Switching the Legal Status of Marijuana and Alcohol: Beneficial?

Whenever there is a conversation about drugs, we tend to assume that the legal ones are the “good drugs” and the illegal ones are the “bad drugs”. If you were to say “I take drugs” to someone, they wouldn’t assume that you were referring to alcohol, tobacco, painkillers or coffee, would they? Today, I am going to address one idea in particular: why I think swapping the legal status of weed and alcohol would be beneficial. Just to be clear, I’m not rallying a protest here to make alcohol illegal. I’m completely for adults being able to enjoy whichever psychoactive substance tickles their gonads. I’m simply using alcohol (a legal drug) and weed (an illegal drug) as examples of why the good vs bad view of legality makes little sense.


Again, let me just reiterate a major point here: I am not calling for the outlaw of alcohol! Everything I say in relation to alcohol is entirely as a comparison point to the legality of weed. With that in mind, I’m going to jump right in to exploring why alcohol is a fucking horrendous drug. To quote the late Bill Hicks, “there are better drugs and better drugs for you!” We view alcohol as this socially acceptable form of ignoring our inhibitions. What are some things you can get away with drunk but not sober? Throwing up everywhere; blacking out (both in terms of memory and physically passing out); being incredibly loud at antisocial hours; fighting your friend; falling off walls; bailing on a social obligation; sex in usually unacceptable places (particularly unprotected sex which can result in illness, unwanted pregnancy and in extreme cases: death); oversharing acquaintances; befriending people in the toilets; making plans that will never be kept…

Would you agree with any of these? Would you agree with all of them? Alcohol intoxication allows you the excuse of “sorry, I was drunk” which is can often be used like a ‘Get out of jail free’ card. How often have you heard people comment on their complete lack of memory from a night out only to follow it up with “…guess I must have had a good night!” Am I the only one that thinks having no memory of a night out is the same as just not going? Of course these are the lighter implications of alcohol consumption.

Feeling Healthy?

As someone from Scotland, it pains me to read statistics about my country. Before continuing, we have to define a certain term: alcohol-related death. The term covers any death that is primarily due to alcohol. This could be a long-term condition that has led to death, a more acute condition worsened by alcohol to the point of death, and of course alcohol poisoning. Accidents (including road traffic accidents) are not included. Why is this important? Well, in Scotland in there were at least 1,265 alcohol-related deaths in 2016. This is an increase of 10% just from the previous year. This is double the yearly average of alcohol-related deaths in the 1960s (but also a decrease from those of 2000). Alcohol accounts for 1 in 15 deaths in Scotland. It also contributes to 6% of new cancer cases each year.

There is a newer definition known as ‘alcohol-specific deaths’ which covers the same basic definition as alcohol-related deaths but only includes deaths that are a direct consequence of alcohol. This only alters the numbers by about 10%. In the UK in 2016 there were at least 7,427 alcohol-specific deaths. Looking at drug-related deaths in Scotland (within the NHS Board area), we find something rather unfortunate. Despite the “war on drugs” alcohol accounts for 38% of these deaths. These figures include illegal and illegal drugs with heroin being the only one to beat alcohol (literally one of the most dangerous drugs in the world). My point is NOT that alcohol is as dangerous as any of these drugs. Obviously percentage wise alcohol is drastically safer and looking at number of deaths doesn’t reflect the danger of one drug in comparison to another…BUT, weed is not even on the list.

A Crime is still a Crime

Of course the impact that alcohol has on the individual isn’t the limit of alcohol’s reach. We have to view the bigger picture and in order to do that we need to see the effect it has on society. For example, we can explore how crime and alcohol are related. We’ll be sticking to Scotland for the time being. In 2014/15, in 54% of violent crimes, the offender was under the influence of alcohol. We can’t assume that the attack wouldn’t have taken place otherwise but we do have to acknowledge that it plays a role. I mean in the last 10 years, half of the people accused of murder where under the influence of alcohol/drugs at the time. Not to mention that a shocking two-thirds of all young offenders were under the influence of alcohol at the time of their offence.

We also have to consider the financial burden this is having on not only the NHS but Scotland in general. I mean alcohol-related crime costs at least £727 million PER YEAR! It costs the Scottish health service about £267 million PER YEAR! When including all the wider costs, productive capacity, crime, social care and health of alcohol it costs £3.6 billion PER YEAR!

Greater Societal Impact

I had planned on finishing my alcohol portion of this rant there but then completely by chance I stumbled across even more areas. I hadn’t even considered these but fuck! A recent study into the effect that alcohol marketing has on children revealed some pretty disturbing shit! Children as young as 10 are not only familiar with, but can identify alcohol brands, logos and even the characters involved in advertising campaigns. Weirdly, they could often identify these easier than the adverts aimed specifically at children.

Would it be crazy to think that alcohol companies were just luring in new customers from a young age? The study found that children are aware of an association between alcohol and sports. For example, 45% of children correctly recognised the alcohol brand associated with the Everton Football Club. Children who had social media had higher recognition and could more easily identify alcohol brands.

Scourge on Society

We always hear the argument that alcohol is an acceptable form of societal bonding. A drug that “when used in moderation” can offer stress relief, ease the nerves and make otherwise tedious evenings a bit more exciting. Yet when we look at the facts, alcohol quite clearly has a hugely negative impact on health and crime. Sure, the alcohol industry may rake in X amount of money…but is that worth the cost of even one human life? If the youth of a country are being fed advertising, being put in prison and committing acts of violence, destruction or slowly killing themselves…does that sound like a drug that should be legal to you?

A Bag of Weed

I’m not here to blindly shout that weed is some sort of magical, harm-free drug. Any drug can be harmful. Any drug can have negative side effects on one person but not the other. What I am going to do here though is highlight why weed legalisation wouldn’t lead to the collapse of civilisation. We’ve already touched on the idea that weed isn’t killing anyone. I’m not bending facts, I’m not making light of low numbers. Nobody has ever, ever died directly from weed…EVER!

