close to the hero who works for this organisation who is able to seduce the main character into working for them, or going along with them (Riley, Jaggat).

However it will become apparent that this company is disrupting the natural order and has sinister plans to use the monsters powers for their own benefit. They will almost always unleash a far worse threat (Adam, Captain Hatch, Mitchell and Daisy’s bloody rampage in revenge.) Eventually this organisation will be torn apart by the very monsters they hoped to contain in a spectacular way.

This type of setting tends to be a bit more controversial than others. The Initiative for instance is generally regarded as one of the weaker arcs in Buffy, whilst similarly season 2 of Being Human is often regarded as the weakest series.

I think a lot of fans tend to see this as a “humans are the real monsters” type of a story, which if not done right can end up as the most terrible cliche.

Personally thought I think it can be quite an interesting to see how the military can attempt to utilise magic and the paranormal the same way would any natural resource, only to learn the hard way how out of their league they are.

These stories can also I feel reinforce the threat of creatures like Vampires and Demons, as the failure of organisations like the Initiative and The Men in Grey, who have all the resources and weapons in the world, but still not only fall to the monsters, but also usually end up playing into a far worse evils hands, shows the audience how these monsters really cannot ever be underestimated.

Vampire Town

Originator: Vault of Horror

Other Notable Examples: Sunnydale (Wishverse version, Buffy), Loughville, (Monster Club), Purgatory (Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat), 

An extension from the Monster Club idea. What’s scarier than one Vampire? A club of Vampires. What’s scarier than that? A whole town, maybe even city of Vampires!

Possibly the first example of this trope in action was the Amicus movie Vault of Horror. Vault of Horror, like many of Amicus’ best movies was an anthology piece, and the first story, called Midnight Mess saw a corrupt man named Harold Rogers murder his sister, Donna who had recently moved to a mysterious town in the middle of nowhere, in order to get their father’s inheritance.

When Harold explores the town, he is warned by the locals to get in before the sun goes down. Foolishly ignoring their warning, he then settles down in a local restaurant only to discover that it is run by Vampires when they ask him how he likes his blood clots!

The Vampires then string him up, and Harold discovers that Donna is in fact the leader of the Vampires and she personally cuts his throat open.

Like all of the stories in Vault of Horror, Midnight Mess was a great mixture of comedy and genuine horror. In the final scene its somewhat humorous watching a room full of posh Vampires talk about how blood is always the nicest when its fresh, but the final shot of Harold’s twitching corpse, strung up like an animal in a slaughter house, whilst his own sister drinks a glass of his blood, is truly disturbing.

Amicus would play withthis trope again in their final horror movie, The Monster Club with the town of Loughvile. Loughvile as we have explored was a town that was overrun by Ghouls.

Its not quite a Vampire town, but its obviously still a similar idea. A remote place where people are literally nothing more than cattle for a race of hideous, undead monsters that prey on humans.

Loughville for reasons I’ve explored terrified me the most growing up. Unlike the Vampire town in Vault of Horror, no people lived in Loughville, except for a Ghoul/human hybrid, called a humgoo.

The humgoo character named Luna is a young girl who is forced to help lure passing travellers into the monsters village. She is shown to befriend the film director however and helps him escape to the church for which the Ghouls attempt to devour her.

She later attempts to flee the village with the director, only to be killed by the Ghouls. In contrast to Harold, the Humgoo is a sympathetic and tragic character. She doesn’t want to hurt anyone, is constantly mistreated and abused by the Ghouls (including her own father) and yearns to escape to the city, only to be murdered seconds before she is about to finally escape her nightmarish existence.

In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode The Wish, we are introduced to an alternate version of Sunnydale, when Cordelia Chase inadvertantly makes a wish to the vengeance Demon Anyanka that Buffy had never come to Sunnydale.

This version of the famous town is not too dissimilar to the Vampire town in Vault of Horror. Unlike Loughville people still live here, but they obviously don’t go out after dark, and live very frightened, miserable lives.

The Vampires meanwhile just like those in Vault of Horror don’t just bite people, but drain their blood out through machines and serve them in glasses and cups!

Cordelia can be seen to occupy the role of Harold from Vault of Horror in that she is the ignorant outsider who doesn’t know why everything is so strange, and later discovers that her rivals are now Vampires. There’s even a similar scene where Cordelia is warned to get in before the sun goes down just like Harold.

Finally another notable example of this trope is the underrated cult classic Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat, which blends the Vampire and western genres together.

Starring Bruce Campbell and David Carradine this movie flips the Vampire town idea on its head by having the Vampires all be reformed, well most of them are. The film revolves around a civil war between the good guy Vampires (led by a rare heroic version of Dracula.) And those who don’t want to give up their old way of life.

One thing that the Vampire town stories all seem to have in common is bleak endings. The Wish, Vault of Horror and The Ghoul story from Monster Club all end with the main characters being killed (though Giles is able to undo the Wishverse, and Harold was a pretty horrible guy, so you don’t care that he ends up dying.)

Really I don’t think you can have a character escape a Vampire town, as it just ends up undermining their menace too much.

Post Apocalyptic Vampire Ruled Earth

Originator: I Am Legend

Other Notable Examples:  Being Human (Season 4), Anno Dracula

The final extension from the Monster club idea. You can’t really top a planet of Vampires. This idea was originally conceived by classic horror and sci fi author Richard Matheison for his novel I Am Legend.

Its no exaggeration to say that I Am Legend is one of the most important horror novels ever written. Its up there with Dracula and Frankenstein in terms of helping to reshape the genre.

I Am Legend marked the first time that Vampirism was explained away through rational, scientific means, rather than supernatural. It also marked the first time that we saw the last human surviving in a world now populated by undead monsters that wanted to eat him!

Not only would it inspire 3 film versions, but it also inspired George A Romero, with his iconic Dead trilogy, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead. All 3 films revolved around a similar premise of the last people on earth having to survive against hordes of undead monsters.

The only difference was that Romero called his monsters Zombies (and Ghouls in the original Night of the Living Dead) and had them eat their victims flesh instead of just drinking their blood. He also made them less intelligent too, but essentially the Zombies in the Romero movies were the same as Vampires in Matheison’s I Am Legend.

Both classic undead monsters, who are normally supernatural, but are now created as a result of science gone wrong. Both are horrible, shuffling, rotting corpses who physically are very weak and easy to overpower, but are scary because they move in packs.

Of course as we know the Romero films would spawn countless imitators, influence many other major franchises such as Resident Evil and The Walking Dead, and propel the Zombie to being one of the major movie monsters. There were Zombie movies before the Romero films of course, but they were to Zombies what Jurassic Park was for Velociraptors, in that they propelled them to being a monster everyone would know.

Essentially the modern Zombie genre grew out of a Vampire story. Its funny when you remember this article where Charlie Brooker said that Vampires were the worst monsters and Zombies were the only good ones.

Charlie Brooker Hates Vampires

“Real serial killers are so mental they can scarcely tie their own shoelaces. So bollocks to the screen version. And don’t even think about mentioning vampires, with their gothic pretension and crappy teeth. They’re annoying, not scary. Fuck vampires. But zombies — now there’s a threat I can relate to. Zombies are the misanthrope’s monster of choice. They represent fear and disgust of our fellow man. The anonymous animal masses. The dumb, shuffling crowd. Them — the public. They’re awesomely stupid. They have an IQ of one. Proper zombies can’t operate a door handle or climb a ladder. Toss one a Rubik’s Cube and it’ll bounce off his thick, moaning head. All they do is walk around aimlessly, pausing occasionally to eat survivors. The idea for the show came about one night in 2004 while I was watching 24. Jack Bauer was performing a tracheotomy on a terrorist with a splintered peg or something, and another terrorist came running through the door. ‘I’m enjoying this,’ I thought, ‘but these terrorists are just ridiculous. They’re like waves of Space Invaders. They might as well be zombies.’”

Oh the irony! The very Zombie genre he loves wouldn’t exist without a Vampire story. The Zombies he claims are the best monsters begun as just a variant of Vampire!

Of course while the modern Zombie has taken over the post apocalyptic genre, there are still a few examples of a Vampire apocalypse such as in Being Human’s 4th series.

Conclusion

As you can see there are a lot of tropes and ideas that pop up in Vampire fiction from time to time. Again nothing wrong with that, as long as you can provide a new and interesting take on it.

Of course it could be a challenge for a writer to try and write a Vampire story without ANY of these characters or ideas. Or alternatively, you could try and write a story that incorporates all of these characters and ideas which hasn’t actually been done yet.

Buffy and Angel I think incorporate the largest amount, but even then they leave out quite a few major tropes such as the Vampires vs Werewolves feud.

Thanks for reading.

 

 

Right Wing SJWs and The Horse Shoe Effect

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

I have identified as a socialist for pretty much most of my adult life, but in the last few years I have come to see that socialism is obviously far from perfect. No political ideology is. I still believe in socialised concepts such as the welfare state and the NHS, but now I think a mixed economy utilising the best aspects of both socialism and capitalism is the way forward for the west, until we are ready for a full socialist society.

Sadly however despite still having some overlap with them on many key issues, I would never wish to associate myself with the left as in the last few years it has become a sick parody of its former self.

Its bigoted towards white men, its fascist and threatens to shut people who disagree with it down, it is willing to look the other way in the face of atrocities for its own agendas, and finally the left also has a soft bigotry of low expectations towards dark skinned people.

As a result of this many young people have abandoned the left and turned towards right wingers. In fact generation Z is said to be the most conservative generation since World War 2.

I myself whilst never abandoning my left wing principles, would certainly in the last few years have probably viewed the right as being better than the left overall I must admit.

However fortunately I have realised that actually there are just as many SJWs on the right.

Right wing SJWs currently are not as big a threat as left wing SJWs as its the left that has all of the institutional power. Yes we do have a right wing government in power in both the UK and the US, but ultimately the media is where the real power lies, and it is totally dominated by left wing identity politics. Also in real life if you say you disagree with any piece of received left wing dogma, like say the gender wage gap which has been debunked time and time again.

The gender wage gap is a myth

Then you are more likely to become a social pariah among friends you’ve known for years, even decades. You might actually be fired from your job and black listed.

Still this doesn’t mean that right wing SJWs wouldn’t do the same if they were in power. They can appear to be more logical, and reasonable because they are attacking the current fascists in power, but don’t be fooled.

An SJW, right wing or left wing is still an SJW. They are not really political. They are tribal and they have decided to latch onto one team, and will follow everything their home team does regardless.

Things like capitalism, socialism and feminism have really replaced religion in modern secular societies. If you dare to question anything these ideologies preach, then you will be attacked by their followers for being a heretic.

In this article I am going to run through the ways that the right and the left really are no different in terms of their behaviour.

Politics is not the same as religion. It should be looked at in an objective and fair way, and what is best for the current situation we are in, but sadly the following examples of tribalism from both sides prevents that from happening.

1/ Fidel Castro and Augusto Pinochet

These two fine gentlemen dindunuffin.

When the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro died, the left lined up to canonise him as a great man and a fighter for justice and freedom around the world.

Naturally many people on the right called them out on their hypocrisy. They pointed out that Castro was above all else a dictator who took away people’s right to vote, and that in the earlier years of his rule he, by his own admission persecuted homosexuals.

Fidel Castro Takes Blame For Persecution of Gay People

Yet the same people like Justin Trudeau and Jeremy Corbyn who love to virtue signal about how much they hate Trump for supposedly being homophobic were singing the praises of this man.

The leftists will often try and justify Castro’s human rights violations by pointing to the good things he did for his country, such as freeing it from the corrupt government owned by the American Mafia (who were definitely worse), and bringing in free education and health care for his people.

Still this obviously does not even begin to excuse the inhuman barbarity that LGBT people in Cuba were subjected too for years from Castro’s government.

This Is How Fidel Castro Persecuted Gay People

Still whilst the rightists were correct to call the left out on their hypocrisy here, at the same time they ultimately lost the moral high ground when they started defending Augusto Pinochet.

Pinochet was a Chilean dictator who ruled from 1973 to 1990. He overthrew the democratically elected socialist government of Chile and imposed a truly brutal regime that silenced any opposition.

Whilst it did not cause as many deaths as some other dictatorships, the Pinochet regime was still nevertheless notorious for its horrific sadism.

Pinochet’s soldiers tortured men, women and children in such gruesome ways as electrocuting their genitals, raping them, and forcing them to carry out incest, pedophillia and even cannibalism at gun point. He even had women raped by dogs!

Here are some sources to back this up.

Law Lords Told of Pinochet Atrocities

Agusto Pinochet’s Nazi Pedophile Cult

The Absurd Defence of Augusto Pinochet

Yet in spite of this and the fact that he was a dictator, the very same right who ridiculed leftists like Justin Trudeau for overlooking Castro’s sins all lined up one after another to actually try and defend a monster like Pinochet.

Sargon of Akkad who did a whole video attacking Castro and his apologists for instance is an apologist for Pinochet to some extent. He said in a recent video that all Pinochet did was get rid of his communist problem.

Its disgusting that Sargon would dismiss women who were forced to have sex with their own children, had spiders shoved up their genitals, and men who were raped in front of the rest of the prisoners and were forced to eat their own shit; as just being Pinochet getting rid of his communist problem.

Look at this video from Coach Red Pill.

All of the same arguments the left used to try and overlook Castro’s faults are used by Coach Red Pill.

1/ There were no atrocities in Cuba or Chile, because I lived there, went on holiday there and I didn’t see anything.

2/ Yes he was a dictator who took away the people’s right to vote, and he silenced all opposition in the most brutal ways possible, and normally I’m a big supporter of democracy and freedom of speech, but well it was okay when Pinochet/Castro did it because of the uh, economy.

3/ All of the people they tortured and killed were just trouble makers trying to overthrow their rightful leader, even though a lot of their victims were just citizens, innocent people, even children who suffered the most horrific deaths, I’m still going to dismiss them as getting what they deserved.

Now sometimes it is true that in order to prevent a greater threat we have to take the side of a dictator. For instance in Syria right now Assad though a brutal and evil man is a better option than ISIS as if they were to take control from him, even more innocent people would die.

This article here from a gay man, a group that Assad is persecuting sums up why its better to side with Assad over ISIS as with Assad for the most part you can still live under him, even if it isn’t exactly a good existence, yet with ISIS they would throw you off a roof for being gay.

We Don’t Have Rights But We Are Alive

However the right and the lefts defence for Pinochet and Castro isn’t just a lesser of two evils attitude. To be fair an argument could be made for Castro being the lesser of two evils compared to what ruled before him. But again the likes of Corbyn don’t come at it from that attitude. They praise him as a great man and overlook all of his faults.

Pinochet meanwhile was ironically only able to seize power thanks to American intervention. Many of the rightists who are apologists for Pinochet are also against intervention in places like Syria, Libya and Iraq (hence their support for Trump.)

I agree with them of course on foreign intervention in countries like Iraq and Libya just making the existing problems worse, but still how can these people then suddenly think it’s okay to remove an actual democratically elected leader which Salvador Allende was, and back a brutal dictator when its Pinochet?

Image result for pinochet pepes

(Look at the comments from right wing SJWs on this video which actually documents the horrors of the Pinochet regime. You can see more demonizing of Pinochet’s victims.)

These people just simply can’t accept that their favoured political ideology might be open to abuse, and might lead to things like the above, so they do their best to cover it up, or even just stick their fingers in their ears when being presented with the horrors it has caused.

This in turn just leads to my next point.

2/ “They Just Weren’t Doing It Right”

Right wingers will often sneer at SJWs who identify as communists and socialists. Whenever people bring up the communist and socialist states that have failed and led to massive human loss, the left wing SJWs response will always be “they just weren’t doing communism right”.

Hilariously however right wingers like Paul Joseph Watson and Sargon of Akkad use the exact same defence when trying to excuse the horrors and atrocities that capitalism has caused on a global scale too of “that’s not real capitalism, that’s just corprotism, or crony capitalism.”.

In the above video we see a debate between a socialist and a capitalist. Now again on the surface the capitalist obviously seems more reasonable, and he is more reasonable. The left winger who was given the unfortunate nickname of Aids Skrillex by the internet, screams and shouts, is openly bigoted towards white men, and dog piles with his friends on the one guy.

Still ultimately Aids Skrillex and the Info Wars Journalist’s arguments on socialism and capitalism are really no different.

They both say that they have never seen real socialism or real capitalism and also try and score points against the other side “yeah socialism may be failing in Venezeula, but capitalism caused the Iraq war”.