You’ve probably heard of the rather mythical “first ever marijuana overdose death” that often crops up. One such example took place in Colorado. This was after the recent legalisation of marijuana for recreational use in the state. Of course a death would not be a great start to weed legalisation. This report turned out to be nothing more than media sensationalism. This is always the case with supposed marijuana deaths. At first sight the media is quick to jump on the supposed cause. Every single time there is always a previously undetected, underlying cause. That’s not to say that weed can’t contribute to mental illness or play a role in triggering genetically predisposed illnesses. More on that in a moment.

The Harm in Weed

So when does weed pose harm to individuals and society? What about those suffering from anxiety or depression? Any psychoactive substance, including marijuana, can impact mental health conditions negatively. It is worth mentioning that marijuana does have an effect on mental health if used before the brain is fully developed. In saying that, studies have found that drug-use in adolescents is usually a symptom of a disorder or personality type rather than a cause.

We always hear about how marijuana is dangerous because it can trigger psychosis, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression and other illnesses in those with a genetic predispositions. A study reviewing this data came to the conclusion that there are a whole range of factors to consider. This makes marijuana a contributor rather than a cause. They did mention that the largest risk is to those under the age of 18 who use marijuana. However, a separate study found that the amount of weed consumed did influence the risk of psychosis. This, however, was only true in individuals with the AKT1 gene.

In terms of anxiety and mood disorders, studies found no significant results. In fact, the only significant associations were drug-use disorders (specifically weed, alcohol, nicotine but also others). These can quite obviously be attributed to the individual and not to marijuana. In comparison, there are links between alcohol and depression. There are links between coffee and anxiety (including anxiety attacks). What about links between marijuana and self-harm or suicide? Sadly for those against weed legalisation, these don’t compare to the alcohol-related figures. Not to mention that with many people weed can reduce these issues.

Different Weed

What many people forget is that varying strains have varying effects and as such, one strain won’t affect you in the same way as another. Certain strains can help to manage certain mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression. Not to mention reduce pain, stress, and insomnia effects, etc. Much in the same way that I hate the blanket term “drugs” I also hate that many assume weed to all be the same. Firstly you have indicas, sativas and hybrids. That alone greatly divides weed into different categories. Then you have the different strains of each type. These all have varying effects, different THC and cannabinoid ratios. Not to mention that how they are grown plays in impact on health as well.

Strangely enough, the most harm ever caused by weed relates to synthetic weed. Synthetic weed can often be legal (as a legal high which are often more dangerous that their illegal counterparts). So if synthetic weed is the real danger then legalisation is literally the safest route to reduce the damage. This would allow for the regulation of weed. By supplying safer strains of marijuana that is grown under strict conditions, you can make it drastically safer. Not to mention the taxation and the benefits that can be reaped.

Weed is a Friend Indeed

At this point I think we need to highlight a couple of things. Firstly, weed has never killed anyone. Secondly, while weed can pose a risk, it’s only to a tiny fraction of people who are genetically predisposed to certain mental illnesses. Thirdly, weed consumption appears to be a symptom of many illnesses or mood disorders rather than a cause. Lastly, the biggest danger posed by weed is that of synthetic weed. With all that in mind, we can move onto the final reason why weed legalisation is THE way to go. We’re going to use Colorado as our shining example so let’s take a look at how legalisation has impacted the state so far.

  • Teen marijuana use is unchanged! This is a major argument put forward by anti-legalisation campaigners. During the parliamentary discussion on the topic a few years back, this was pretty much their only reasonable argument. So now that there is evidence to show that this is not the case, I wonder what arguments they could make.
  • Traffic fatalities are still the same. This is one of the other issues that anti-legalisation campaigners often mention. Since we can’t test for recent weed consumption in the same way as alcohol, there is the concern that we can’t detect individuals driving under the influence, leading to more accidents. Evidently, this is not the case.
  • In 2016, legal marijuana sales earned the state nearly $200 million in tax revenue after the $1.3 billion in legal marijuana sales. Market research suggests that this will reach $20.2 billion by 2021. This is put back into schools, hospitals, fixing roads…

And yet…

We haven’t even touched on the benefits that medicinal cannabis can offer people. I’m not going to either because my argument in this post is regarding recreational use. But bear in mind that such benefits do exist and would have far reaching benefits through legalisation. Even when we take all of this into consideration, it seems pretty ridiculous to ignore one very obvious truth: if marijuana is even slightly less harmful than alcohol, it seems ridiculous that one is legal, heavily advertised and available everywhere. Yet the other is still a class B drug in Scotland which could land you up to 5 years in prison. There is literally no argument at all, not one, as to why alcohol should remain legal but marijuana illegal. Not to mention that alcohol is 114x more dangerous than smoking weed.

Yet there is a point of view that we always seem to ignore. Why should anyone have a say over what I put into my body? I can drink myself to death. Eat McDonald’s food until the NHS has to fund every procedure under the sun. People can choose to pierce their skin with jewellery to destructive levels or cover their bodies in tattoos. If you want to jump out of a plane, go climbing up mountains or beat someone to near-death in a ring, you can. You can even charge people to watch it and make money from the event. I beg you; please tell me why smoking weed is any worse than these things!  I mean how fucking dare I suggest that I should be able to smoke a drug, laugh my ass off and enjoy myself in the comfort of my own home, right?

Final Remarks

So should alcohol and marijuana have their legal statuses switched? Realistically: no. Scotland’s alcoholic society would crumble without the crutch that is alcohol. However, if there is even a chance that legalisation would reduce alcohol consumption in my country then I see absolutely no reason why that isn’t a benefit. Alcohol is a destructive force, it’s a scourge on society and it kills so many people each year. Weed may have some risks but no more than nuts or driving to work. Can we truly accept that just because those in parliament don’t want to smoke weed that the rest of us shouldn’t be able to?

I actually wrote about this topic before and I’ve even explained why the petition system in the UK is a massive pile of shit that serves no purpose and doesn’t change anything that parliament wouldn’t have changed anyway. It’s a pacifying measure to make people feel like clicking a button can change the world. I wrote to my MP at the time, David Mundell. I explained I had strong opinions on the matter and my e-mail went through several drafts, was concise and in my opinion argued a strong case. What did I get in response? A generic e-mail talking about issues I hadn’t even mentioned. My own MP (who didn’t even attend the parliamentary discussion by the way) couldn’t even take the time to read my e-mail. It’s literally his job. Anyway, if you want to read something a little lighter, check this out!


So guys, we have reached the end of this rant and hopefully you’ve learnt something along the way. As always, I’m interested in hearing your opinions and feedback. If you think that alcohol deserves its legal status over weed, please share your reasons why. Also, stay tuned for the opportunity to win a $20 Amazon gift card in the next few weeks. Be sure to follow me here and on Twitter to stay in the loop. Peace!


Why I’m not a Feminist (and why that isn’t the same as being anti-feminist)

So today’s post is going to be a bit…controversial, maybe? It will be sort of like walking through a minefield but I feel that I need to express my point of view on this and so while I may end of putting my foot in my mouth, I’m going to just be as completely honest with this subject as I can. This post isn’t an anti-feminism post. I’m not going to be trying to attack feminism  but rather explain from my point of view why I’m not a feminist (or at least don’t class myself as a feminist) and why that is not the same as being anti-feminist. If you disagree with something I said or take issue with any of the statistics I mention then I urge you to leave a comment. I welcome all rational conversations on the subject and if my point of view is misguided, I welcome being shown that.

This is going to be pretty long. If you want a snapshot view of my opinion, I’ll add a summary at the end but if you’re going to critique my opinion, I’d suggest reading all of the post as I’ll explain myself better (I hope) within the main body of text.


A Brief History

I just want to set the tone a little bit here by covering a brief run through of the feminist movement as a whole. The movement itself didn’t really kick off until the first women’s conference in America in 1848. Women had played an active role in other movements such as to abolish slavery but never one focussing on solely women’s rights. That’s not to say that prominent female and male figures hadn’t spoken out in a manner expected of a feminist. I mean you can look throughout ancient history and see examples of feminism but if we look at more recent history, we can look to 1792.

Here you had Mary Wollstonecraft who as a philosopher spoke out against systematic disadvantages that women faced. This included their education and upbringing being directed towards appeasing men. While this perhaps would have been a reasonably fair example of the patriarchy, Wollstonecraft held both sexes responsible and believed that only by educating both sides could you solve the problem. She was reluctant to cause a ‘him vs her’ scenario.

In the 1780’s you had male support for female suffrage. Mathematician’s such as Nicolas de Condorcet who was an active defender of human rights. You also had Jeremy Bentham who spoke out for complete equality between the sexes. In his published work of 1781 he called out the act of societies lowering the standard of women.


19th Century

Through the 19th century a wide range of changes took place in favour of equality. During this time there became gender role divide of men earning the money and women looking after the house and children. This was just a more modern version of gender roles that have existed throughout human history. Fun fact (ok, not so fun): evidence suggests that gender inequality didn’t come into play until we became agricultural. While gender roles existed before then, men and women are believed to have had an equal say within each group.

Anyway, back to the 19th century. In Scotland (wooo!) in 1843, Marion Reid published ‘A Plea for Women’ which was essentially a transatlantic call for all women to join together to improve their standard of living.  One of the main features within this was a call for a better, fairer education. This proved to be the focus of 19th century feminism. Campaigns led to women being able to receive higher education and even opened up a women’s higher educational institution. There were other movements which focussed on aspects of society showing extreme imbalance and equality. Property acts, more rights for prostitutes, better conditions for female factory workers, these are just some of the goals achieved by 19th century feminism.


The Waves

This is where the division of feminism arguably begins. This is also where my point of view comes into play. We often hear that feminism is about equality and it is, sure, but that doesn’t mean that in fighting for equality there aren’t different points of view, different priorities and different methods. If you can look within a movement and see three distinct groups, each with its own sub-groups then I think that’s just cause to not use a blanket term like feminism. The waves of feminism are often dated (e.g. first wave feminism 1800s-early 1900s) but I don’t think it is that simple. I believe that the waves represent agendas rather than dates.

The first wave, for example, is of course the origins of the feminist movement and can be seen as focussing on tackling inequality of education, in the workplace and sexual rights/safety. The right to vote was actually seen as less of a priority until near the end of the first waves apparent dating. Most people know how voting rights came to pass in their country so I won’t get into that. Suffice to say that this was where the movement divided somewhat.

Second wave feminism (1960s-1980s) followed on from where the first wave ended. Women continued to fight for equality but there was a distinction. Now, I wasn’t born then and so can only go based on the reading I’ve done, but my understanding is that the divide was between one side focussing on what men and women had in common in an attempt to bridge the gap between the sexes. The other side focussed on the differences. This side aimed for more radical changes to be made rather than simply equality. Second wave feminism had a cultural focus and while they accomplished much, we soon get onto third wave feminism.

This is where things get a bit…complicated, let’s say. Third wave feminism (1990s-2008…apparently) took more of a focus on individualism and diversity. While there was still a strive for equality, this wave can be seen as focussing more on personal issues.

Anyway, history lesson over. There are another two waves of feminism but these shouldn’t be hugely relevant to anything I’m going to discuss within this post. Many people disagree with these waves even existing.