Of course trying to simply score points against the other side doesn’t always have to have anything to even do with politics. It can often lead to cringy attempts at proving who is cooler and more trendy with the young crowd (often by people who are completely out of touch), such as this.

As a result neither side is able to look at the failings of their own political ideologies, acknowledge them and try to fix them. Leftists and rightists are both locked in a cycle of “no its just bad people” and whataboutism.

Free market capitalism does lead to corprotism. In the free market you have to eliminate all competition, so naturally the biggest business will want to crush all of the smaller ones, leading to everything eventually being owned by one corrupt organisation. I’d also argue that globalism comes from free market capitalism too. After all a business will have to expand beyond even its home country, and eventually become the dominant global business.

Ironically all of the people that those on the right despise, George Soros, and Hillary Clinton are free market capitalists who are just simply trying to make their business the top one, regardless of the cost.

Of course at the same time, yes communism and socialism are ideologies that want to hand more power over to the government and so are obviously more open to fascism.

This is why I favour a mixed economy. A mixed economy would in my opinion help to overcome many of the problems inherent in both capitalism and socialism.

On the one hand I would like to see free health care and the welfare state be provided to people as safety nets. I also would like to see the railways, and basic resources such as gas and electricity be nationalised too. However at the same time independent businesses that can create their own product, (rather than simply monopolise something that should be for everyone) and the media should all be independent too.

Sadly however the left and the right’s tribalism will prevent there from ever being a discussion about the merits of both capitalism and socialism, as they have to demonise the other side, whilst ignoring any of the faults with their own.

3/ Soft Bigotry Of Low Expectations Towards Dark Skinned People

People hate me just because I am a strong black/Muslim woman. Its totally not because I am a lying, two faced, scummy, money grubbing bigot.

Neither the left nor the right these days hate dark skinned people. well the alt right does, but since its such a tiny minority among the actual right then it doesn’t really matter.

Still both have sadly shown that they do not treat dark skinned people as equals. They often don’t hold dark skinned people to the same high moral standard as they do white people, and worse they are also fond of using black people as human shields to defend their arguments and use them as trophies to show how not racist they are to their enemies.

The left’s soft bigotry of low expectations is most notable in their attempts to shut down any criticism of Islam.

Islam is possibly the most evil ideology on the planet. Its holy book the Quran tells all Muslims to exterminate non believers, that women are inferior to men, that all gay people be exterminated and that all black people are ugly pug nosed raisin headed animals, fit only to serve white people.

Ironically Muhammad was not only described as being snow white, but in the Hadith it is said that to describe him as dark skinned is punishable by death! Its also worth noting that Arabs are classed as Caucasians too.

Here are sources to back up what I am saying about Islam.

Quranic verses of violence

Islamic Slave Trade

Islamic View of Homosexuality

Now this is not to say that all Muslims are evil. There are many decent Muslims in the west. These Muslims either ignore the heinous parts of the Quran, or I think in some cases they haven’t even read it, and have just taken their parents or their local Imam’s word that Islam is a peaceful religion. After all not all Jewish people have read the Old Testament in the west, and not all Christians have read the bible either.

For these kinds of Muslims, their religion is either just a source of comfort for the hardships of life, like losing a loved one, or its just a series of traditions and a way of keeping their people together in a community, or even just a social thing.

However Muslims who do follow and are raised on what the Quran actually says at least hold bigoted views towards women, Jews and LGBT people, as well as other religious groups such as Hindus and Christians.

In any country where Islam is allowed to call the shots such as Saudi Arabia, or Iran then homosexuality is illegal, or even punishable by death and women hold fewer rights than men, whilst many Muslim countries still hold Africans as slaves.

Twenty First Century African Slaves in Islamic Countries

Christians are also as a result of Muslims actions, the most persecuted religious group worldwide

Christians Most Persecuted Religious Group Worldwide

Christians Most Persecuted Religious Group

Then of course there is the historic genocide of Hindus as a result of Islamic actions, and their current persecution of Hindus in countries like Bangladesh.

Muslim Persecution of Hindus In Bangladeshi

Muslim Persecution of Hindus in India

The Biggest Genocide In Human History: Islamic Invasion of India

Islamic Genocide In India

Even in the United Kingdom over 50 percent of British Muslims think homosexuality should be criminalised, compared to 2 percent of all other groups in the UK.

Over 50 Percent of British Muslims Think Homosexuality Should Be Criminalised

The majority of grooming gangs are also Muslim as well. This behaviour stems from what Islam says about women. Muhammed outright said that “your women are your fields, so go into your fields whenever and whichever way you want.”

Not surprisingly when one group of people are raised on these types of beliefs then they are probably going to be better represented in things like grooming gangs rather than in things like winning the Nobel Prize.

Grooming Gang Statistics

Now again this is not to say that ALL Muslims are like this, or that we should ban Muslims from coming to the country. However a proper and sensible discussion needs to be had about Islam.

The same problems are not happening with other religious groups like Sikhs and Christians. To say that all religions are equally bad is not only dishonest, its utter cowardice.

As Sam Harris has pointed out many times in the past, you could hardly say Buddhism or Jainism are in any way comparable to Islam. Jainism specifically tells its followers to preserve all forms of life, even insects! In what way is that comparable to a religion whose founder tells his followers “I have been made victorious with terror!”

Yes there are dodgy passages in the New Testament, but overall Jesus is a benevolent figure. He was someone who ultimately said to love your enemies, he made a point of separating the Church from the state, and didn’t command his followers to conquer people.

The Old Testament meanwhile is morally every bit as disgusting as the Quran. However from a practical point of view it is less dangerous in the modern world than the Quran is for a number of reasons.

To start with its open to interpretation. There are so many contradictions in the Old Testament, and it is also not presented as the actual word of God, but a second hand account. Also the Old Testament doesn’t actually promise its followers an afterlife if they martyr themselves either.

The Quran however is presented as the definitive word of God and therefore everything in it has to be taken literally. Also it is not full of contradictions either. Muhammed does preach love and acceptance in the early stages of his career, but he later tells his followers to ignore these teachings.

The reason Muhammed preached peace in the earlier passages of the Quran was simply because at that point his forces weren’t as strong. Once they were however Muhammed abandoned these teachings and even told his followers that when they are low in number, they should lie about being peaceful to non Muslims until their forces are strong enough to slaughter the non believers.

Muhammed named this process Taqiyya.

David Wood sums it up as always.

Taqiyya in action.

Finally the Jewish and Christian faiths have also had many reformations too that have purged them of their violent passages.

For all of these reasons Islam is currently the most dangerous ideology, never mind religion on the face of the planet.

I would love if it just vanished, but its too deeply rooted for that. So instead I think it needs to be made toothless until it does just become a harmless faith.

Peaceful measures can be taken to achieve this that don’t involve tarring all Muslims as the same.

To start with Saudi Arabia should be boycotted the same way that South Africa was. Also Islamic reformers such as Imam Tawhidi should be given more air time and support.

Also no more concessions should be made to Islam. All Sharia courts, Muslim faith schools etc, should be shut down right away. Islam needs to integrate with OUR culture, not the other way around.

Also Islam should be criticised in public as much as any other ideology and religion to ensure that there are no double standards against other faiths.

Shutting down all legit criticism of Islam will lead to more suffering for everyone.

Obviously the victims of Islam, here and around the world will be left out in the cold to suffer in silence.

Rochdale Grooming Gang

Politically Correct Do Gooders Shutting Down Discussion About Muslim Grooming Gangs

Silencing Rochdale Grooming Gangs Is Foul Snub To Victims

Furthermore the Muslim reformers who are threatened with death every day will be more vulnerable as a result too, as no one will know the danger they are placing themselves in, in trying to reform the most retrograde ideology, as hey Islam is already peaceful right?

Imam Tawhidi Sent Chilling Death Threat

Assault Threats To Australian Imam Over Calls To Close Muslim School

Death Threats Are Nothing New For Muslim Reformers.

Finally the more problems Islam causes in our society, the more anger there will be directed towards the Muslim community as a whole, but with no practical solution being offered up, people will eventually turn to genuine right wing extremists who will smear all Muslims as potential terrorists.

Acid Threats To Muslims

Sadly however the left are the people who are preventing any reasonable discussion about Islam being had, as they see all criticism of Islam as racist (despite Islam not being a race), simply because most Muslims have brown skin.

That literally is it. If Islam was a religion practised by mostly white people like Christianity or Scientology, then left wingers would have no problem with attacking it. Hell they’d probably be calling for it to be banned.

Of course ironically the left ends up betraying many of the groups that it sees itself as champions of such as women and LGBT people when it tries to silence all reasonable criticism of Islam as racism.

Goldsmith University Feminists Side With Islamists

I know Kraut is a doxxing arsehole, but this vid is probably the best run down on the horrific extent of Islamic homophobia there is. Set some time aside and give it a watch.

These leftists don’t view dark skinned people as their equals. They view them as children who shouldn’t be held accountable in the same way as white people, so its okay if a dark skinned person hates gay people, hates women, or if they follow a religion that says gay people are inferior, as well you don’t expect the same kind of morality from a dark skinned person do you?

Case in point look at Donald Trump and Linda Sarsour. Trump’s comments about grabbing women by the pussy were pathetic and stupid, but they were not contrary to popular belief advocating rape.

Trump says in the video “they let me do it“, so he isn’t boasting about grabbing women without their consent. What he is actually saying if you listen to the full clip is that because he is a big tv star and millionaire, women who normally wouldn’t look at him throw themselves at him and let him grab them by the pussy.

It doesn’t show much respect for his exes, but to be fair Trump has probably dealt with more than his fair share of gold diggers (and no that’s not saying gold diggers are all women. I think most billionaires of both genders are probably going to have to deal with a few gold diggers.)

Linda Sarsour meanwhile is a Muslim woman, and the left’s new darling. She actually organised the woman’s march in both 2017 and 18. Now this woman also like Trump made a vagina related remark.

She said that she wanted to take Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a feminist critic of Islam’s vagina away from her. Ayaan Hirsi Ali who grew up in Somalia had her genitals mutilated as a child.

I would have thought it was worse to make a remark about wanting to remove a former child victim of FGM’s vagina away in public to all of your followers, than to make a stupid joke about how because you’re rich, women will let you grab their genitals to your friends in private.

Yet the left organises marches to protest Trumps sexism, whilst making Sarsour their darling? The reason for that is again because Trump is a white man, so ironically these supposedly not racist people hold him to a higher moral standard than they do the Muslim woman.

Look at slavery. White people are made to feel guilty as a whole for slavery that happened over 100 years ago by SJWs, yet Muslims are never made to feel guilty as a whole for not only having a far more brutal slave trade, which lasted longer, but is still going strong today. In fact there are more Islamic slaves today than there ever were in the European slave trade.

https://clarionproject.org/islamists-still-perpetuating-slavery-today/

Yet white people should still feel guilty for things that happened over 100 years ago, and Muslims shouldn’t? PS I am not saying that all Muslims SHOULD be made to feel guilty for the actions of others, but again if leftists think that about white people (despite being white not actually being an ideology like Islam is.) Then again why don’t these same leftists make Muslim children do things like this.

Simple because yet again they don’t hold them to the same ridiculously high moral standard that they do white people which makes them racist.

You only have to look at a lot of these edgy fedora wearing atheists who regularly ridiculed Christians in an effort to show how smart and logical they were, but when it comes to Islam they are either nowhere near as harsh or worse adopt a “noble savages” view of, we can’t criticise their culture just because its different.

Rational Wiki are a prime example of this. Rational Wiki is a website that I dislike greatly. They do make some valid points, particularly about the hypocrisy of right wingers like Sargon of Akkad. Sadly however not only is a lot of the information on the website biased, but they also though making some critiques of Islam, are far easier on it than Christianity.

Take a look at the following two Youtubers, NonStampCollector and Syeten. Both of them do cartoons mocking religion. NonStampCollector focuses solely on the Judeo Christian faith, whilst Syeten focuses primarily on Islam.

Both do humorous recreations of stories and passages from the bible and the Quran (in Syeten’s case he has modern day figures represent those from the Quran. For instance radical Muslim preachers such as Anjem Choudrary represent Muhammed and his followers, whilst Tommy Robinson represents the pagans who were terrified of Muhammed’s influence growing throughout their land, and feminists like Steve Shives represent the pagans who foolishly thought Muhammed could integrate.)

Both men also point out the corruption, and outright stupidity in both the old testament and the Quran too.

You can see that Non Stamp Collector and Syeten’s styles are similar in that their humour is very unapologetic, shocking and doesn’t hold anything back. Yet Rational Wiki brands Syeten a bigot simply because he targets the Islamic faith.

About Syetens videos they say. “Prolonged exposure may result in the following side effects: Nausea, depression, high blood pressure, loss of IQ, periodic outbursts of hysterical guffaws and broken keyboards“. Whilst about Non Stamp Collectors they say “Warning this video may cause excessive hilarity.

The youtuber Logicked meanwhile (whose work I highly recommend) also commented on how Rational Wiki used to like his videos when he skewered the Christian faith, but now that he attacks Islam he is on their bigots and Webshites list.

Rational Wiki Doesn’t Like Me Now That I Criticise Muslims.

Richard Dawkins meanwhile a long time critic of religion has been deplatformed from many events for tweeting negative things against Islam.

Richard Dawkins Banned From Event For “Hate Speech” Against Islam

Richard Dawkins Dropped From Science Event

The left haven’t bothered to analyse or read into anything they claim to be experts of like Islam. As they are a little tribe, then they will naturally just follow what the received wisdom is for that tribe. The received wisdom for the left is of course, that dark skinned people are always the poor victims of evil white people, so it doesn’t matter that Islam is the most conservative, bigoted, retrograde, backwards and misogynistic ideology there has possibly ever been. The fact that Muslims are mostly brown, means that they have to be the poor victims of evil white people.

Hence we get Owen Jones, a socialist, a feminist and supposed man of the people white knighting over Islamophobia, whilst telling us that white people don’t experience racism in the United Kingdom, right in the middle of a scandal involving hundreds of thousands of white girls being sexually abused and tortured on an unprecedented scale, because they are white all across the country!

White Women Are Only Good For One Thing

White People Are Not Victims Of Racism In The United Kingdom

Owen Jones is an utter disgrace, but sadly he is typical of people on the left these days.

Now when it comes to Islam then the right have obviously done a better job than the left. They have actually spoken out against the ideology, and indeed I think this possibly more than anything else, is why they have gained more support in the last few years.

Even then though I find some right wingers are less willing to be as critical of Islam as they are of other ideologies. Take Sargon of Akkad for instance.

Now Sargon has criticised Islam many times, and I respect him for that. However Sargon I feel is still more willing to say he hates an ideology and all of the people in it, if that ideology is practised mostly by white people.

He has openly said that he thinks if you are a communist, then you are a bad person, and has said that he wanted to bring McCarthy a man who took away communists rights and blacklisted them back.

I could never imagine him saying the same thing about Muslims. If you follow Islam then you are a bad person, and that he wants Muslims fired from their jobs and black listed so they’ll never work again.

Not that I want him to say that about Muslims of course, but still if he is going to say it about communists, then be consistent. When it comes to Islam, Sargon will say “not all Muslims” but when its communists, then it IS “all communists are evil people” simply because again most Muslims are brown so he doesn’t want to be seen as a racist.

Still whilst the right might be more willing to criticise Islam overall they have been shown to be just as willing to talk down to dark skinned people in other ways too.

The recent Candace Owens/Red Pill Black fiasco was quite illuminating. Candace Owens was a former left wing SJW who had tried to set up a website called Social Autopsy that would doxx people who said mean words online and reveal where they lived.

Thankfully the website never got launched but Candace a few months later returned as a supposedly reformed conservative. She still didn’t take the website down however until the youtuber Tree of Logic did a video exposing “Red Pill Black” for who she was.

Now it can be debated as to whether or not Candace wanted to still launch the Social Autopsy website. Personally I don’t think she was an actual left wing SJW like Tree said, though I can understand why Tree would say that.

I think Candace is just cynical and simply goes wherever the money is. This great video by April Reigne sums up the type of person Candace is.

Whatever her intentions the fact that so many right wingers like Paul Joseph Watson and Stefan Molyneaux, and Dave Rubin not only welcomed her with open arms, but did all they could to promote her, without checking her background first showed that they were desperate to have a black woman on their side.

Almost everything about the way every right winger promoted Candace was to do with the fact that she was black. Hell even her youtube name “Red Pill Black” . Who cares if she’s a black conservative? All that matters is if you agree with her opinions or not. Its hilarious that Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones, two people who often attack identity politics would revel in it.