Not a Feminist vs Anti-Feminist

Before I share my own view of things, let me just start off by addressing a major issue I’ve come across. There is this sort of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality that exists within today’s world. If you’re not a feminist then you must be against feminism and therefore equality which is then only a short step away from you being a misogynist. I think this is mostly due to the idea of social justice as this is where we see this frame of mind most often. If you’re not supporting LGBT then you must be homophobic or transphobic, if you’re not in support of Black Lives Matter then you must be a racist, if you support Trump then you’re probably all of these things (I’m not a Trump supporter at all but this is just a trend I’ve seen).

Here is my issue with this line of thinking: all of these are movements. They aren’t basic ideologies. If you asked me if I believe in gender equality, racial equality, equal marriage rights, ETC I would say yes. I’d say it over and over again and be shocked that you have to even ask someone that question. Do I support treating all human beings equally the way that any mentally sane, empathetic human being would and should? OF COURSE! The thing that you have to understand is that these movements don’t equate to that basic strive for equality. Each has their own agenda which covers a wide range of issues and I don’t think it’s fair to assume that all these issues relate to a realistic view of equality.

Here’s an example that should make my point a little clearer. By all definitions, I’m an atheist (I mean I prefer to view myself as an antitheist but the point still stands). Atheism has a very simple and straightforward definition that I’m sure we all know. Yet, as soon as someone finds out you’re an atheist you get lumped with all these assumptions depending on the person you’re announcing it to. Suddenly, you love Richard Dawkins, you hate religious people, you MUST subscribe to the Big Bang theory and Evolution, you probably have no moral compass. None of these things have anything to do with atheism. Yet you can see why classing yourself as an atheist also groups you in with other atheists as if you’re part of some hive mind.

There may be many different names for this generation or perhaps even these few decades but we/it should be called the label generation or the label decades because more than anything else, we are desperate to have everyone grouped under labels. We keep creating these new terms that further divide us and remove our individuality. I feel like I’m in a giant game of Guess Who where someone’s just going through questions like “Is he an atheist?” “Is he feminist?” before slapping down faces that don’t match the description. We seem to be on this bizarre path whereby we strive for individuality by labelling ourselves with more and more terms that just form these blobs of similar minded people that serve no real function within our society.


Why am I not a Feminist?

Why is anyone not a feminist? If feminism was truly about equality and that was all feminism was supposed to be about (similarly to how atheism should just relate to a lack of belief in God) then why are the number of people who class themselves as feminist so low? In the UK, a survey by a feminist charity found that 9% of the 8000 people asked considered themselves feminist, with 4% of males following suit. It’s interesting to note that after further questioning, 86% of the men asked wanted equality for the women in their lives while only 74% of women wanted equality for themselves. The numbers for the US are very similar. There is a CLEAR divide between what we as a society view as equal and what we view feminism as standing for. Why is this?


In my opinion there are two reasons for this: The first is the radical 3rd wave feminists, the ones often labelled “Feminazis”. Many argue that they make up a small minority of feminists and they shouldn’t be seen as “real feminists” (true Scotsman fallacy) at all but they happen to be the loudest and draw the most attention. The other reason is that feminism as a whole just doesn’t seem to be about equality any more. I’m against discrimination of any kind but many of the feminist issues I hear about aren’t related to equality. They may relate to women’s rights in some way but they aren’t about equality and certainly not equality for both sexes.

As a male who has grown up in a world with female leaders (whether it be my household, my school, university elements (such as department heads or society leaders), work, governments, literally any part of my life there have always been women at the top. There have been men as well, of course, but I’ve never noticed a huge disparity between the sexes. I think men of my age in particular just don’t see this world that feminism claims exists. It’s hard to take the idea of the patriarchy seriously when you’ve never seen any examples of it your whole life. I think this explains another statistic from the previously mentioned survey. The younger women (18-24) were most likely to describe themselves as feminist BUT also had the highest number of women actually opposed to feminism.

Again, I find myself returning to this idea that feminism is not one idea. Being for equality does not make you a feminist and being a feminist does not mean you are automatically for equality. This may very well have been the basis for feminism but it’s just not what the movement as a whole is about anymore. Let me give you an example of this exact same thing. Granted, it’s a very poorly chosen example and I didn’t use this to provoke but it’s the only good example I could think of: When you see a swastika, what do you think of? Do you think of good fortune and well-being? Probably not. Yet that is exactly what most cultures around the world viewed it as meaning prior to Hitler. Now that I think about it, this is actually quite a fitting example if we assume that Feminazis are in fact that cause for the “misguided view” of what feminism stands for. It may have had a pure meaning to start with but you’re letting nutjobs bury that meaning in the dirt while they replace it with their own, twisted meaning.


Equality for both sexes or just for women?

The term equality isn’t as simple as one might think which is another reason I believe feminism can’t just use it as a foundation of their movement. Depending on who you ask, you’ll get a different answer for what feminism stands for. Is it equality for women? Is it equality for both sexes? I’m sure some would say that feminism is about female superiority? (I’m not saying that by the way, just to clarify). But equality in what sense? Do you mean equal rights? Do you mean equal opportunity or equal outcome? Do we ignore the biological and psychological differences that exist between the sexes when striving for equality and if not, how do we factor it in? Should we treat men and women as equal in sports and not account for sex at all?

You might think these questions seem ridiculous but try answering them. Do you seriously believe that everyone within feminism will answer them the same? If you said yes, that’s ridiculous and if you said no then how can anyone be expected to be part of feminism when there is no clear direction within the movement.