In one interview with Candace, Alex Jones even agrees with her that he needs to have more women on his show to get the female perspective.

Hmmm isn’t that the kind of thing a left wing SJW would say? So much for the meritocracy and hiring people based on their ideas and talent which the right always claims they are for. When they can get several women and minorities on their side as trophies to show that their side isn’t racist. Then ironically they are all for diversity hirings and using black people as trophies just like the left.

Furthermore the fact that these conservatives kept white knighting for Candace when she was found out, and even lied for her, shows how desperate they were not to have their novelty of a black conservative end.

Paul Joseph Watson for instance lied that Social Autopsy was from 4 years ago, and he still promotes her.

In this video here, Tree of Logic, a black conservative talks about how disappointed she was to find out that in some ways her side was really no better in terms of talking down to black people and viewing them as their children.

Sadly this type of thinking will always happen when people become part of little tribes and are desperate to score points against the other.

The great irony is that Candace Owens and Linda Sarsour are two people that no one in their right mind would want to associate with if it wasn’t for their minority status that they shamelessly exploit.

Candace has nothing original or intelligent to say, and she is an arrogant, obnoxious bigot too. Look at her debate with Blaire White on the Rubin Report. She not only shouts over Blaire but resorts to calling Blaire, a trans woman, a man several times.

In fact all of the times she called Blaire a man have been gathered together in a video here.

Linda Sarsour meanwhile aside from saying she wants to cut out women’s vaginas is also a racist against white people (even dismissing a man’s opinion in public because he was white.) And is a terrorist supporter too.

Democrats Revere Linda Sarsour

Why would you want to associate yourself with these people, other than to have a minority trophy to show people how not racist you are.

I understand that it must have been extremely frustrating for Tree, a black woman to learn that both sides didn’t treat her with actual respect because of her skin colour, but again that’s just further proof of why its best not to be a part of either

4/ They Are Both Okay With Censorship And Ruining People’s Reputations

We all know that left wing SJWs are happy to get someone fired from their job and even ruin their life if they disagree with them.

The first thing a feminist will often do if they lose an argument with you is ask to speak to your employer.

Again it kind of reminds me of when people would speak out against religion centuries ago and they would be branded as heretics and ostracised. Just replace heretic with misogynist and that’s pretty much the situation we are in today.

The MeTooMovement meanwhile is a witch hunt.

Obviously there is corruption in Hollywood, but that does not mean that A/ there is a patriarchy designed to oppress women throughout all of western society or that B/ all men are rapists.

People at the top will obviously be able to cover up their sleazy actions and crimes and so its not surprising that we see abuses of power for many different crimes, not just sexual assault in places like Hollywood.

The problem with the MeTooMovement however is that first of all in most cases its advocates adopt a guilty until proven innocent stance as seen recently with Stan Lee.

Also worst of all they are trying to equate things like cat calling, and wolf whistling with actual sexual assault which not only threatens to undermine the real horror of sexual assault, but also further demonize men.

Hell some feminists have even tried to make it impossible for men to approach women as they are so wrapped up in this ridiculous all men are rapists crap.

Bar Where Men Are Not Allowed To Approach Women

The MeTooMovement however doesn’t care about the innocent men who are accused and then instantly treated as though they are guilty’s lives being destroyed.

Teen Vogue Columnist Not Concerned If Innocent Men Go To Prison

Of course the right is no better. Many on the right including Sargon of Akkad and Stefan Molyneaux have defended Joseph McCarthy of all people. Indeed he has become quite the hero among the Pepes for apparently saving America from the evil Commies in the 50s.

The hilarious irony of all this is that McCarthy was the SJWs, Third Wave Feminism and MeTooMovement of his day.

Like them he was against free speech and would try and shut any of his critics down.

Like them he was also such a foaming at the mouth fanatic that he would smear anyone who he even slightly disagreed with as the worst thing he could think of.

A feminist will call a man who cat calls a rapist, a man who makes a stupid joke a promoter of sexual assault or even tell people who say things like “I don’t want a female Doctor Who or I don’t like the new Ghostbusters move” a misogynist.

McCarthy meanwhile was exactly the same. Anyone who even associated with a person that had the most mild left wing views was tarred as a Stalinist. As Humphrey Bogart said “They’ll nail anyone who ever scratched their ass during the national anthem.”

McCarthy also famously not only got people fired from their jobs for expressing political views he didn’t like, but he also blacklisted them to the point where they wouldn’t be able to find any work after.

Many innocent people’s careers and lives were completely ruined.

Modern third wave feminism is of course exactly the same. As we have seen they are quick to try and get people fired simply for expressing political opinions that they don’t like such as Thunderf00t, and just like with McCarthy if you are fired for supposedly espousing “sexist views” like Thunderf00t would have been, then you will be unlikely to get another job afterwards, and you will be made a social pariah, as seen with Tim Hunt a noble prize winner whose career was completely derailed by feminists.

Victims of McCarthyism

Tim Hunt “I’ve been hung out to dry.”

Again at present the left wing censors are more dangerous, but in 50s America, it was the right wing censors that were the threat and I can easily see it swinging back that way in a few decades time. If generation Z is the most conservative generation since World War 2, then yes, thanks to people like Sargon and Stefan Molyneaux who are trying to reassess McCarthy as a hero, and are even saying that they want him back; I can quite easily see the next generation not only smearing anyone with even the slightest left wing or liberal beliefs as a communist, but also wanting to shut them down too.

Don’t let someone like Sargon fool you. He may seem like a champion for free speech now because he is talking against the likes of the MeTooMovement, but the fact that he has said he wants to see McCarthy, one of the biggest threats to free speech in America of the 20th century back, shows that he’s okay with the people he dislikes being shut down for the sake of his greater good, just like an SJW.

It is true that McCarthyism and MeToo will have rooted out genuine threats to Western society and genuine sexual predators, but unfortunately for every actual communist spy or Harvey Weinstein they caught or exposed, about 1000 other innocent people were slimed as communists, sexual predators, misogynists etc until all they really accomplished was to sadly make the public doubt any actual claims of a threat to the west or sexual assault.

McCarthyism and the MeTooMovement do far more harm for the cause they supposedly champion than good as well as ruin the lives of many innocent people, and attack free speech.

5/ They Both Have Utter Contempt For The Working Class

Related image

The left have in the past 30 or so years forgotten what the main thing that divides people in society actually is, class.

The modern left is too hung up on the civil rights movement. The leftists who fought for the rights of black people in the 60s are more revered, than those who simply fought for the rights of workers and the underprivileged in general. John Maclean for instance isn’t as attractive a figure for young University students as say Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, because in order to know what Maclean accomplished you actually have to be political and analyse exactly what it was he was fighting for.

Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, though not to do them down of course, but what they accomplished is a lot easier to understand because they were so obviously in the right. Their main goal was after all to simply want equal rights for everyone.

Unfortunately for the modern day SJWs the civil rights movement has more or less been won. I’m not saying that out modern society is perfect, but the general population are not racist, there are no laws designed to discriminate people based on their skin colour or sexuality or gender. Its illegal in fact to do so, and would make you a social pariah anywhere you go.

Class inequality however is still a pressing issue, but again the modern day so called leftists don’t give a shit about under privileged working class white people, nor do they even care about ethnic minorities if they don’t fit their idea of what they should be.

Worse than that however the modern day SJWs, many of whom come from privileged, upper middle class back grounds themselves, will often sneer at the “plebs” who they think are idiots that are easily duped.

Look at all the “low information voters” crap we see about Brexit. Its the most condescending, “these stupid little Englanders don’t know what was good for them” attitude I have ever seen.

I’m Disappointed About Brexit But The Remainers Snobbery Is Ridiculous

How Brexit Gave Us A Different Class Of Snob

Remainers Sneering and Snobbery Must Stop

GSCE Post Demonstrates Shameful Snob Culture

Now I am not pro Brexit. I actually didn’t vote one way or the other because I couldn’t decide.

On the one hand the EU is a good concept, but it has become corrupt and degenerate in the last few decades. Furthermore I did enjoy watching the mainstream media get an absolute kicking. For once things didn’t go their way and it was glorious.

On the other however I think we might be seeing a change and reformation of the EU, and Britain could very well be leaving at the worst time. Of course this change will only have been motivated by a large country like Britain leaving, but sadly it could have been another country. We I think ended up being the sacrificial lamb.

Don’t think that because of Brexit I never vote or decide one way or another in other situations. I voted yes to Scottish independence and would do so again, even despite my utter loathing for the SNP. I feel that Scotland should be independent simply because when connected to England, a much larger country, it tends to be forced to go along with its decisions about important issues.

For instance the Scottish vote has made 0 difference in any election outcome for the UK since WW2. Remember it was supposed to be a United Kingdom, not a smaller country becoming part of a bigger one.

A lot of people in England voted for Brexit for the same reason of wanting to decide their own future and whilst the situation with Brexit and Scottish independence is obviously not exactly the same, in that respect I completely understood and respected the people in England who were confident enough to want to decide their future.

I also in regards to Trump and Hillary was completely on Trump’s side too. I don’t like Trump. He’s obviously far more to the right than I am in a lot of ways, as his recent attack on the NHS shows.

Still Hillary Clinton was a vicious war monger who was by far a bigger threat to world peace.

Thank god this woman didn’t win!

Trump at the time of his election promised to improve relations with Russia and China.

You may not like Putin, but it would have been foolish to not want to see an improvement to the relationship between the two great nuclear powers.

Now obviously there have been some bumpy moments in Trump’s first year as President such as his attack on Syria. The biggest problem with Trump is that he is a flip flopper and unpredictable. He may very will still provoke Russia, but ultimately back in 2016 he was the one who promised to improve things with them to avoid a war, whilst Hillary openly said she would attack them over suspected cyber attacks!

Trump has actually in his first year already taken the USA further away from a war with Russia in some respects.

Ask yourself this. Would you have rather this woman here

than this man here

Putin Thanks Trump For Intelligence In Foiling Terror Attack

be the President at a time when Russia and America were teetering on the brink of a full scale nuclear war over Syria?

So again don’t think that I am so much of a centrist that I will never come down on one side. Brexit I just simply found to be a bit more of a difficult decision to make, but regardless of whether it was right or wrong, it brought out a lot of the left’s ugly contempt for the working class.

The same applies to Trump’s victory. Trump supporters are often derided as a basket of deplorables and stupid hicks who simply didn’t know the full facts.

Look at this article Stephen King wrote about what he imagines Trump supporters to be like. It has all of the most sneering, arrogant and condescending stereotypes he can conjor up. Apparently Trump supporters in his mind are stupid plebs who voted for Trump because Hillary looked like a lesbian.

Stephen King: How Do Such Men Rise

It never occurs to King that people could have genuine reasons for voting for Trump, or indeed that actual left wing people voted for Trump too because of his anti war stance.

Here’s a video that John Pilger did in 2016 on why it was better to support Trump than Hillary Clinton. Pilger for those of you who don’t know is a left wing journalist, and possibly the most influential left wing journalist of the 20th century.

He has done more to expose the full horrors of western imperialism than anybody else in the media, yet he of all people still wanted Trump to win over Hillary.

Please watch the video if you have time its great.

The lefts class snobbery even extends to more first world issues such as its takeover of certain franchises and series.

Take a look at what Dan Aykroyd said about the racists that attacked Leslie Jones on Twitter. He made a point of saying that they are all people with low income jobs who are probably on benefits, as though someone from a high paying job, with a lot of money can never be a racist asshole (I direct you towards Hillary Clinton who called black people super predators back in the 90s.)

See here Dan Aykroyd Attacks Leslie Jones Haters

Similarly take a look at what Whovian Feminism had to say about those who didn’t want a female Doctor.

Now Whovian Feminism, real name Alyssa Franke, is a blogger who as her name would suggest looks at Doctor Who from a feminist perspective. She is an absolute curse on the Who fandom.

Like Dan Aykroyd before her, Whovian Feminism equates being a horrible sexist to having a low income, and states that we wouldn’t want these people with low incomes to be watching Doctor Who anyway.

“If a misogynistic jerk who disparagingly refers to a woman Doctor as “The Nurse” says he’ll quit watching the show, he’s exactly the type of fan we should be proud to piss off. I promise you more fans (especially ones with disposable income!) are waiting in the wings to take his place.”

Tommy Robinson meanwhile, an outspoken critic of Islam has often been the recipient of the left’s condescending attitude, and outright contempt towards the working class.

In early 2017 Tommy Robinson and Lily Allen clashed on twitter over Islam. Lily having lost the argument with Tommy actually threatened to sue him!

Now I used to be a massive fan of Lily Allen, but sadly she has become a feminist/Islam apologist/SJW in the last few years. Even then though that wouldn’t have been enough to put me off her. It was this particular argument however where sadly I think Lily showed her true colours as a spoiled rich girl and a class snob.

Not only was Lily willing to shut someone down simply for disagreeing with her (like a true feminist), but she also gloated to Tommy Robinson for apparently not having as much money as her, telling Tommy “to get saving HA.”

George Galloway, a famous left wing politician despite claiming to be a socialist and supposed man of the people, also let his ugly attitudes to the working class slip out when debating Tommy Robinson.

Its interesting when you compare Galloways debate with Tommy to his debate with Nigel Farage. Both have pretty much exactly the same views on Islam, but Galloway treats the posh, erudite, well spoken Farage with the utmost respect, whilst with Tommy Robinson he calls him a knuckle scarping moron.

The left as you can see really view the working class as idiots who are all easily led into being racists and Nazis without their superior moral guidance. Also most hilariously of all the left who are critics of capitalism when it suits them, will nevertheless deride their opponents for not making enough money, as seen with the likes of Lily Allen and Whovian Feminism.

The right however once again is not really any better. Many right wingers like Sargon of Akkad and Paul Joseph Watson and Stefan Molyneaux are so tribal about capitalism that they will dismiss all of the poverty it inevitably creates as being simply the people who can’t compete in a fair, free market.

Paul Joseph Watson will often dismiss critics of capitalism as being benefit scroungers, too lazy to get an actual job (often when he has absolutely no idea who they are.) Whilst Sargon had this to say about those living in poverty.

“The only people who are actually oppressed by capitalism are people who either can’t work, people who’ve lost a leg or are morbidly obese or something like that, or people who don’t want to work because they are fucking lazy, or people who don’t have any other skills because they did gender studies degrees. Believe it or not everyone else actually does pretty well out of capitalism, y’know something like a house, a car, holidays, food on the table, entertainment, luxuries.”

These right wing SJWs hate the working class for a different reason. They can’t stand seeing people in western societies like Britain and America who live in genuine poverty because their plight demonstrate the flaws in right wingers beloved political system.

Its like the fundamentalist Christians despising Darwin for disproving their theories about how life developed wrong.

All poverty created by socialism in the right’s eyes is 100 percent proof of how socialism doesn’t work, whilst all poverty created by capitalism is just lazy people not bothering to get off their arses and use a system that works for everybody else.

The only place the working class are likely to find any ounce of sympathy for their problems is among more politically neutral people.

Tommy Robinson for instance has done more for the working class of this country than most others in the media.

Tommy is himself working class and he has been an outspoken critic of Islam, and has as raised other issues affecting those living in poverty in areas of Britain.

Sadly Tommy Robinson has been slimed as a racist by the leftist media because of his views on Islam.

Tommy Robinson as far as I’m concerned doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. I’m not saying he hasn’t made mistakes. Personally I wasn’t keen on the EDL that he founded, and I don’t think street protests are really ever that successful as they do often just lead to clashes with the police.

Still at the same time Tommy is not a racist. He has simply attacked the ideology of Islam. He has never even said that all Muslims are evil. He has gone out of his way to say that isn’t the case, and has worked with Muslim reformers in the past too.

You should definitely watch these two interviews if you have the time. They are both long, but its good to hear from Tommy’s perspective, given how much the media tries to tar him as a Nazi. In the second video meanwhile Tommy and a true Muslim reformer, Imam Tawhidi have a very interesting discussion about dealing with the problems Islam is creating in our society, as well as how Islam can be changed to be more peaceful.

Someone like Tawhidi, who does represent the future for Islam will ironically only ever be given a platform by a supposed racist like Tommy Robinson.

Tommy Robinson isn’t really political. I’m not saying that to do him down. He’s someone who focuses more on social issues affecting people, which yes obviously are linked to politics, but still ultimately I wouldn’t say that Tommy belongs to any political party or side.

The right may use him, and even claim him because they have a mutual enemy in Islam, but it would be wrong to say Tommy is far right, or far left. As a result he actually cares for the working class of this country.