We also have to decide whether we want equal opportunities or equal outcomes. Personally, I think the latter is a ridiculous idea that doesn’t actually benefit anyone. If we started insisting that companies, awards shows, whatever else start meeting quotas of women or black people or anything like that, we end up with this ridiculous idea that everyone is capable of doing the same job. The truth is that they aren’t. All people are different and that difference shouldn’t lead to discrimination but we also can’t just pretend that is doesn’t exist. Here’s an example: The SAS, an elite UK force has recently announced that it is considering lowering its entrance requirements for women. They would be given handicaps essentially such as being required to carry less weight. Who the fuck does this benefit? By all means allow women in but lowering the standard is not only patronising but completely foolish. I mean do skinnier guys carry less weight? What a ridiculous concept!

The same applies to award shows. There is usually outrage at not enough women winning awards but what is the solution to that? Either we do more categories which is just dividing things further or there becomes a quota and a certain number of awards have to go to women. Would you seriously want to go and accept an award that you know you only got because they HAD to give one to a woman? I sure as shit wouldn’t! But feminism is supposed to be about equality and as such, should cover men’s inequality as well…right?


The Red Pill

If you know this term already, relax. I’m not going in the direction you think. For those of you who don’t know the term, let me explain. In 2016 Cassie Jaye, a film maker and also a feminist, released a documentary about the Men’s Rights Movement. The film was pretty much shut down by “feminist” protesters in Australia with chat show host’s explaining why it shouldn’t be shown…despite not having seen it for themselves. This documentary essentially explores the fight for men’s rights and how A) men do not hold all the power in society and B) How awful and actually heart-breaking it is watching these men who have clearly gone through some rough shit in their lives being verbally abused by “feminist” groups. They get labelled white supremacists, sexists, homophobes, ETC all based on quotes taken completely out of context.

I’ll admit that the documentary itself did go a bit astray towards the end. What started out as an interesting documentary about men’s rights turned into anti-feminist propaganda. As I said at the start of this: I’m not anti-feminist. I certainly don’t appreciate men’s rights being used as a sob story for why feminism is evil (their words, not mine). However, the documentary did highlight some very important differences between the sexes that I’ve never ever heard of a feminist movement supporting or trying to change.

Some examples of this are as follows: If you look at any recent warfare, men make up 98-99% of all casualties. More men are arrested, prosecuted and executed. Men are sentenced to 63% more prison time than women for the same crime (interestingly, if BLM claims that the black population in prisons is evidence of systematic racism, what does the sex difference of prison populations mean?). Men make up most of the homeless population, more men die of cancer, men are dropping out of schools, colleges and universities at an alarming rate and certainly a higher rate than women. Men are more likely to have an addiction problem (drugs, alcohol, videogames, porn) especially related to prescription medications given to young boys/men to control behaviours that should be seen as normal masculine behaviours. Feminism claims that men hold all the power then why are men suffering this much? Why is it that when men try to hold meetings to discuss their own rights, they are shut down by “feminist” groups, most of whom are women?

It seems to me that men as a sex are not the issue. Much like my view on other “privileges” I believe that class privilege is the one most often ignored. There may very well be an elite group running things that’s made up mostly of men…but perpetuating this idea that men are the ones with all the advantages, the ones controlling the system, the ones reaping all the rewards is nonsensical.

One interesting point that I had never really considered before (beyond a Bill Burr joke I heard once about the sinking of the Titanic) that the documentary makes is that men have always been disposable. All successful societies have been quite happy for the men to die in order for the women to live. Men are the ones sent to war, to defend cities when no hope remains. When a boat is sinking or a plane lands on water and they have to be evacuated, who goes first and who goes last? Well, when the US Airways flight 1549 crash landed onto the Hudson river, the idea of “women and children first” was held up as the evacuation orders.

Again, I don’t think the Red Pill really focussed entirely on the issue at hand which is a shame because by turning into anti-feminist propaganda it’s just made matters worse and also lost the opportunity to be a realistic look at the issues. But the backlash it automatically got was ridiculous and did in essence support everything said within the documentary. In researching the backlash after watching the film, I stumbled across one particularly toxic article (which I’ve since angrily tweeted to the author to share my views, despite how many years ago it was written). The title of this article (because I don’t want to link it here) was “Why Australian Men’s Right Activists had their Bullshit Documentary Banned” written by one Katherine Gillespie. Her main criticism of the documentary is that it was funded mostly by men’s rights activists. “People want their side of the story told” claims VICE writer in horror!


Equality for Men?

Not only have I never witnessed any aspect of this feminist movement support equality for men, my impressions as a young male of the Western world is that men are often demonized. I find it incredibly alarming but also somewhat amusing that the same people who are quick to say “just because some Muslims are terrorists doesn’t mean all Muslims are” tend to be the same people holding up signs saying “Stop men from raping” or “end male violence against women”. Can you imagine the outrage if someone walked around with a sign saying “Stop Muslim’s bombing” (Again, just to clarify, I’m just using Muslims as an example here. I’m not saying all Muslims are terrorists).

I think this also ignores a lot of the facts and figures. YES! We need to 100% try to end rape and end violence against women. But it isn’t only women that get raped and it isn’t only women who are victims of violence. In most Western societies the law doesn’t even allow for a woman to rape a man. It’s just not possible. Unless you have a penis, you can’t rape someone. Even when it comes to domestic violence, the figures are like 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men. That works out at 47% of domestic violence victims being male! This number is not even remotely represented by the number of refuge spaces available to men in the Western world.

Erin Pizzey, the woman responsible for opening the first domestic violence shelter in the UK and arguably a major contributor to the feminist movement, doesn’t consider herself a feminist. She famously stated that in her own estimates about 60% of women who came to her shelters were violent. There is even a video of a group of women at one of these shelters admitting to how violent they are. As such she doesn’t view domestic violence as a gender issue because in her opinion, you get it on both sides. She received major backlash and lost control of her own refuges after stating that women can be just as violent as men.

I’m not saying any of this to go against the feminist movement. Domestic violence is a serious issue and one that definitely needs to be tackled…but ignoring that the issue impacts men almost as much as women is not the answer.


What is the Goal of Feminism?

We’re nearly at the end, don’t worry. Finally, in my reasoning for why I’m not a feminist I have to cover the issues that are (as far as I can tell) the biggest issues feminists raise in the Western world. The reason I’m bringing these up is because I don’t think they are based on the evidence. Any aspects of our society that genuinely discriminate against women, I’m completely for exploring and I will support that goal as much as I can. These just aren’t examples of that:


The Wage Gap

If you’d rather watch a 15 second video than read my take on this then click here! The wage gap, as far as I am concerned has been debunked. Yet it is a cornerstone of today’s feminist movement. I’m not going to go into the basic economics of it but you can’t just take an average of what men and women earn and then start the claim that women are disadvantaged. I used to believe that the wage gap was a genuine thing and I could never understand why it existed…that’s because it doesn’t. Look at it this way: If the wage gap did exist and women are just as hard working as men, then why would companies employ men at all? Wouldn’t women be the obvious choice since companies could just pay them less?

I will say this: the entertainment industry is an exception but I don’t think it’s as simple as comparing one person to another. When you get somebody to host the Emmys (for example) you can’t claim that they should be paid the same because it’s the same job. It isn’t that simple. I mean why do female prostitutes get paid more than male prostitutes? I’m going to link you to another video where UFC’s Ronda Rousey explains in the simplest way why looking at pay differences in the entertainment industry isn’t about doing the same job. Here you go!

I mean how do you compare actors or sport people or hosts? Would you pay an unknown male actor the same as Helen Mirren? Would you pay Katie Leung (who played Cho Chang in Harry Potter) the same amount as Matt Damon to host the Golden Globes? I don’t think it’s fair to look at a sum of money two people earn and look at it as simply them doing the same job. In the entertainment industry it isn’t that simple.


The Pink Tax

This is another one that when it was first brought to my attention, I thought to myself “what the fuck! How can we live in a world that’s so blatantly unequal?” For those of you who don’t know what the pink tax is, it’s the idea that women pay more money than men for the same product. So a male razor might be £2.50 whereas a pink one for women might be £2.99. I haven’t bought a razor in like 4 years so my pricing might be a little off. Anyway, this sounds ridiculous and for the most part, it is.

Like most ideas, there is some truth to it. Women hygiene products such as tampons are taxable due to not being seen as essential. I would completely agree that this is unacceptable and needs to change. However, when you dig a little deeper into other areas you find that it doesn’t all add up. I mean if the only difference is that one is pink, then why don’t women just buy men’s razors? If I was shaving and could save money by buying a pink razor, I wouldn’t have any problem with it.

You just have to ask yourself a simple question: if the only difference (as in truly the only difference) is that one item is packaged for males and the other for females, why would women use female products at all? Why would anyone choose to spend more money just to conform to gender stereotypes? Especially if they were eager to stick a middle finger to “the man” or the patriarchy. I’ve bought women’s deodorant before because I find it often smells nicer, feels nicer and often works better. The simple truth is that these products aren’t all the same and often there is a very reasonable and rational explanation as to why one is more expensive than others.

Take the razor examples again. Men tend to shave their face and in most cases, that is it. Women shave a larger area such as legs, arms, armpits. Men’s razor’s aren’t pleasant to use. Most of the time you end up feeling like you’ve rubbed the hair off your face with sandpaper. Women’s razors tend to be a lot smoother, many come with added features that moisturise the skin or leave a lovely smell. A woman’s razor will leave your skin feeling DRASTICALLY nicer than if you were to use a man’s razor. If you look at ingredients of soap or deodorant you find that male deodorant and soap has drastically fewer ingredients.

There’s also the issue with pink toys being more expensive. Often the reason for this is because there is a more generic colour brought out as the main product, maybe a red scooter. Later on as part of a limited edition the company brings out a pink scooter and its more expensive…that isn’t an example of women being unfairly charged more money. Any limited edition item tends to be more money. I can’t pay an extra £20 for a limited edition Assassin’s Creed game and then complain that I had to pay more because I’m a real Assassin’s Creed fan (not a real example…I never pay for the extra bullshit content. Fuck you Ubisoft you money-hungry scum).


1 in 4 Women…

You may have heard the statistic that 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted. The Obama administration essentially made this statistic viral (I don’t think that’s the right term but we’ll run with it) to the point that it’s quoted ALL THE TIME! You may be shocked to hear then that while not being entirely fictional, it isn’t entirely accurate either.

The 1 in 4 statistic is based on a college campus survey. People were asked to take part in a survey about sexual assault (or something similar) and out of all the people asked, only 19% did. Immediately we have a non-response bias (the idea that people affected by the issue in question are more likely to come forward than those who haven’t been) which was analysed and found to be significant enough to make the results less realistic. This is something that the authors highlighted themselves when the numbers started being used out of context. If that was all that was wrong with the study, it would be enough. It’s not though.

The questions used within this survey were incredibly vague and didn’t address the issue. For example, the terms rape and sexual assault were never actually used within the questionnaire. Instead, those taking part were given very loose definitions to go by that don’t account for typical college life. For that reason, it has been admitted that this will have led to many people who don’t class themselves as being sexual assault victims, appearing to have been within this study.

Sexual assault is unacceptable and I think we need to do everything we can to put an end to it (like most of the issues I’ve mentioned today) but using statistics such as this doesn’t help the feminist cause because then people soon catch on to the phoney numbers and feel like they’ve been tricked or manipulated. I’m not saying that anyone is intentionally using inaccurate statistics by the way. I don’t think people are actively lying about these issues to try and aid feminism.