For instance a leftist like Owen Jones, dismisses the problems women like Chelsey Wright , a working class white woman, targeted and violently sexually assaulted for her skin colour go through by saying that “white people don’t suffer racism in the United Kingdom” as would most SJWs on University campus’s such as those who chastised an Asian woman for saying that dark skinned people can be racist too.

Hell white women are now seen as being as privileged as white men by many feminists.

White Women Stop Pretending That We Don’t Benefit From White Privilege

You wouldn’t think that people would write articles like that, right in the middle of things like this going on.

The unprecedented rape and abuse of white girls across the country because of the colour of their skin.

The sad fact is that Chelsey again isn’t as attractive a victim to champion for the left wing SJWs because she is white and in their minds a “pleb”. They will virtue signal about things like there not being enough black superheroes in Marvel, but Chelsey’s plight goes completely un-commented on. I guess she has white privilege.

At the same time however someone like this veteran who, having had a stroke, is now living in poverty, would be dismissed by many right wing SJWs.

This veteran is proof that hey capitalism isn’t perfect. Its a system where someone like this isn’t able to get money he needs for rehabilitation, but 8 people own half the money of the entire world.

World’s 8 Richest People Have Almost The Same Wealth as The Poorest 50 Percent

A right wing SJW either doesn’t want to hear about a situation like the one Tommy Robinson describes, or worse, would dismiss the veteran who is paralysed as just being too lazy to help himself, and playing at being a victim.

Take a look at this video from Candace Owens. I understand if you don’t want to watch it, as its rather cringey, but still its interesting as a display of tribalism and the rights mentality.

Candace talks about her admiration for a disabled person who still goes to work and doesn’t want us to pay for their medical care and says that he is proof that anyone can work hard if need be.

This video from Stefan Molyneux is even worse.

If you can’t be arsed watching that video (and I wouldn’t blame you. Molyneux’s videos are always an ordeal to sit through.) Molyneux basically says that he considers people who work 9-5 jobs, 40 hour weeks to be parasites who are leeching off of the hard working entrepreneurs. He also regards anyone with a low paying job to be a moron, and less hard working than he is.

Molyneaux’s arguments are of course pig ignorant and don’t address wealth that is inherited, or how things in the public sector have been taken over by businessmen, and he does not take into account why wages, hours and conditions for workers even in the most well developed Western countries are worse than they should be.

How Wages Fell In The United Kingdom

The 8 Hour Work Day Doesn’t Work

The 5 Day Work Week Is Bad For Business

Effects of Bedroom Tax On Children In The United Kingdom

Scale of Food Bank Use In The United Kingdom

Construction Fatalities Rise

Work Related Deaths Arising In United Kingdom

Austerity Leads To 120,000 deaths

Molyneaux’s arguments are a straw man. He tries to paint all of those at the top as honest entrepreneurs who got to the top through their own hard work. Obviously I am not saying that there aren’t people who start honest businesses and get to the top because they deserve it.

I just don’t think that wages need to be as low as they are, that working conditions need to be quite so poor, and that basic essentials such as electricity should not be owned by private companies any more than other basic essentials such as water.

That has nothing to do with wanting to take money away from all of those who have earned it. Its also extremely naive just to think that because you are at the top you are automatically the best. There are many talented writers, artists and musicians that died in poverty, whilst talentless cretins like Tracy Emin have spent their entire life farting their arse through silk.

Is Tracy Emin a more talented person than Vincent Van Gough Stefan? She’s at the top, he died at the bottom?

Things like luck, connections and what family you’re born into in most cases are what help people get to the top, hence why the likes of Van Gough, one of the greatest talents who ever lived died in poverty, whilst Justin Bieber was a millionaire by the age of 15.

You can’t just dismiss those at the bottom as not being hard working, or stupid, or even talented, and you certainly can not use the fact that they are at the bottom as proof that they are deserving of the most appalling working and living conditions.

This borderline sociopathic attitude of “me first” that people on the right like Stefan Molyneaux use to excuse the horrors of capitalism stems from Ayn Rand, a woman that many right wingers and even anti SJWs see as a hero.

In reality Ayn Rand was a disgusting person who ironically worshipped a serial killer that hacked young women to death. In fact the ideology that the likes Molyneaux get their free market crap from, comes from her worship of a serial killer.

Trump Praises Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand: Paul Joseph Watson

The Left Attacks Ayn Rand: Stefan Molyneaux

Sargon of Akkad and Yaron Brook on Ayn Rand

THIS is the woman they admire?

Ayn Rand: Sociopath That Admired A Serial Killer

Ayn Rand Loved A Serial Killer.

Stefan Moluyneaux and many other major figures on the rights entire beliefs around the working class stem from a sociopath’s view of clemency being wrong!

The left and the right are never going to comment on class, the single greatest cause of inequality in the western world today.

Only people in the centre like Tommy Robinson are going to try and bring attention to problems faced by those at the bottom of society, because he has no axe to grind against one particular side.

6/ They Both Have Horrible Attitudes Towards One Gender

Image result for Anita Sarkeesian

Image result for anita sarkeesian stefan molyneux

In the lefts case they are obviously bigoted towards white men, whilst among the right I have noticed some sexist attitudes towards women developing.

Feminism has in the last 30 or so years become a sick parody of its former self. Whilst the movement like many others always had its own problems, (mostly idiotic infighting.) It still did a lot of good for women in the past, and produced many admirable people from Sylvia Pankhurst, to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to Christina Hoff Sommers. Feminism however began to decline for many reasons.

First and foremost it became trendy from round about the 80s on. When that happened we started to get people like Anita Sarkeesian, people who didn’t actually give a shit about women, but wanted the glory that actual champions for women in the past were now getting.

So they picked an easy target, like say video games, or sci fi and they smeared them as sexist for the most petty, ridiculous reasons, and with a little media manipulation they were able to look like they were fighting a worthy cause.

Of course ironically when it came to actual issues affecting women like FGM, these “feminists” were either as silent as ghosts, or worse outright apologists!

Still sadly as the media was on their side, these feminists had a greater influence on the next generation of young men and women, who came to believe their bullshit, than the few genuine feminists who were left like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

On top of this a lot of women I feel started to use feminism as a way of venting their frustrations against the opposite sex too which led to bigotry against men being legitimised as it was now just seen as complaints from a previously respected movement.

Finally feminism as I have pointed out before kind of replaced religion for a lot of people. It became this holy, sacred thing that must never be criticised. If you dare to even say that you don’t believe in something like the gender wage gap (which is bullshit.) Then you are branded as someone who hates all women and may even be ostracised from people you’ve known for years.

As it couldn’t look in on itself and see where it was going wrong, then feminism became stagnated and out of date and the bigotry towards men was also allowed to foster to the point where it sadly did become a defining feature of modern day feminism.

Feminists love grouping all men together as privileged. They also love to demonise them as being potential rapists, and even ban them from certain events, jobs and activities simply for their gender.

Swedish Music Festival To Be Men Free Until Men Learn How To Behave

Women Only Wonder Woman Screenings Illegal

Banning Men Is Only Way For Women

British Transport Office Bans White Men

Man Hating Feminism Not Just A Myth

23 Quotes That Will Make You Rethink Feminism

Owner of Men’s Rights Abuse Shelter Kills Himself

Anita Sarkeesian “You Can’t Be Sexist Against Men”

Image result for men banned from university male tears

NUS Defends Banning White Men From Positions

As feminists have their talons wrapped around the left now then their anti men bigotry has seeped its way into left wing politics in general.

Labour Bans White Straight Men From Equality Conference

The right meanwhile are in their own way just as sexist towards women. Of course ironically the right has often been accused of being sexist against women for the wrong reasons. Idiots like Rational Wiki will often call right wingers sexist because they criticise feminism.

Feminism does not equal all women. It is a social and political movement and must therefore be judged on its own merits, not the group it claims to be fighting for.

Ironically most women whilst supporting the equality between sexes, do NOT identify as feminists, which is a bloody good thing.

Only 7 Percent Of Britons Consider Themselves Feminists

So no, criticising this movement in principle does not make you a sexist. I’d argue that its actually fewer than 7 percent of women that identify as feminists.

Feminists are intolerant bullies who will often attack any woman that doesn’t identify as a feminist.

Take a look at Kaley Cuoco, Taylor Swift, Lily Allen and Katy Perry ALL of whom merely said initially that they weren’t feminists but were attacked by feminists until they actually apologised for not being a part of this particular political movement, and said they were feminists.

Attacks on Kaley Cuoco Expose More Feminist Hypocrisy

Lily Allen Feminism Shouldn’t Be A Thing Anymore

Lily Allen Tells Feminist Critics To Fuck Off

Lana Del Ray and The Fault Of Our Feminist Stars

Incidentally I feel that when many of these women cave and become feminists, ironically they end up becoming much less empowered, individual and independent.

Take a look at Lily Allen and Katy Perry. Before they were brainwashed/bullied into being feminists, they at the very least regardless of whether you were a fan of them or not, where their own women.

Look at them in these videos from before their feminist days.

They are unique and clearly in charge of everything to do with their music, fashion, look, etc.

Now look at them. You’d be hard pushed to tell them apart. Both have the same hairstyles, looks, both have the same personalities. Spouting vapid, meaningless, first year political student crap that just makes everybody cringe, interspersed with the most vile bigotry against white men.

To me feminists are kind of like the Cybermen from Doctor Who.

The Cybermen for those of you who don’t watch the show were originally a race of organic creatures who slowly transformed themselves into machine creatures with no individual personalities, and who seek to transform any other organic life form they come across. They are a dead race who in order to reproduce have to force themselves on other species, and once they convert you, you loose all individuality.

Feminism similarly is a dying movement, as demonstrated by the fact that women, the people who it claims to be fighting for are turning against it. So in order to survive it needs to force itself on popular culture, the education system and even forms of entertainment, like comic books, video games and even ironically Doctor Who!

Also much like the Cybermen, feminists have no individual personalities. They all follow the group think of ” the wage gap is real, white men are all evil, Islam is a religion of peace etc” and in much the same way as the Cybermen’s main aim is to convert people, the actual main aim of feminists, rather than helping women is “lets get more people to be feminists and ruin the lives of those who refuse.”

The question is of course how many women are there like this in the supposed 7 percent, that have been forced into just going along with the movement out of fear of being ostracised from their social groups or slimed as a sexist or a traitor to their own gender?

Feminism can also be seen as an abusive spouse to all women. It actually demeans them, tells them in society they are worthless, unless they support this movement, tries to make out that all of women’s accomplishments are to do with feminism etc.

In addition to their bullying ways, feminists I feel finally are often able to get people on their side by spreading this bullshit idea that if you support equality between the sexes, then you are a feminist.

No you’re not. You are just a decent person. Again its similar to when religious fanatics used to say that if you didn’t believe in god then you lacked a moral centre.

No group or ideology has a right to claim a trait that all decent humans should have. It would be like if I set up a new ideology called say Burrunjorist, and then said if you don’t think innocent people should be hacked to death by psychopaths then congratulations, you are a Burrunjorist! And then I tried to force you to go along with all of my other beliefs, and if you didn’t agree with them, I accused you of being pro hacking innocent people to death because you were anti Burrunjorist.

Its a slimey tactic and yet more proof that feminists don’t actually care about women, just in forcing more people to be part of their little tribe, and silencing opposition.

So yes with this in mind, I  absolutely do not think that right wingers are sexist for hating feminists. I think hating modern feminism can be seen as a sign of common sense!

Sadly however many on the right have I feel now crossed over into actual woman hating.

Take a look at this video from a popular conservative youtuber Naked Ape to see what I mean. He outright says that he hates the majority of modern women. Not feminists, WOMEN, because he believes that women when they are younger are selfish sluts who reject nice guys, so that they can sleep around with jocks, but when they get older, they get saggy and ugly and no man wants to fuck them. Most revolting of all, he actually compares older women to used meat, and calls them “roasties”

Naked Ape claims that women become bitter rejects when they’re older because they want to settle down and have families but by that time its too late. I might add by older he means 30!

He’s a charmer isn’t he.

This is like something I’d expect a blue haired feminist, the type of people Naked Ape obnoxiously thinks he is a logical alternative too, to say about men. A problem in society comes about simply because the other half of population are all selfish, lazy, privileged, evil etc.

I do agree that modern women are a lot less happy now, but there are many reasons for that. I think that to start with more modern people in general in some ways are less happy now because there are more distractions and the population is more fragmented.

In the 60s for instance there was no internet, no computer games, even tv wasn’t what it is now. There was no netflix, no DVDs, no repeat showings. TV wasn’t even ON during the day. There were also only two channels as well.

As a result of this people obviously wouldn’t feel as tempted to stay in, as there wasn’t as much to do, and they couldn’t chat to their friends online either, so they’d have to go out to socialise with people.

Nowadays however whilst younger people obviously have it better in many ways, they are more tempted to stay in, play video games, and can generally feel more lonely as a result.

Lauren Southern actually did a great video on the subject here.

Now it can be worse for a woman, for her sake, to leave it to start things like settling down and having a family until later in life, simply because there is a time limit for when a woman can have children.

Men can waste the first half of their life playing video games, and still settle down and have a family, but a woman who might just want to bum around, enjoy the many distractions there are for her, could end up coming to regret it when she reaches 40 and realises she wants to have a family but can’t unless she adopts which isn’t always as easy.

Its not fair, but its biology. Also a further problem for women is that I think that women in certain professions have to make a choice between actually having children and having a career, as obviously in order to have children, a woman will need to take lots of time off unlike her husband. Sadly however in professions like say the medical profession, taking lots of time off can derail your entire career.

Females In Medicine

Shared paternity leave and proper accommodations for single mothers would solve a lot of these problems.

This is a pressing issue for women today and it is yet another one that modern day feminists have not really addressed as often as trivial bullshit, like changing the sex of male super heroes on tv, or banning men from things!

Most people want to have children. There is nothing wrong with someone who doesn’t of course, but still I feel that many people today are unhappy because they A/ feel like they are wasting their lives as they are spending too much time on hobbies, are B/ much lonelier because its harder to meet people as more people prefer to stay indoors and the population is fragmented, and C/ in the case of women, not only can they not afford to mess around for as long as men if they want to have children, but also whilst women thankfully have been given more roles and opportunities, sadly society has not taken into account that in some situations, women might need accommodated in a way men don’t simply because they have children.

Sadly however feminists are never going to solve these issues because they’ll just say its because men hate all women, whilst people like Naked Ape won’t either as they’ll just say its because women are lazy whores who want to “ride the chad cock” and never have any responsibility.

Naked Ape isn’t alone in his vile views towards women among the right. A lot of people on the right seem to have this idea that the more opportunities women are given in society the worse it is for them and society as a whole.

The right thinks that a woman’s role is to raise the children, and that they are at their happiest when doing that, and that for a woman to want to do anything else is a woman trying to be a man.

See for yourself.

How To Make Women Happy? MILO

Stefan Molyneux meanwhile not only supports this view that a woman’s place is essentially in the home, but he also holds women responsible for all the ills of the world.

Molyneux claims that men are evil when they are not raised properly by women. He also much like Black Pigeon Speaks and Naked Ape blames women for “choosing assholes”.

“Women who choose assholes will fucking end this race. They will fucking end this human race, if we don’t start holding them a-fucking-countable.

Look women who choose assholes guarantee child abuse. Women who choose assholes guarantee criminality. Sociopathy. Politicians. All the cold hearted jerks who run the world came out of vaginas of women who married assholes. And I don’t know how to make this world a better place without holding women accountable for choosing assholes.

If asshole wasn’t a great reproductive strategy it would have been gone long ago. Women keep that black bastard flame alive. If women choose nice guys over assholes we would have a glorious and peaceful world in one generation. 

Stop fucking monsters, we get a great world. Keep fucking monsters, we get catastrophes. We get war, we get nuclear weapons, we get national debt, we get incarcerations and prison guards and all the other florid assholes who rule the world. 

Women worship at the feet of the devil and wonder why the world is evil? And then you know what they say? We’re victims. Poor us.”

There are disadvantages that both men and women face in the world today. I feel that they stem from the fact that society doesn’t take the differences between men and women into account, rather than because we live in a society designed to oppress women, or because women are all apparently selfish whores.

Men and women are equal, but they are different. That’s not sexist to say that as I am not saying because of those differences one gender is smarter or better. However in certain situations one gender might have an advantage more than the other as a result of those differences.

In the medical profession men have the advantage, as they don’t need to take time off to start a family.