The Patriarchy

I’m not going to be arguing whether the patriarchy exists or not because I think this answer is neither yes nor no. I think it is a half-truth. I think there are men who are in power and control many aspects of our society and do lead to there being gaps between gender, race, etc. As I mentioned before, I don’t think this is a sex issue as much as a class issue. Men aren’t benefiting from it, clearly, so when I see the term patriarchy which means “a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it” I can’t help but feel even more disconnected from the feminist movement. As I mentioned before, the majority of power figures in my life have been female. The individual in charge of my country’s government right now is female. In the US and the UK, women make up the majority so if they thought that a female candidate was the best choice, they would just have to vote for them.

When I look back a few decades or a few centuries, I can see where the idea of a patriarchy stems from. Men did hold all the power. I challenge you as a reader of this to tell me where men hold all the power today in the Western world? If it isn’t benefiting physical or mental healthcare, reducing deaths, custody of children goes to women around 80% of the time, we’re more homeless, commit suicide more often, and spend most of the time in jail with men being the vast majority of inmates, where is the advantage? In most Western countries it will be the men who go and die in the most horrific ways imaginable if another war breaks out.

I also find it strange that the control element that feminists fight against is always against men but what about religion? Most religions have almost entirely male figures at the spotlight, God is usually perceived as being male (for some reason) and most holy books put women as being submissive to men, usually with zero rights. Now I don’t believe any of that stuff and certainly don’t take my morality from it but in a mostly religious world, is it a surprise that over the course of thousands of years a patriarchal system would form when your religion is promoting it and burning people at the steak for not adhering to its teachings? How can you be religious (to the extent of believing the teachings of the Bible or the Qur’an) and yet be shocked that over the last few thousand years men have been in the driver’s seat? The Bible itself has Moses telling his generals to literally take virgin girls for themselves! Maybe take the issue of patriarchy up with your God before you start blaming 20 year old, middle class men for any systemic sexism that exists!


The Real Problem

I think the real problem we face within our societies today is that a gender war does exist to some extent. Not everyone is involved and that’s the issue but also the solution. You have radical “feminists” who are clearly not feminist in the most simple sense of the word and on the other side you have male activists who seem to be anti-feminism while taking the exact same approach of claiming to be about equality. I mean just look at MGTOW to see the male reaction to “feminazis”. The issue is that because both sides are fighting over their own issues, the feminists who are actually solely focussed on male and female equality aren’t getting their voice heard. This is then alienating anyone who would potentially be a feminist because they don’t feel like it supports their point of view. If I saw feminists organising protests for even just the occasional men’s rights issue then I could support it. Instead, we get advertising campaigns about manspreading, we get people joking about mansplaining, we get the pay gap and the pink tax…



Well, I got it all out in the end. I expected this post to be maybe a thousand words or so but after every single point I just kept realising that there was another aspect I needed to discuss. If you skipped down to here instead of reading  the whole thing, I don’t blame you. I mean fuck…talk about getting carried away.

Anyway, why am I not a feminist? I’m not one for following or supporting a movement without just cause. If I don’t fully believe in it, I’m not going to stand behind it because when people start doing that, bad shit tends to follow. I support the main goal of feminism: equality, but I don’t support the movement as a whole for a number of reasons. If the sole goal of feminism was equality, I’d be happy to say I’m a feminist…but it’s not that simple. Feminism has an agenda that goes beyond basic equality. The root of feminism may be equality but from one feminist to the next there is going to be a diverse view on certain issues. There is a feminist stance on certain issues and as I don’t agree with these, how could I possibly say I support it as a movement? I also don’t feel that feminism ever supports men’s issues. Most women who are active supporters of men’s rights movements don’t consider themselves feminists. But it goes a step further than that. The feminist movement seems eager to not only ignore men’s issues but actually direct all the blame towards men as a whole. Campaigns against domestic violence are usually calls for protection for women from men despite the fact that men are victims of domestic abuse almost as often as women.

My question to you is this: If feminism is about equality of both sexes, why is it that men don’t feel that way about it? If men can’t possibly know what it’s like to be a woman, to walk in their shoes, then how can women decide that males should be feminist? Why is being feminist seen as the same as supporting basic human rights? Why is it not the same to say you’re for equality?

Finally, can’t we all just get along? Let’s accept that there are difference between the sexes. There are inequalities between them both as well but if we focus on one or the other we’re never going to resolve anything! Let’s get everyone to sit the fuck down, have a rational conversation about everything and come to some fucking agreements!

I guess one of the things it comes down to is that I actually find it slightly insulting to be told that this is a “man’s world”. As someone with mental health issues who has grown up in a society where having feelings is enough to have you labelled a pussy, mental health problems aren’t seen as much better. A world where you are physically assaulted and psychologically tortured for not being big enough or tall enough or strong enough or manly enough but not just by males, but by females as well. If men rule the world then why was my generation raised to pay for dates, to just accept being assaulted by a woman because under no circumstances can you hit back, to pay for expensive rings and other nonsensical wedding traditions that benefit the woman (both during the wedding and in the case of a divorce) drastically more than the man. Where in my home country a percentage of my tax money every year goes to keeping a 150 year old woman more than comfortably wealthy just because we need the monarchy as a living tourist attraction…

In the end, I just wish we didn’t need these labels to define the support of basic human rights. Rather, we should focus on the words for those who don’t support them. Oh, you don’t think women should be paid the same, you must be a cunt then. Ah, you’re against gays getting married, well you’re also a cunt. As far as I’m concerned those are the only sorts of labels we need.


Anyway, I’m done, rant over. Got a fucking book here! If you have any comments or opinions to share, I’d genuinely be interested in talking about this with you so leave a comment below and I’ll get back to you. Alternatively, follow me on Twitter!