In the education system however women have the advantage as the education system is geared more towards feminine interests, hence why fewer boys are going to university.

Christina Hoff Sommers has done a lot to bring attention to the issues faced by men in modern society. Of course she’s become a pariah among the left as a result. The great irony is if most feminists were like Christina Hoff Sommers then they wouldn’t have to  try and bully people like Kaley Cuoco and Katy Perry into being feminists as most people would be okay with the movement.

We need to try and take the differences between men and women into account and deal with the problems both genders face to stamp out the last traces of inequality in our society.

Becoming part of little tribes and listening to bigoted, bitter, pseudo intellectuals like Stefan Molyneux and chancers like Anita Sarkeesian is not just a dead end. Its fucking toxic!

7/ They Both Ignore Science When It Suits Them

Image result for 56 genders

In yet a further parallel with religious fanatics, both the left and the right will deny scientific facts and even accuse you of some kind of bigotry if you disagree with their consensus.

For the left this is primarily to do with gender, whilst with the right its a variety of things.

Left wingers often claim that there are no real differences between men and women, whilst also somewhat paradoxically claiming that there are hundreds of genders.

Its total nonsense and a misguided attempt to help trans people and women.

Obviously I am not saying trans people don’t exist or that intersex people don’t exist, or that women are inferior to men.

Trans people are proof that there are differences between the genders. If there weren’t why would these people go through long, costly and incredibly painful operations to change?

Gender dysphoria, which trans people suffer from is a serious condition where people feel they were born in the wrong body. There is also a growing body of scientific evidence that trans people are actually born with brains that match the opposite gender to the one they are born in, which is why its better for their well being to change.

Men and women do have different brains, and no that’s not saying that one is smarter.

Being Trans Is Not A Choice

So again being trans is a proper, medical condition, and obviously I have 0 issue with someone changing their gender. Its more or less proven that that’s the best way to treat gender dysphoria, and obviously there’s nothing wrong with it either.

However at the same time gender dysphoria does not prove that trans people are a third gender. In fact it proves the opposite. They are one gender, and then change into another gender. If anything trying to make out that they are neither men, nor women is more offensive to them, as basically you are saying that they aren’t the gender they want to be?

There are only two genders. As always there will be some exceptions to the role. Men born with more feminine brains, people born with both sets of genitals, but these are anomalies. That doesn’t mean these people are freaks, or amoral. Depression is caused by an anamoly in brain chemistry, but again that doesn’t mean people with depression are freaks or amoral.

Still that’s the point intersex isn’t a new gender. You are a woman born with male reproductive organs or traits as well, or vice versa. Nothing wrong with that at all, but that’s all it is.

Similarly if you are a man with more feminine traits, or a Tomboy that doesn’t justify creating a whole new gender either.

Here from a trans person.

A lot of these people who claim to be trans but don’t do anything about it, ie don’t have any surgery, don’t dress in clothing that they opposite gender wears, don’t act like the opposite gender, but just insist that they are somehow trans, in my opinion are merely doing it to be trendy.

I have no issue with them doing this in principle, and if they insist on being called Xe, or whatever then I’ll do it to be polite. However there is no scientific validation for this. At the end of the day it is just self indulgence in my opinion, and wanting to cash in on a craze.

Furthermore I think it trivialises what trans people go through, as it makes it look like being trans is this easy thing. Apparently you can switch from between being a man and a woman by say, not wearing lipstick if you are a woman, or wearing lipstick if you are a man, because gender is fluid.

No gender is not fluid. Changing gender is a big deal, and gender dysphoria is a very difficult condition to live with.

You can’t just say “you are trans”, not do anything to show it, and expect that people will see you as the opposite gender as much as someone like Blaire White who has gone through a full operation and surgery to be the opposite sex. Being a Tomboy or being a an effeminate man is not the same as actually hating the body you were born in and changing it through surgery.

Furthermore, you can’t get someone fired from their job for not seeing you as the opposite sex, when you do NOTHING to look or act like the opposite sex, which has actually happened.

Teacher Fired For Misgendering Pupil By Mistake

I wouldn’t want Candace Owens fired for calling Blaire a man. I think it was pathetic, and a dirty tactic to try and throw Blaire. Also in contrast to the above instance, Candace had to constantly keep reminding herself to call Blaire a man, as when you look at Blaire, you’ll just instinctively think of and refer to her as a woman.

The hilarious thing is that Candace DOES refer to Blaire as she and her, several times throughout the interview, when she obviously isn’t thinking and deliberately trying to rattle Blaire.

However even if you had someone who was more of a “trans trender” than Blaire White, I still wouldn’t go out of my way to deliberately “misgender” them, but if someone however instinctively calls someone who looks, acts, dresses and talks like a man, a man, or calls them it without even knowing that they are transgender, then they do not deserve to be black listed!

Sadly however much like religious fanatics these leftists cannot stand it when reality threatens their delusion.

With the right however meanwhile like I said I find that they tend to deny a broader spectrum of things that don’t suit their agenda.

Paul Joseph Watson did a hilariously ignorant video on depression. He argued that depression doesn’t really exist and that its just a lot of attention seeking millenials.

Sadly this is just the tip of the iceberg for both Paul and the right.

Paul Joseph Watson and many on the right are also climate change deniers. Now I agree that its open for debate as to what is causing climate change, whether its a natural process or man made, I am willing to listen to both sides.

Still Paul and many on the right take it that one step further and deny that there is ANY climate change whatsoever.

I am still a fan of PJW. As Eazy himself says in the video, there are some topics where he gets it spot on like Islam and feminism, but sadly he is a classic example of a right wing SJW in other respects, and is certainly one of the easiest places to go if you want to see how the right comes out with bullshit pseudo science.

His latest was claiming that soy makes men more womanly and left wing.

Seriously!

Soy boy has since become a popular insult to use online (I hate to say I used it once.) To be fair though using it doesn’t mean you believe in Paul’s ridiculous idea that soy turns you into a left wing SJW.

Its more just that a lot of left wing SJWs eat soy, because they are vegans.

Paul Joseph Watson is a Complete Idiot (Re Soy Boys.)

Whatever the case you can see how both sides are willing to buy into the most ridiculous nonsense from that there are billions of genders, to eating soy makes you a cuck, if it suits their agenda.

8/ They Want To Take Over Entertainment

Image result for anita sarkeesian

Now this is a bit more of a first world problem. Obviously compared to the other things on this list this isn’t as important, and I was unsure about including it at first for that reason.

Still I decided to include it as I think this shows how the fanatics on both sides operate. Also they often go after the entertainment industry before anything else, because that’s the easiest to take over. Most people will tell someone that complains “oh stop whining about that its just a tv show, video game, comic book etc”

Still whilst it might seem trivial at first, its an important thing to stand up for in the long run.

Let the SJWs take over a big part of your culture and they won’t stop. After the entertainment industry, then its the media, and after the media its your education system, and then you have a whole generation weaned on nothing but this particular political belief, which obviously then finally spills its way into, and tries to control every aspect of your life.

You should always stop this type of censorship at the start and hopefully the sad fate of the following major forms of entertainment that have been hit the hardest by right wing and left wing SJWs should serve as a warning to the rest of us.

Even if you don’t care for any of these forms of entertainment that have been affected, ask yourself. How long before they come for your hobbies and way of life?

Doctor Who

Image result for TARDIS

The series to suffer the most at the hands of SJWs. Obviously I have commented on this before, and again as a result I wasn’t originally going to talk about it again here, but its needs mentioning as Doctor Who has been hit harder than any other form of entertainment.

Doctor Who for those of you who don’t watch it is the worlds longest running science fiction series. Originally premiering in 1963, the show revolves a mysterious alien called the Doctor who travels through time and space in his magnificent machine called the TARDIS which is also bigger on the inside than the outside.

The Doctor also has the power when he dies, to come back to life, with his appearance and outer personality changing as a result, though all of the Doctors are still meant to be the same person with the same core persona. This power of the Doctors, called regeneration is what has allowed the show to endure for so long, with 13 and counting actors playing the Doctor over its 50 plus year history.

Sadly however despite the shows big international following, throughout its history its had to deal with a few whiny crybabies demanding that it cater entirely to their interests.

We’ll start with Mary Whitehouse. Now to those of you who haven’t heard of her, Mary Whitehouse was a right wing SJW. She was a conservative woman who constantly attempted to censor television series, films and music that she found offensive.

Doctor Who was a particular pet peeve of hers. Whitehouse complained that Doctor Who was far too violent, and frightening. Of course she also admitted that she never watched it, but still she wanted this show, that she had no interest in and really knew nothing about to cater to her, instead of the people who actually did watch it.

Whitehouse also personally slandered and insulted the makers of the series, calling them “dumb” and twisted in interviews.

Sadly the BBC eventually caved to her, and others like hers constant whining about the shows violent nature and the then producer of the series Phillip Hinchcliff was actually dismissed from the show as a result.

There were no other reasons for Hinchcliff’s dismissal. His era is ironically regarded as a golden age for the show, that many feel has still never been surpassed. Furthermore it was also at that point the most successful era in terms of ratings and mainstream critical acclaim too.

To get rid of of someone who had produced the most successful era of a show, with its fans and mainstream viewers, that had been running for over a decade would have seemed ridiculous and it was, but it shows you how the loud minority really can get their own way if they push hard enough.

Graham Williams who was brought in to replace Hinchcliff, was told to make the show lighter and more comedic. Now personally I like the Williams era, and have no problems with the humour he brought to the show as for the most part it didn’t undermine the drama.

Still the point isn’t however whether Williams was good or not. Its that the show should not have gotten rid of its existing producer, whose take on the show at that point was the most successful, simply because of a small group of whiny viewers.

Sadly Whitehouse didn’t stop there. She continued to claim that the show was too violent during producer John Nathan Turner’s era. This was eventually used by Michael Grade, the controller of the BBC as one of the reasons for cancelling the show in 1985, when its viewers were still strong, both in the UK and abroad.

To be fair Grade openly hated Doctor Who and wanted to cancel it anyway. Still Whitehouse’s constant attacks on the show for being too violent gave him the ammunition that he needed, and it also contributed to the shows reputation falling.

Worse the show once again when it came back (after international outrage) was forced to be lighter and more humorous to pander to Whitehouse and her cronies during season 24, Sylvester McCoy’s first season as the Doctor.

Unlike the Williams era this was an utter disaster with fans, critics and mainstream viewers, and contributed to the shows viewers, which had already been hurt by the 1985 cancellation to fall even further.

Whitehouse contributed to the demise of the original 1963-1989 series. There were other factors, such as the BBC’s hatred for it, but Whitehouse still nevertheless contributed her part to its reputation falling.

Sadly however Whitehouse’s actions would pale in comparison to the left wing SJWs in the 2010s.

Feminists began to latch onto the Doctor Who franchise from about 2010 on. Before they had always dismissed it as sexist in the 80s (and even played a role in denting its reputation too.) Doctor Who was never actually sexist of course.

The simple fact that it had a male hero and a female sidekick didn’t make it sexist. By that logic, Xena is misandristic as it has a female hero and a male sidekick.

The female companions in Doctor Who were often strong, brave and resourceful characters in their own right. Yes some of them were wimpy, but there were plenty of wimpy male characters too. Not every male or female character can be an unstoppable badass.

Still from 2010 when the revival was at the peak of its popularity, then feminists latched onto the shows fanbase and in typical fashion, they tried to take it over.

Much like Whitehouse they accused the show of not espousing the correct values, and harming the youth of today. They also tarred its makers as horrible things too.

Steven Moffat the producer of Doctor Who throughout most of the 10s was called a sexist, a racist, a homophobe, a transphobe, an abelist etc by feminists, the same way that Philip Hinchcliff was called a purveyor of violent and degenerate material in the 70s by Mary Whitehouse.

The man’s reputation was completely ruined as a result, as the mainstream media picked up on these stupid “Doctor Who and Steven Moffat are sexist” theories and started printing them as fact.

Here are examples of the smear campaign against Moffat.

Doctor Who Is Racist New Book Claims

Trigger Warning Sexual Assault In Doctor Who

Problematic Posters for Doctor Who

Steven Moffat Is A Classist

Why Does The Man Behind Doctor Who And Sherlock Still Have A Job

Because You Are Not Autistic You Are Not Complaining

Steven Moffat is Ableist

Asylum of the Daleks Is Problematic

Doctor Who Returns New Direction

As you can see these complaints are really no different to Mary Whitehouse. Mary Whitehouse was worried that stories like The Deadly Assassin would convince young boys to become murderers when they grew up, by filling their heads full of violent images.

The feminists and the the left wing SJWs meanwhile actually thought that Matt Smith’s Doctor, of all Doctors, the most childlike, innocent and sweet, would convince young boys to start sexually assaulting young women because of a scene where Matt Smith kisses Rory in a eureka moment and doesn’t get his consent.

The Captain Kirk Problem: How Doctor Who Let Down Matt Smith

Sadly all of these ridiculous complaints evidently bothered Steven Moffat, and the BBC, as much like Mary Whitehouse, the complaints weren’t just a simple critique of the show, but designed to slander it and its makers.

See here.

BBC Responds To Sexist Claims

Karen Gillan: Steven Moffat Is Not Sexist

Peter Capaldi Denies Steven Moffat Is A Misogynist Claims

As a result of this the BBC and Moffat, just like the Beeb did when they fired Phillip Hinchliff to cater to Mary Whitehouse in the 70s, began to pander to these people, and eventually identity politics bullshit not only began to seep its way into Doctor Who, but took it completely over from about 2014 on.

Its worth noting that directors and producers on the series began to speak with and promote Whovian Feminism, a hard line feminist blogger too.

Whovian Feminism Interviews Rachel Talalay

Whovian Feminism Interviews Sarah Dollard

You can see what audience they were going for with this in mind.

To start with there were many anti men, and anti white people remarks throughout Doctor Who and its spin off the short lived, disasterous Class throughout this period.

Master/ Do as she says is the future going to be all girl?

Doctor/ We can only hope.

Tanya/ White people

April/ White people what? 

Tanya/ Always so optimistic. Always so certain things are going to work out for you. Oh, well because they usually do.

April/ My Dad tried to kill me when I was eight.

Tanya/ But you got your mum up walking again. Typical white person happy ending.

Yeah things always work out for white people don’t they?

Newcastle Grooming Victim Suicidal And Sleeps With Knife

I guess this also applies to Van Gough too? Remember when Doctor Who did a very nuanced, sympathetic, and acclaimed episode on Van Gough back in 2010?

The episode, called “Vincent and the Doctor” saw the Time Lord take Van Gough into the future to see what a celebrated artist he will become. Sadly however Van Gough’s long standing mental health problems still cause his death, but the Doctor takes solace in the fact that he at least made Van Gough’s life a bit happier.

The story makes a brilliant point of how when dealing with someone who suffers depression, every single little bit of help matters. People will often blame themselves if they can’t help someone they care for who is suffering from mental health problems, but sometimes a person can be so far gone that nothing could help them, but at the very least you can take comfort that you made their lives happy for even just a short time.

Quite a big comedown for a franchise to go from this, to telling all white people that they are privileged shitlords isn’t it?

I guess Vincent got his white person happy ending didn’t he? Vincent can get to fuck actually. He is white, AND he’s a man! The bastard!

Clara/ Hush. Go, now. Go and find Vikings on other planets. The universe is full of testosterone. Trust me, its unbearable.

River Song/ What’s that face, are you thinking? Stop it, you’re a man. It looks weird. 

Now I wouldn’t mind these remarks if they were both ways, but they aren’t. Furthermore again when you look at the rest of the show, you can see an obvious agenda behind them.

The actual stories of the Peter Capaldi era of Doctor Who (2014-2017) began to cater to what the SJWs wanted too,

Clara the Doctors female companion began to take over the show to an insane degree. Most of the stories during series 8 revolved around her and her place of work.

Also there was a lot of rewriting of the shows history and lore to make her the most important person, and Clara was also shown to emasculate the Doctor too. She even slapped him a few times.

The reason for this was because again SJWs had complained that Doctor Who was sexist simply for having a male lead. So basically until they could turn the Doctor into a woman, Steven Moffat had to undermine the male Doctor for Clara.

The Depressing Disappointing Maleness of Doctor Who

Doctor Who Feminist

To be fair there were elements of undermining the Doctor for his female companion in the Russell T Davies era (2005-10). Russell was a bit of an SJW himself, but still it reached new heights during Clara’s time on the show.

Clara was retconned into being the hero of every Doctor Who story ever made in an adventure called The Name of the Doctor, where an enemy of the Doctors, the Great Intelligence travels in time and rewrites his entire past to make every victory a defeat. Clara goes back however and undoes the Great Intelligence’s actions.

She also goes back in time in another story, meets the Doctor as a boy, and helps him overcome his fear which leads to him becoming a hero.

In yet another episode, another time travelling version of Clara is also revealed to have told him what TARDIS to steal too.

As if that wasn’t enough she was also the one who convinced the Doctor to save the Time Lords, and later convinced the Time Lords to give him more regenerations too.

Worst of all perhaps was in a story called Kill The Moon. In this adventure the Doctor discovers that the moon is about to hatch, as apparently, the moon is an egg for a giant space dragon.

The Doctor for some reason leaves Clara to deal with the dilemma of should they kill the Dragon to stop it hatching and spare humanity, or should they let it live and doom the world when broken bits of moon fall to the earth.

The entire world votes to kill the Dragon, but Clara on nothing more than a hunch spares the Dragon, and so it hatches. The moon harmlessly disintegrates, sparing the earth, after which it lays a second egg/moon (bigger than its whole body.)

Not only that, but the sight of the Dragon hatching is apparently what inspires humanity to exist to the end of time. So Clara is the most important person in the history of the universe.

You can see how the need to pander to people hurt the writing of the series.

At the end of her time on the series, Clara ended up becoming a better Doctor than the Doctor himself, as she became completely indestructable and gained her own TARDIS that she could travel the universe in.

Everything in Capaldi’s first two series was about making Clara more important than the Doctor to prove that the show wasn’t sexist, which undermined the Doctor, caused the writers to ironically make Clara unlikable, caused them to come up with ridiculous, over the top ideas to make her important, like the moon egg, shifted the focus onto her boring school, and finally the rewriting of Doctor Who’s mythology to insert Clara into it both alienated new viewers, with its continuity references, whilst also ironically pissing off the only people who got those constant continuity references too.

The makers of Doctor Who during this time also started to replace all of the male roles in the show with women.

UNIT, a military organisation designed to track aliens and monsters down, was staffed entirely by women in the Capaldi era.

Now this was of course unrealistic as the majority of soldiers are men. Personally though I didn’t mind the all female UNIT in principle, and I even liked one of the characters, Osgood played by Ingrid Oliver.

However again when you look at everything else that is happening in the show, the female UNIT sadly becomes yet another part of an agenda.

Worst of all however was when Steven Moffat brought the Doctors archenemy, the Master back as a woman.

Now The Master had been in the show since the 70s. He was a Time Lord like the Doctor who could regenerate into a different form. All of the Masters however were meant to be the same character underneath their different faces, much like the Doctor.

The Masters three main aims in the original Doctor Who series were to conquer the universe, because he believed that under his rule things would be better, to kill the Doctor his most hated enemy, and to prolong his own miserable life. (In later stories the villain loses the power to regenerate and ends up trapped in a decaying, zombie body, though he does get more regenerations later.)

Moffat however not only brought the Master back as a woman, but had the female version of the Master be in love with the Doctor and try and win him back. Missy, the female Master doesn’t try and conquer the universe like the old male Masters. Instead her plans are spent trying to win her “boyfriend” back and getting rid of women like Osgood and Clara that she sees as rivals for her man.

This was a huge comedown for the villain, and worse made a mockery of his past characterisation for the last 40 years. When you look at old stories where the Master was motivated by his hatred of the Doctor, you laugh now.

Either the Master was a repressed homosexual who couldn’t accept that he was gay for the Doctor, which led to him wanting to kill him, or worse, the Master regenerating into a woman caused him to suddenly notice how much more attractive his archfoe was before.

Are we supposed to expect that a Time Lords sexuality changes when they regenerate? How ridiculous. Does that mean then that Christopher Eccelston could have morphed into Jennifer Lawrence and then fallen in love with Mickey, Rose’s boyfriend? Or that Susan could have morphed into Russell Brand and abandoned the love of her life, David?

Also worst of all Moffat salted the earth for future writers to do something interesting with the Master. You can’t go back to writing the Master as the Master anymore after the drastic change to his and the Doctors relationship. That villain has essentially been written out of the show and replaced with another character.

See for yourself.

This is what the Master was for 40 years. He was the Doctors archfoe. He hated the Doctor more than anything else, and he wanted to rule the universe. His creators had intended for him to be Moriarty to the Doctors Holmes and that’s what he was.

However in order to pander to feminists, Steven Moffat turned the Master into this instead.

Those are just not the same characters, in fact they are the opposite to each other. Why would you bother to make Missy the Master? She could easily have been a new character.

The answer is that Moffat only made her the Master in order to set up a female Doctor to pander to feminists and SJWs who had been pushing for a female Doctor for years.

Sadly despite the failure of Missy, a female Doctor did finally happen in 2017.

Image result for Jodie Whittaker

Now a female Doctor is an idea that the overwhelming majority of Doctor Who fans hate.

It began as a joke by Tom Baker to make then producer John Nathan Turner (who he hated.) Look inept to the press.

It was never contrary to what SJWs always say, been part of the canon of the show until the early 10s when they bullied Steven Moffat into making it canon, with things like the Corsair, Missy and the General.

For the first 50 years we never saw any Time Lord change gender when regenerating. Furthermore we saw Time Lords use up all of their regenerations in many instances and not change gender. A Time Lord can only regenerate 13 times, and characters like Morbius, the Master, Azmahel and even the Doctor himself went through all 13 regenerations as the one gender.

Furthermore its been said many times that Time Lords choose how they are going to look when they regenerate.

With this in mind if they had no preference, why the fuck would they use up all of their lives as the one sex?

All Time Lords and Time Lady’s been written as male characters, and female characters. Some Time Lords have even been in romantic relationships with humans. The Doctors grand daughter Susan went off to live with David a human male, and Leela a human woman went off to live with a Time Lord male.

Their relationship is going to be awkward to say the least if Susan trips and bangs her head and turns into Brian Blessed! And don’t say that Brian Blessed is a ridiculous choice for Susan. If you support the bullshit idea of the Doctor can be absolutely anybody, and there is no template to how the Doctor should be, then okay same applies for every Time Lord character. In that case why can’t Susan regenerate into Brian Blessed?

Also not to get into the details of it, but if Time Lords have no gender, how does that work in the bedroom with a human? Finally I might add that the Master was written as a violent misogynist before in his male incarnations. How the fuck does that work if Time Lords have no concept of gender?

This whole gender bending Time Lords crap doesn’t work because its too late in Time Lords development to introduce it. No one minds a race of gender neutral aliens, but actually come up with a new race like that. At this stage, trying to rewrite it that Susan and Romana can technically regenerate into Brian Blessed and Vinnie Jones and that William Hartnell can turn into Jodie Whittaker is like trying to take a square peg and make it fit a round hole.

All of the Doctors are not meant to be different people. They are the same person whose body has simply changed. Yes his outer persona is a little bit different, but that’s explained in universe as simply being because of the shake up of regeneration, and also because living in a different body would affect your personality too. The Third Doctor for instance is more willing to fight his enemies because he is in the body of a 6 foot 3 guy with a ripped build than the Second Doctor who is in the body of a little overweight, middle aged guy.

The Doctors core personality always remains unchanged, from incarnation to incarnation. This isn’t just my interpretation. The most prominent people involved in Classic Who all said this.

Terrance Dicks the shows longest running script editor said that the single most important thing was not to change the Doctors character too much. Tom Baker the shows longest running and most popular Doctor also said the character was the most limited role he had ever played, as there were so many things he couldn’t do in the role as then he wouldn’t seem like the Doctor anymore.

The character can not change into absolutely anybody. There is a definite template to the character. Now the Doctors gender is a part of this template really by default.

He was never, until the early 2010s written as a genderless character. Even then he wasn’t actually written as a genderless character. It was just mentioned that he was.

The character of the Doctor has always been written as a man, played as a man, all of his relationships have been from a male perspective, he is recognised in popular culture as a man. To act as though he could switch gender and it would be no different is ridiculous.

I’d also argue that rewriting it to be that the Doctor can be genderless and anybody is insulting the makers of Classic Who. Its creating an idea in popular culture that the Doctor could have always been a woman, but they never did it because they were sexist. The makers of Classic Who ironically were often ahead of their time in their portrayals of female characters.

Pretty impressive for a teenager to take on an alien war machine/mini tank with a baseball bat and make it call for reinforcements!

Yet now the makers of Classic Who and its fans will forever be tarred as sexists who were too scared to have a woman as the hero, to future generations who don’t know the show and will think “oh well a female Doctor could have happened, they just didn’t do it,” when that wasn’t the case at all.

The makers and fans clearly had no problems with strong women as seen with characters like Barbara, Ace, Leela, Sarah Jane etc. I might add that there were always series starring female leads that ran concurrently to Doctor Who. The Avengers, Wonder Woman, The Survivors, Alien film series, The Bionic Woman, Xena, Buffy, Once Upon A Time, Ghost Whisperer, so its not even like a female lead would have been seen as unprofitable from a business point of view.

Its just that the makers and fans felt that that the particular character of the Doctor, who had an established history and personality, was set as a man, so it would be awkward to change that, and since there was nothing to suggest that he could turn into a woman (and plenty to contradict it.) Why bother going down that minefield? Particularly when there are so many great female heroes out there like Buffy, Xena and Ripley?

Also within the narrative of the show its going to be a difficult thing to pull off. Its not like a female Doctor is even a female character. She’s a man forced to turn into a woman against his will. She’s not a transexual character either. In fact shes the opposite. Trans people change gender because they feel they were born in the wrong body. The Doctor meanwhile apparently doesn’t care and has been changed in a flash against his will.

Having a character change gender against their will really seems kind of silly. Its like this episode of Futurama, and bogs the show down too much in gender politics as the character will obviously have to comment on those differences. Gender politics isn’t good for any series.

Jodie’s first moment as the Doctor, her gurning “Aw Bwilliant!” at her gender changing, after having been a man for 20000 years, and not feeling uncomfortable at all (apparently gender dysphoria doesn’t exist), already reminds me of this episode of Futurama, as do Missy’s cringey lines about becoming a woman being an upgrade and the Generals about all men being egotists.

Funny how even though Time Lords are supposedly gender neutral we haven’t seen ANY female Time Lords regenerating into men and preferring it? What about Susan, the Doctors grand daughter? Or The Rani a female adversary of the Doctor, or Romana.

When its all the one way, you can’t help but feel there is an agenda here.

I might add that even from the point of view of “I need muh representation” a female Doctor is a terrible idea.

I personally think the need for representation is a lot of self indulgent, narcissistic tripe, but more on that later.

Still if you do think it matters why on earth would you be for a female Doctor? Its not going to do anything for female representation to start with. The character of the Doctor is a man. There have been 13 versions of him as a man, he’s known around the entire world as a man, the longest running and most popular versions of him are men, Tom Baker, Jon Pertwee, David Tennant etc.

One female version after that is not going to cause people to always view him as a female character.

Furthermore by making out that a female Doctor is a milestone you are actually at this stage harming female representation. Jodie Whitaker recently gave an interview where she went on about how groundbreaking she was, simply for being a female lead in a television series. So then Charmed, Xena, Buffy, Once Upon A Time, Nikita, Alias, Dark Angel, Charlies Angels, Wonder Woman, Ghost Whisperer, Star Trek Voyager, Ab Fab, etc were all meaningless.

Its Nice To Be A Milestone, But People Need To Grow Up

Apparently they were according to Jodie. Apparently, all of these original, iconic female characters, mean nothing compared to a male character being turned into a woman? The only way a woman can be iconic is if she was once a he?

Its a terrible message to young women, and at the same time its not giving them a hero of their own.

It would have been better if the makers of Doctor Who had brought back any of the three Time Lady characters from the shows past, Romana the Doctors old companion, Jenny his daughter, or even Susan his grand daughter, made them  popular with new viewers and then given them their own spin off series.

The SJWs didn’t want an original female character however, because they wanted to A/ spite male viewers whom they despise, and B/ impose their agenda on as many people as possible by taking over a beloved character.

Sadly however the SJWs, even though they couldn’t supply one reason for a female Doctor, won and worse they were vicious bullies to those who weren’t happy about the decision including former Doctor Peter Davison, who they eventually chased off of twitter.

Peter Davison Quits Twitter Over Toxicity of Doctor Who Fandom

Finally as if this wasn’t enough, the conventions and the shows fandom have also been completely taken over for the SJWs agendas.

Here’s a Doctor Who convention from the 90s.

Related image

Here is one from this year.

It might as well be a feminist convention now. If you were to show someone the first picture they’d obviously know it was Doctor Who related as there is a Dalek and the TARDIS there, but the second? What the hell does it actually have to do with Doctor Who at all!

Even if you were actually at a convention you’d probably be unaware that it was about Doctor Who.

See here.

A Wonderful MeTooMoment Unfolded At Gallifrey One

Rachel Talalay on MeToo At Gallifrey One

Its hilarious that Rachel Talalay even says in the above article that at the entire panel, there was only ONE short story about Doctor Who.

You might think “well MeToo is more important than a silly sci fi show” but the point is, it was a convention designed to celebrate that silly sci fi show! It would be like if I took over the Buffy fandom and insisted that Buffy conventions all be about Scottish Independence, and that anyone who just wanted to talk about Buffy, was an anti Scots bigot.

Doctor Who is not long for this world. Its viewing figures have decreased every single year since 2014, when the SJW pandering really took hold. Matt Smith’s final episode was seen by over ten million viewers. During the latest Peter Capaldi series, the shows viewers sunk to barely over 2 million at one point. Literally the lowest in the shows entire 50 plus year history.

Doctor Who Ratings Fall To Record Lows

Doctor Who Lowest Ratings

Whovian Feminism and her fellow SJWs have done far more harm to the show than even Mary Whitehouse. They’ve dragged it to literally the lowest point in its history.

And it is solely them, make no mistake. Nobody else wanted a female Doctor. The general public as you can see above, switched off in droves at things like Missy, all the anti men remarks, Clara taking over the show.

The fans have also not only always been historically opposed to a female Doctor, but made it clear just before Jodie was cast that they still didn’t want a female Doctor either.

Woman Do Not Want A Female Doctor

Most Fans Against A Female Doctor

Yet even with all of this the producers still pandered to the Whovian Feminism crowd?

Its quite fascinating in a way. The vast majority who loved Hinchcliffs darker, edgier take on Doctor Who, and who switched off in droves at Steven Moffat’s SJW friendly version, clearly didn’t matter as much to the makers of the show as the tiny, complaining audience of Mary Whitehouse and Whovian Feminism.

Why would anyone who wanted their show to succeed do that? Simple because the Whovian Feminism and Mary Whitehouse minority were bullies who would stop at nothing to get what they wanted.

They made themselves appear as the majority, and also slandered the makers of the show as well. The key is not to ever give in to these people. Mary Whitehouse and Whovian Feminism should have both been told to fuck off. They were spoiled brats used to getting their own way, whose ideas for making the show better were utter crap.

I might add that a lot of the SJWs much like Mary Whitehouse don’t even like Doctor Who. Whovian Feminism claims to be a fan, but truth be told she hasn’t seen that much of the show. She hadn’t even seen any stories featuring Colin Baker, the 6th Doctor until 2015.

Joss Whedon meanwhile who openly mocked those who don’t want a female Doctor, ironically said he hated Doctor Who growing up and openly ridiculed the show too.

See here.

Joss Whedon says he thought Doctor Who was cheesy

Joss Whedon on Female Doctor Who

Why the hell does this guy care about who plays the Doctor with this in mind? He according to his own biography, watched one episode and thought it looked shit!

PS its also ironic that Joss would try and whittle down the only differences between men and women to genitals. By that logic, Blaire White shouldn’t be called a woman, as hey she still has a penis. Same applies to an intersex woman who has a penis too. I guess Joss sees her as a man?

The reason Joss and Mary Whitehouse despite having 0 interest in Doctor Who still want it to fit their vision, is because they are such intolerant people, they literally can’t stand something that doesn’t espouse their views even existing!

Doctor Who isn’t the only sci fi franchise the SJWs have influenced. They seem to have their talons locked around the sci fi and fantasy genres like no other.

The irony is that the sci fi and fantasy genres have often been among the most progressive. Its had plenty of strong black characters like Blade, dozens of strong female characters like Xena, Buffy, Charmed Ones, Wonder Woman, Bionic Woman, and plenty of LGBT characters like Xena, Buffy, Willow, Captain Jack.

In fact the sci fi and fantasy genres have often been ahead of the curve in terms of representation, with things like Star Trek the original series featuring the first ever interracial kiss in an American drama series, and being praised by none other than Martin Luther King who called it important to the civil rights movement.

You won’t find anywhere near as many female, black or LGBT heroes in other genres like spy espionage, crime thriller or westerns. Yet feminists don’t target them?

That’s because like all bullies, SJWs and feminists are pitiful cowards. As I said earlier people like Anita Sarkeesian and Whovian Feminism want to be seen as champions for female empowerment, but they are too scared to go after the single biggest cause of inequality for women in the world today, Islam.

They aren’t going to want to go through what someone like Tommy Robinson does in trying to bring attention to girls like Chelsea Wright who have been raped. They aren’t even going to want to go through what someone like Pat Condell who gets called a racist goes through.

So they pick a target that is completely benign and smear it as sexist, so they can appear to be “fighting the good fight”, and get all the credit for that whilst not doing a bloody thing to help any women.

Sci fi and fantasy are easy genres to bully because their fans are often nerds with low self esteem, and furthermore, sci fi fans in contrast to say western fans won’t want to stand up for their love of the genre quite so passionately, because its looked down on.

Fans of sci fi and fantasy are often seen as sad gits by the media after all, so people like Will Wheaton will not only not want to stand up for their favourite franchises, but may even bully those who do, to show that they are not sad gits whose lives revolve around Doctor Who and Star Trek.

Still even among sci fi franchises Doctor Who has been hit the absolute worst and sadly its turned from a show that was once a global phenomenon, to a show that most people probably aren’t even aware is still on.

Video Games

Image result for anita sarkeesian

Video games are probably the SJWs favourite whipping boy after Doctor Who. Fortunately unlike a lot of other spineless fandoms, gamers have stood up to both right wing and left wing SJWs that tried to take over their industry. (As a result they were tarred as Nazis by the mainstream media, during the whole Gamer Gate fiasco.)

Still I’m proud of video game fans for being about the only group who did stand up to these puritanical bullies.

Video games like many other popular forms of entertainment were derided by right wing SJWs for apparently corrupting the youth of today and encouraging violence.

The most famous example of this was Jack Thompson, who led a decades long campaign to get video games banned for encouraging violence.

His arguments have been debunked time and time again. Studies have shown that there is absolutely no link between playing violent video games and being violent in real life.

Long Term Study Shows No Link Between Violence And Video Games

Yet in spite of this Thompson would continue to trot out the same arguments, never offering any counter claims, and would play the victim by going on about all the death threats he had received from video game fans.

I don’t doubt that Thompson did receive some death threats. That doesn’t prove that video game fans by and large are violent psychopaths however. There are loonies in any group, including feminists.

Look at the death threats Thunderf00t received for speaking out against feminism.

Does that prove that feminists are all psychopaths?

Thompson resorted to these tactics because he couldn’t debunk the gamers arguments against him.

Fortunately in the long run Thompson lost, but he was ultimately replaced by Anita Sarkeesian.

Sarkeesian who was obviously the epitome of a left wing SJW, said she felt that video games were corrupting the youth of today by making them sexist.

Sarkeesian had 0 proof of this and her arguments such as that there are no strong roles for women in video games, or the gaming community is misogynistic overall, were easily debunked.

Of course just like Thompson, rather than try and respond to these reasoned arguments. Sarkeesian went down the pity route by making out that all of her critics were just people sending her death threats.

The great irony was that many of the same liberals who mocked Thompson as being an old fashioned conservative kill joy, were lining up to white knight for Anita Sarkeesian.

Of course the same was true of Doctor Who as well. As much of an influence as she had over the series, at the very least the media and all Doctor Who fans hated Mary Whitehouse and the influence she had on the show, whilst with Whovian Feminism and the people who smeared Moffat as promoting sexual assault, the media were completely on their side.

This video from Chris Ray Gun (one of my favourite youtubers along with ShoeOnHead, Barbara 4U2C and Blaire White) did on the liberals hypocrisy as well as how SJWs are able to take things over is great.

It doesn’t mention Doctor Who, but it does cover how SJWs took over and sunk the New Atheist Movement too. Chris probably won’t appreciate this video being shared however as since he made it, he and Laci Green, who is among the feminists he includes that sunk the Atheist movement, are now dating! Still its a good video anyway.

When you’re part of a tribe you don’t really have any principles or actual beliefs. If your tribe says something you had previously attacked another tribe for, like saying that video games influence people to do bad things, then you’ll be for it.

Comic Books

Image result for comics code authority

Related image

Comic Books have had a long and difficult history with SJWs.

Initially it was the right who tried to censor comics, and even outright ban them. Just like Jack Thompson with video games, and Mary Whitehouse with Doctor Who, many right wing activists saw comic books as being a threat to our values because they were too violent and demanded that their content change and that in some cases they even be banned.

Of course like all whiny, narcissistic, intolerant bullies they got their way, despite not representing the majority viewpoint by constantly attacking comic books in all forms of media they could.

The result of this was several horror comics being banned in the UK, and restrictions being imposed on what Comic Book creators could write about.

The Comics Code Authority was eventually established in the 50s to give Comic Book creators a chance to have a greater freedom, but it sadly ended up leading to even greater censorship.

By the late 50s, the CCA had almost sunk the industry, with almost 75 percent of the industry having gone out of business in 1954.

5 Memorable Moments of Comic Book Censorship

The CCA had a very right wing slant and for decades it prevented there from being stories about things that they thought would corrupt the youth. Sadly as a result of this, there were no LGBT characters in comic books for decades.

How The Code Authority Kept LGBT People Out Of Comic Books

CCA vs LGBT People: Battle of the Century!

Fortunately the CCA’s influence began to die down and comic book writers and creators began to experience more freedom, and could tell the stories they WANTED to tell.

Sadly however just like with Doctor Who and Video Games, left wing bullies would start to take the place of the right wing censors.

Nowadays every comic has to basically be approved by the SJWs first. If not much like with Steven Moffat and video games they’ll tar it as racist, homophobic, and sexist.

Now you might be thinking “well all the SJWs want is more women, LGBT, and black characters so what’s wrong with that?”

Obviously the overwhelming majority of comic book fans don’t have a problem with non white, non straight, and non male characters. As I have said before the sci fi, and comic book fandoms were often among the most progressive in terms of representation.

An SJW comic however is totally different to one that simply has a leading black character like Blade or X-Men.

An SJW comic, or tv show first of all will have negative comments directed towards white men in general, and white men will often be depicted in a negative way because they’re white and men.

Also the female and LGBT and black characters will have to constantly remind us of how they are black, female and LGBT in the most obnoxious way, that’s basically the writer telling the audience “I’m going to teach you plebs watching/reading at home that minorities and women are people too.”

Take a look at Red Dwarf, or Blade. They both feature black leads, but its not mentioned in either case as it shouldn’t be. As a result no one even noticed that they had black leads. When do you ever see Red Dwarf, which is actually the second longest running sci fi show in the UK after Doctor Who, get hailed as this big progressive series? Its main love story between Lister and Kochanski is an interracial one. In fact half of the cast is black! Yet no one noticed!

Compare that to the ridiculous bullshit there has been around the Black Panther movie where people have been told that they shouldn’t be allowed to watch it.

I’m not joking see here.

Image result for white people shouldn't be allowed to see black panther

 

Image result for black panther representation tweets

I think this is proof that the SJWs have done far more harm for representation than good. In the 90s we got stuff like this.

And nobody gave a shit. Nobody even noticed! Yet here we are in an age where you can’t have a film with a black lead without all of this ridiculous race baiting shit being propped up by those on the left who ironically claim to be fighting racism?

Anita Sarkeesian even said in a recent episode of her Feminist Frequency Radio series (which listening to is a truly stomach churning experience.) That she was angry that there were any sympathetic white characters in Black Panther.

Also the SJWs want to change and even outright replace existing characters just to suit their agenda. Wolverine, Iron Man and Thor have all been replaced with new female characters who have taken up the mantle.

Comic book fans obviously are never happy when their favourite character is written out and replaced with somebody else. Regardless of whether that someone is a white man or not. When Damian Wayne for instance took over from Bruce Wayne as Batman there was fan outrage.

However you didn’t get called a bigot for not wanting Damian Wayne to replace Bruce Wayne the same way you get called a bigot for not wanting a new character, who happens to be a black woman, to take over as Iron Man instead of Tony Stark.

Added to that other characters sexualities have suddenly been changed too.

Whilst no one has a problem with a gay character obviously people don’t like their favourite characters, (whose story that they have followed for years) suddenly being changed in a big way for no reason, and in a way that completely contradicts their established history.

And yes that applies all ways. I for instance wouldn’t want an LGBT character to suddenly say that they aren’t LGBT. Like take Captain Jack Harkness for instance. A big part of his character is that he is bisexual. Imagine if I suddenly came in and rewrote it so that he was actually always asexual and that his previous bisexual tendencies were just complete lies that he made up because?

Retcons to characters histories can sometimes work, but they need to be taken on a case by case basis. You need to take into account how big of a contradiction it is, whether the audience can accept it, and whether it changes the character beyond all recognition, and how good of a story it is.

The SJWs however never want to look at anything in a nuanced way. They just trample over other people’s characters with their size 12s and demand that all characters regardless of their history and characterisation be changed to their liking, and if you don’t like THEIR ideas for other people’s characters you are a sexist, racist, or a homophobe.

There is nothing to stop these people from going out there and creating their own characters. If they are great, then people will love them just like they did Blade, Xena and Buffy.

I acknowledge that this might be harder with DC and Marvel. Not because their fans are racists or sexists, but because its hard to introduce any new character to Marvel and DC that is going to be as popular as the classics like Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, or even the likes of The Flash. As these characters were created in the 30s and 50s and 60s then obviously the bulk of them will be men.

Still that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try if you really are so desperate. After all Wolverine was created much later than most of the X-Men and he is now the most popular.

I think it is also somewhat harder to have a woman occupy all of the same roles a man can in a sci fi and fantasy adventure, not because women are less believable as the hero, or people have problems with a woman being the hero. TBH I think most nerdy comic book guys prefer female heroes to male heroes.

The problem is however that a hero has to obviously get tortured, beaten up, even regularly killed in order for their adventures to be exciting.

Being a hero can be tough sometimes.

I don’t think people are as willing to suspend disbelief and enjoy watching a female hero get tortured, beaten up or killed as much as they would with a male hero.

I’m not saying that’s right of course. A large part of why I always thought Xena the Warrior Princess was so good for women in the genre (aside from just being a great show.) Was because it didn’t hold back in terms of what its female characters, both heroic and villainous went through. Xena got beaten up, tortured, crippled just as much as Batman would, her female enemies like Callisto and Alti got killed in horrific ways like being blown up, impaled, submerged in quicksand the same way any male villain would.

Sadly however I don’t think as many writers and directors are as willing to show women go through it as much, which is why there are fewer roles for women overall, not just heroic roles. Obviously a villain has to get beaten up and killed, men also make up the henchman the hero kills, his sidekicks and the victims too. Look at the Jurassic Park film series for instance. It has far more male characters than female, but that’s because most of its male characters get killed by Dinosaurs. So far only ONE woman has been killed on screen in all 4 Jurassic Park films.

Feminists certainly aren’t making it easier for comic book writers to give women more interesting roles as they complain every time anything even remotely violent happens to a female character as being an example of how misogynistic the writer is, inspiring the young men who read it to go out and kill young women etc.

Fox Apologises For X-Men Poster

DC Comics Forced To Pull Batgirl Poster

With this in mind how are writers supposed to make stories about female characters as exciting as those about male character? Wolverine can be impaled with a massive steal girder and thrown half way across the city and drowned. Mystique in comparison can’t even be grabbed by the throat without it being some kind of violent sexist agenda against women.

If anything feminists are actually standing in the way of women being able to occupy all of the same roles that men are. Much like the CCA before them, they are attempting to police what types of stories people are allowed to tell.

Also much like the CCA, the feminists and SJWs don’t actually care about the quality of the stories, just in A/ pushing their agenda to as many people and B/ making sure that everything, even something they have 0 interest in, behaves in what they believe to be the “correct” way.

The proof of that is the fact that all of these people who are desperate for a female Doctor Who, a female Thor, a female Iron Man etc, always go on about how representation is important, and growing up they just desperately wanted to see a character who was gay/black/a woman etc. Are the people who are most likely to NEVER watch or read anything starring female/black/LGBT heroes.

Look at Claudia Boleyn, a popular youtuber who always goes on about how she wants to see more female heroes, LGBT heroes like her. All of the shows she watches, and talks about star men like Doctor Who, Supernatural, Merlin etc. Furthermore there are actually female counterparts to every single one of her favourite shows.

Merlin, a pseudo historical fantasy series, that is not only completely historically inaccurate, but revels in its inaccuracies in humorous ways and blends hard, gritty drama with the most over the top, broad, camp humour.

The same is also true of Xena the Warrior Princess which stars two bisexual women as the leads, yet Claudia NEVER even comments on Xena? PS Xena was even cited by the makers of Merlin as one of their biggest influences!

Then there is Supernatural, another of Claudia’s favourite series about two brothers who battle Demons and come from a long line of people who battle Demons. The youngest of them however falls in love with a Demon who wavers between good and evil, who the elder sibling despises, and who he is eventually forced to kill. The elder sibling meanwhile develops a really close relationship with a Celestial being.

What about Charmed however? A series about three sisters who battle Demons and who come from a long line of Demon hunters. The youngest of the Charmed sisters also falls for a Demon, that the other two despise, and who wavers between good and evil, before they have to kill him for good, whilst the older one develops a relationship with a celestial being.

Then there is Class the awful Doctor Who Spin off Claudia likes, which revolves around a school where there is a rip in time and space that allows monsters to come through. A group of misfit students have to cover up the rip and save the world. Oh and one of them is a blonde, who used to be an enemy of the main character, but got something stuck in their head which stops them from even hurting someone anybody, and they always whine about how they want to get this out of their head.

Gee where have I head that before? Oh that’s right. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the most celebrated genre series of all time, which stars a female hero, and has a lesbian woman as the most powerful character in the universe, but which Claudia has also never commented on.

With this in mind I can’t exactly take her claims for wanting to see someone like her seriously. There are existing alternatives to series she already adores, that star female heroes, yet she shows non interest in them.

Whovian Feminism is another one who ironically NEVER talks about female led series. Seriously why the fuck does she talk about Doctor Who if she is interested in female led shows?

It would be like if I went on about wanting to explore themes of Scottish independence and nationalism in film and television, and then only ever looked at say Xena, and whined because it wasn’t about that?

Look at the blog, youtube channel of anyone who goes on about representation, from angry feminists like Whovian Feminism to white knights like Mr Tardis Reviews and you will be lucky if they are a fan of even one female led series.

Most of the people in the industry who go on about representation meanwhile are posers like Neil Gaiman and J J Abrams who want to make themselves look better. People like Gene Roddenberry (creator of Star Trek), Frank Hampson (creator of Dan Dare) and Terry Nation (creator of the Daleks) all still receive praise for how progressive their stories were in the 60s and 70s and rightfully so.

They did combat the genuine racism and sexism around them, but again in the modern world, its not edgy or a big deal to have a black or female leading character. So people like Gaiman and Abrams have to try and make out that it is so they can basque in the praise from ignorant SJWs who don’t know any better.

Neil Gaiman On Buffy

Thank you Neil for telling a sexist pleb like me that women are people too! Representation is yet another way for cowards like Anita Sarkeesian and Neil Gaiman to make themselves look like social justice champions, without doing a thing to help women or minorities.

Of course much like Doctor Who, Comic Books sales have begun to sink as a result of pandering to these people.

Comic Book Sales Tanking

Retailers Complain About Collapsing DC and Marvel Sales

The fact that Doctor Who and comic books have nose dived as a result of pandering to these people whilst video games whose fans fought back have remained strong shows why you need to stand up to these bullies.

Yes you will get tarred as bigots like the gamer gators were, but at the end of the day the thing you love will be saved.

I think comic book geeks and Doctor Who fans biggest problem however was in not seeing that the feminists and the SJWs were no different to the likes of the CCA and Mary Whitehouse.

Video game fans saw right away that Anita Sarkeesian was no different to Jack Thompson. All she had done was replace the idea that games are making people violent with games are making people sexist.

With comic book fans a lot of them however I think foolishly came to think that this representation crap was important, because it had been in the 60s, and came to see the feminists as being like the people who fought against the CCA in the 60s and the 70s.

Ironically they had no idea that they were now becoming the new CCA, as they were supporting people who wanted to limit and control what types of stories people could tell like the CCA, and were actually bigots just like the CCA, except rather than against homosexuals, they are bigoted against white people.

Comedy

Image result for John Cleese political correctness

Much like Doctor Who, video games, and comic books, comedy is something that has historically been limited and censored by right wing SJWs, but in the last few decades its really more the left wing SJWs that have begun to censor comedy.

It was always the conservative Christians that wanted to get outrageous comics they found offensive banned.

Probably the most notorious example of this was the banning of Life of Brian in certain areas of the UK, including Glasgow, as well as the constant attacks on it from the right wing media for supposedly mocking Jesus (which missed the whole point of the movie.)

See here. City Lifts Ban on Life Of Brian

Then of course there was also Terry Rakolta’s famous campaign against classic American 90s comedy Married With Children.

Rakolta was basically the American counterpart to Mary Whitehouse. She was a conservative woman who founded the organisation known as Americans For Responsible Television. Her favourite target was Married With Children which she believed to be obscene.

The campaign she launched against the show caused many of the shows sponsors to pull out. It was also moved to a late slot at her urging, and the content of the show had to be toned down after a public boycott she launched against the series.

Terry Rakolta, The Bitch Who Tried To Get Married With Children Off The Air

Nowadays of course comedy series have to regulated from a more feminist/left wing perspective or outright banned.

So many prominent comedians from Jerry Seinfeld to John Cleese to Stephen Merchant have mentioned how their comedy would not work today because of left wing censors.

Stephen Merchant Says BBC Would Be Too Scared Of Liberal Left To Make The Office

Then of course there are the SJWs recent attacks on Friends of all shows.

Why Friends Is Actually A Super Problematic Show

The One With The Homophobia

Friends is the lightest, most feel good, non offensive comedy imaginable. That was why it had such a mass appeal. It was really good escapism, its main characters though obviously flawed, where basically nice, likable people.

Yet the SJWs are such delicate little snowflakes that they can’t even cope with Friends? How the fuck are they going to cope with genuinely dark comedies like Seinfeld, Bottom, The Young Ones, any iteration of Blackadder, South Park etc?

I honestly never thought that I would see a time when Friends of all shows was the outrageous one! I think with this the left wing SJWs have outdone the right wing SJWs.

But hey who needs Friends, Married With Children and Seinfeld when you have this type of comedy from SJWs.

To be fair a lot of this stuff is funny, but not in the way they had hoped.

I could list may other examples of forms of entertainment that have been taken over, sunk or otherwise limited by these crybullies, but you probably get the point.

The important things to learn here are.

1/ That it makes no difference between left and right. All that matters is whichever one is in power. They’ll both try and take over every aspect of your life, and they are both such intolerant fanatics that they can’t stand any thing that doesn’t agree with them, or espouse their views even existing. Even if its something they have no interest in, or have outright contempt for (like Joss Whedon and Doctor Who.) It doesn’t matter. They’ll still demand that it goes their way and tell people who do love it that they are the intolerant bigots.

2/ That it doesn’t matter whether they are an extreme minority. They ALWAYS get their way, because they are willing to play dirty tricks like smearing a man’s reputation as seen with Steven Moffat.

3/ You should NEVER give in to these people. Not only is what they want often to the detriment of whatever it is they are taking over (because they don’t actually care about it, only in pushing their agenda.) But they also want to take it all over. Like with Doctor Who, it wasn’t even just a female Doctor, they had to have the male Doctor be emasculated, a female Master, an all female UNIT, anti men jokes etc.

4/ They hilariously will often complain about the other side, without realising that they are exactly the same, as seen with the liberals who rightfully criticised Jack Thompson but later went on to white knight for Anita Sarkeesian, or the “edgy” comedians who spent years attacking Mary Whitehouse for being censorious yet now stick up for feminists attempts to police all forms of entertainment from sci fi series to comedy.

5/ If you see this happening to any form of entertainment, call it out. I think that there has been a problem where people won’t comment on it if its not something they like being affected.

Take a look at Doctor Who. Many of the people who defended video games from feminists and SJWs either didn’t care when Doctor Who was taken over in exactly the same way, or were even apologists for it!

ShoeOnHead for instance said that there was no problem with the Doctor having a female body, whilst centrist Youtuber Top Hats and Champagne said that a female Doctor was a good idea. Of course both admitted that they have never even watched a second of Doctor Who.

So with this in mind why comment on it? They both have no idea that the Doctor does have a consistent character and that it is jarring to suddenly change it in such a huge way, or that it only happened because of a calculated smear campaign against the show, its makers and fans.

Just a little bit of research would have shown them that Doctor Who is in the same boat as video games (both of which they admirably stood up for), and that if it gets taken over, then that’s a huge victory for SJWs. Far bigger than them taking over the Atheist Movement, which Shoe commented on many times.

Doctor Who is arguably the most influential British television series of all time. It has a history of over 50 years and is seen in over 150 countries by over 160 million people, yet these bullies were actually able to completely take everything about it over, from its lore (gender neutral Time Lords), to its casting choices (Jodie Whittaker, Michelle Gomez) to its story arcs (Clara being retconed to being the most important person in its history,) to its fandom (like a Doctor Who Convention that only mentions DOCTOR WHO once, because the rest of the time they are talking about feminism and MeToo.)

If the SJWs can take over Doctor Who in such a drastic way, then really no television series is safe, and once they have a monopoly on tv, then other forms of entertainment are in danger, and from there other areas of popular culture, and media too.

Fair enough Shoe and Top Hats are not Who fans, but again a little research before they commented on it wouldn’t have killed them. I’m not the biggest gamer either, but I still comment on what the feminists are doing to video games because I can recognise it is another form of entertainment that is going through what Doctor Who is right now. It would be ridiculous of me to say that what Anita says about video games is just fine, but then criticise Whovian Feminism, when both are exactly the fucking same.

I still like Shoe of course, but I was a little disappointed in her with this, and really it reminds me of that old saying “I didn’t stick up for them when they came after so and so, but then when they came after me there was no one left.

Always call this shit out. Even if its a show you don’t like, even if its your side that is now doing what you always criticised the other side for doing. Call it out for the sake of free speech, and writers, artists, directors and actors basic right to tell the types of stories they want to.

9/ They Both Like Fake News

Image result for you are fake news

He’s talking to both his supporters and critics.

Both sides will distort the facts to suit their own agendas whilst hilariously trying to take the moral high ground against the other.

As the left currently has the media backing, its fake news is obviously a lot more dangerous and noticable.

CNN have been caught lying about so many things, from editing a black woman calling for violence to make it look as though she is objecting to it, to their hilarious in hindsight polls about Clinton having 90 percent of the vote over Trump.

CNN Apologies For Editing Clip

CNN edits Trump Video on Japan

Then of course there is the leftist media’s disgusting attempts to smear individuals they don’t like such as Tommy Robinson as white nationalists and racists.

The lefts most recent attempts to slander Tommy Robinson, attempt to paint him as being in contact with the terrorist behind the Finsbury Mosque attack. See here.

As you can see this isn’t just a lack of research. This is outright lying. Editing clips, trying to connect Tommy to criminals and fanatics that ironically hate him in real life.

Whilst many on the right such as Paul Joseph Watson have rightfully called out the leftist media on their bias, they too have been guilty of peddling lies and mistruths to promote their own agendas

Paul Joseph Watson famously tweeted a parody photo of Antifa (who for the record I despise too.) Holdin a NAMBLA sign. NAMBLA are an infamous pedophile organisation.

When it was later pointed out to Paul that it was a hoax, he actually said “Does it matter if its a false flag or not, given how funny it is?”

Sargon of Akkad is no better. He regularly refers to Hugo Chavez as a dictator. Whilst Chavez was far from perfect, he was most certainly not a dictator.

Jimmy Carter Calls Hugo Chavez Election The Most Fair He Has Ever Seen

Added to that Sargon always leaves out the devastating effect the US has had on Venezuela, because it doesn’t suit his narrative that its all to do with socialism.

US is tearing Venezeula apart

Now I am not saying that this is the whole reason that Venezeula is failing, but it is a valid idea that Sargon completely overlooks. Similarly in his Castro video Sargon cites a picture on Google image as proof that Cuba’s hospitals were all shit. He has no idea where this photo came from or who made it, he literally just said he put Cuban hospital into Google image.

Seriously Sargon? Google image is your source? I can find pictures of Amy Winehouse and Elvis Presley sitting together on Google image.

Image result for Amy Winehouse Elvis Presley

So by Sargon’s logic then Amy and Elvis must have had an affair? I mean hey I got this on Google images after all?

In some ways this compulsive lying ties right into the left and the right’s contempt for the working class. They think that they are idiots, the great unwashed who are so thick they will believe anything they are told. Fortunately however people are waking up to their lies.

10/ They Think That People Can Change Their Sexuality

Image result for Riley Dennis

We all know how the right for years believed that homosexuality was a sign of degeneracy, and tried to “cure” homosexuality through electro conversion therapy or the notorious “Pray the Gay Away”.

Pray The Gay Away

Now obviously its not reached the same extent, but we have incredibly enough, started to a similar attitude from the left of people being attacked for their sexual preferences. Many on the left such as Dennis O’Reilly have called straight men who don’t want to sleep with trans women bigoted.

Now personally I find trans women like Blaire White attractive, however I can understand why a straight man might not want to sleep with a trans woman, as most of them still have male genitals.

Sadly however the left believe that sexual preferences are bigoted if they are straight, and think a straight man should just change his sexual preferences right away.

Blaire White did a great video on the subject here, and even commented on how ironic it was that the left are now trying to police people’s sexual preferences.

Conclusion 

Don’t end up like this guy.

Tribalism is the biggest enemy to true progress. We are all supsceptible to it in many areas of life, even if its just what band, football team or tv fandom we are a part of.

Still when it creeps its way into politics then it leads to the current brand of right wing and left wing identity politics that is causing severe problems for both actual left wing and right wing politics.

I feel that this tribalism is being promoted by the people at the top to keep those who could make a positive change fighting among themselves.

George Soros for instance funds things like Black Lives Matter and the 2017 Women’s March. Why do you think billionaire and former Nazi collaborator George Soros supports these movements? Out of the goodness of his heart?

No its because it splinters left wing politics. Rather than work together as a united front, people are instead fighting each other over the most stupid differences, whilst ironically thinking they are fighting for equality.

Women are telling men that they have male privilege, black people hate white people for their supposed white privilege, even among the LGBT community there are divisions.

Identity politics has such a stranglehold on the left that some leftists have actually said that a millionaire who is black is still not as privileged as a white person who is homeless, whilst gay men are viewed as not suffering persecution if they are white, as well as racists because they are white.

NUS Tells LGBT Societies To Abolish Gay Rights Because They Don’t Suffer Persecution

White Students Are Told They Are Born Racist

Added to that because the majority of the critics of capitalism are also wrapped up in rubbish identity politics, I feel more left of centre people are drawn to the right as a result.

Sargon of Akkad is a classic example of this. I don’t think Sargon is a bad guy personally at all, and I used to really like a lot of his videos. I also above all else still respect him for giving people like Tommy Robinson a platform when so few others were willing too.

Sargon also believe it or not used to even say that he was quite a socialist in some ways and he supported a socialised health service and welfare state. He also used to criticise capitalism regularly and even supported Bernie Sanders before he was torpedoed by Hillary. (Though I agree with more of Sanders policies than Trump, I think Sanders still revelled in identity politics too, such as his bullshit comments like “white people don’t know what its like to be poor.”)

Still Sargon I think ended up becoming a right wing SJW because he grew so disgusted with the left and its racism against white people and Islam apologism, that he completely turned towards the right.

Watch any of his recent videos and I’d wager he can’t go 5 minutes without ranting about how much he hates socialists. Then there is his wish to see the Tory party saved, and his ridiculous apologism for capitalism to the point where he outright said furiously that its not causing any problems around the world.

Really Sargon?

5th Of United Kingdom Population Live In Poverty

Child Poverty In Britain Set To Soar To New High

Effects of Agent Orange On Vietnam

What We Lost: 10 Ways The Iraq War Harmed The US

10 Years Later: Death, Disease, Destruction: The Legacy of The Iraq War

The Human Cost Of The War In Iraq

Obama The Butcherer Of Women And Children

Death Toll Of Capitalism

(Note: I don’t agree with all of these figures in the last article, but there is a lot of other interesting bits of information here. The author includes World War 2 as a war caused by capitalism for instance which I absolutely do not agree with. Nazism was a political spectrum beyond either left and right. Still saying the Nazis evil came from capitalism is no more ridiculous than saying that there were communists or socialists which Sargon and other right wingers have done.)

Sargon ignores all of this however and only focuses on socialism’s faults to the point where having once defended socialised health care and welfare, he now has a hatred of all socialists that’s quite frankly comparable to SJWs demonisation of right wingers.

In despising one tribe, Sargon has become part of another. He might refer to himself as a classical liberal, but he is a total right winger now.

The best thing you can do so you don’t end up like Sargon is not think that because you agree with the left or the right on one big issue, that means you have to agree with everything they say.

Political policies should be looked on in a purely practical way, and that’s why I personally favour a mixed economy that takes aspects from both socialism and capitalism.

I’m not saying a mixed economy is perfect as no system is. Human beings aren’t perfect so I doubt we could ever invent a perfect ideology.

12 Pros and Cons Of A Mixed Economy

However a mixed economy can overcome many of the problems inherent in socialism and capitalism and I feel it has a better success rate at getting countries out of poverty.

Take a look at the United Kingdom for instance. We leaned more towards a mixed economy after World War 2 with the introduction of the NHS and the nationalisation of coal, gas and electricity.

Clement Attlee: Our Greatest Post War Prime Minister

It would be wrong to say that Attlee made Britain into a total socialist state however. He still kept certain aspects of a capitalist economy for the United Kingdom and for the next 30 or so years our economy flourished as we continued to function under a mixed economy.

Later when we switched to more of a capitalist economy in the late 70s under Thatcher, then poverty and unemployment increased dramatically. Yes its true we still have the NHS, but Thatcher as well as the current Tory government have done everything they can to attack and undermine the NHS to the point where it is sadly on its last legs, as more Doctors are turning to private practice due to a lack of money and support for the NHS.

Lack of Funding For The NHS

As soon as the NHS, the last semblance of our former mixed economy is dismantled by the current right wing government, then the poorest in this country will suffer even more.

China meanwhile is another example of a mixed economy being a success in terms of lifting people out of poverty. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying for one second that that justifies China’s human rights abuses or its censorship, or that the people who have suffered as a result deserved it.

China demonstrates that a mixed economy can still be open to becoming fascist.

The battle for free speech is separate to which economy you think works best, or equal rights for men and women and all ethnic minorities, and for LGBT people too.

This is why you must always fight for freedom of speech regardless of whether you are left or right, and not fall into a “its okay if the people I don’t like are shut down by McCarthy because they are communists, or if they are shut down by feminists because they are sexist.”

Still whilst I am not going to defend the police state in China, at the same time it cannot be denied that the mixed economy has been a success in terms of getting the general population out of poverty.

China Lifts 68 Million People Out Of Poverty In 5 Years

China Lifts 800 Million Out Of Poverty Since 1999

China Lifts 13 Million Out Of Poverty Each Year

All the while our more capitalist economy is floundering and Venezuela is suffering terrible poverty.

Ultimately I think we should eventually move towards a socialist economy, but I don’t think that should be for some time yet (even Sargon has said that he thinks socialism will work, but not for possibly centuries.)

However I don’t think we should stay in a strict capitalist economy. It is demonstrably failing in the UK alone and has been since the 1980s.

A mixed economy is the way to go. I believe in the NHS and the Welfare State. I also think that conditions for workers, hours, money, etc should be greatly improved from what they are now, and essentials such as electricity and gas should be made public sector again.

However at the same time independent businesses should be allowed to thrive. I don’t believe in allowing the government to control every single business.

All of these things I believe will allow more money to come into our economy and provide safety nets for people during dark times.

A final thing you can do to stop becoming tribal is to look at as many sources as you possibly can from both the left and the right.

Even people you hate, as that way you wont just be in your own little echo chamber. Watch as many debates as you can, criticise people you are normally fans of, if you think they say something you disagree with. Hell even if its your friend (though don’t be a condescending asshole about it.)

All of these things in my opinion stop you from feeling as though you are boxxed into one little side and as a result have to defend everything that side says and does.

Image result for the fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists

Thanks for reading.