Why Ocean’s 8 Signals the Death of Strong Female Characters in Hollywood

So if you’ve been following my blog for a while, you’ll know I wrote two Ghostbusters articles related to the trailer and the film itself. This post is going to look at the upcoming film Ocean’s 8. The all-female reboot of the Ocean’s Eleven films. Let me once again (just for arguments sake) highlight that I’m not against female roles in films at all. The nature of this article is NOT to bash the female actors or having female lead characters or anything like that. Rather it is drawing attention to the lack of imagination in Hollywood and why these sorts of films do nothing to promote the idea of female lead characters and certainly shouldn’t be seen as supporting feminism. Just to warn you: I sometimes flip between referring to the females in question as actors and actresses. I don’t think it hugely matters either way.



If you’re not familiar with the film: Ocean’s 11 was a 1960 film featuring Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin. The version most people know is the 2001 remake featuring George Clooney and Brad Pitt. The story line essentially revolves around a heist: It follows 11 men as they rob a casino. Who would have thought you could sum up a film in 9 words. It grossed over $450 million worldwide and currently has a rating of 7.8 on IMDB.

In my opinion it’s a fun and entertaining film that has a decent (all be it fairly predictable) story but is light-hearted enough that you don’t have to take it too seriously. There is a great cast who seem to have great on-screen chemistry and while it is a reboot, Ocean’s 11 is one of the few remakes/reboots that actually do a much better job than the original.


The Hollywood Heist

So what is my beef with Hollywood over this one? Similarly to the Ghostbusters remake, there is a clear lack of vision and imagination. Ghostbusters did not need a remake at all! As a fan, I would have definitely gone to see a sequel featuring most of the cast but a remake just was not necessary. Who in the world is going to top Bill Murray as a Ghostbuster? The answer is nobody. Ever!  So by A) Giving it a remake/reboot (I’m honestly not even sure what it would be described as at this point) and B) Making it an all-female cast just to be different, was in my opinion a disgrace. I’m not going to focus on it too much because I covered my opinion extensively in my previous posts.

So why is it that Hollywood now feels that we need to remake a remake with an all-female cast? The simple answer: money. The 2001 film was undoubtedly a huge success, especially if you take the whole trilogy into consideration. There’s a change going on in Hollywood that is very noticeable: by putting females or minority groups into previously white-male roles you get the support of certain groups and it makes the film seem “progressive”.  Now, I’m not against this at all. I think many roles could be drastically improved by mixing it up: Idris Elba as James Bond would have been incredible. A female Doctor Who: less so. This probably makes me come across as sexist but hopefully once I explain what I mean you’ll see this is not the case.


Preference is not Sexism

Again, I’m going to try not to go wildly off topic here but the reason I don’t think there should be a female Doctor Who isn’t because I want to only see it as a male role. Rather, it’s because we literally just did that with the Master. Anyone who watches Doctor Who knows that in most cases, the companion is often just as important as the Doctor. Rose Tyler: Strong woman, Martha Jones: Strong woman, Donna Noble: Strong woman, Amy Pond: Definitely a strong woman…you get the picture. It’s not like these companions are damsels in distress. They are partners and they always play just as much a role, if not more than the Doctor.

Yet the BBC is trying to get that “progressive label”. That’s why the last companion was a black, gay woman. As I mentioned, we literally just had the Master become Missy and that was very well done (although John Simm is difficult to top).  For the record (because I feel like I can’t state it enough) I am ENTIRELY for female roles and diversification of roles. My issue isn’t with that at all. My issue is with doing it for the sake of doing it which is clearly the case with shows like Doctor Who (which, by the way, has been getting worse and worse over the recent years). I’ll come back to this point in a moment but for now, let’s get back on track.


Ocean’s 8

So what’s wrong with Ocean’s 8? Let’s start with the concept of the film. It’s not sexist to say that the idea of a heist is more male-oriented. I even carried out my own survey by asking completely random people if they’d go see a heist movie. While most males did say they would, most women said they would not (I’ll update this with the figures once I’m finished). So what benefit is there to forcing a cast such as this into a film that is almost definitely going to flop?

This takes us nicely onto the next issue: the cast. I could pick apart the cast of any film but this one in particular stands out. You have some incredible actors in it (and actually I probably will see this film just to see them in these roles) such as Sandra Bullock (she’s not my favourite but she is a good actor), Sarah Paulson, Helena Bonham Carter and of course Cate Blanchett. Olivia Munn is also listed as making an appearance but her role is yet to be confirmed (as far as I am aware). These are all incredibly gifted actors and this alone makes me want to watch this film. Sadly, everything else about it puts me off.

The rest of the cast is an example of this. My main pet peeve is having Matt Damon reprise his role in the film as Linus. This is a tactic that is used over and over again. We saw it in Ghostbusters, we saw it in Star Wars, we’ve seen it in films like The Hulk. Yes, when used correctly in can be a hilarious moment but in cases such as this it’s a desperate attempt to connect a film to its previously (and more successful) version. You also have Rhianna and Mindy fucking Kaling. When you have such incredible black actresses like Zoe Saldana, Halle Berry, Viola Davis or Paula Patton, why choose such irritating and just awful people such as these two? Rhianna can’t act and Mindy Kaling has a voice that actually is only comparable to that of Melissa McCarthy. That’s just an interesting coincidence.


My Deeper Concern

Similarly to Ghostbusters, my issue does not lie with the fact that it’s a female cast. My issue lies with the fact that we don’t need the film in the first place. I could give you an endless number of films that are coming out that just shouldn’t be getting made. The reason I’m focussing on this is because similarly to Ghostbusters, I’ve seen reports stating that automatically hating this film is sexist.

First of all, we just saw this film. I mean sure, 16 years may seem like a long time but here’s why it isn’t: Star Wars came out in 1977 and The Force Awakens came out in 2015. That’s 38 years between the films, more than double the time between Ocean’s 11 and Ocean’s 8. Yet fans were still all too aware of the fact that the storyline was essentially the same.

My next issue is with it being called Ocean’s 8. I haven’t read this confirmed anywhere and perhaps it’s just speculation…but could it be so that there is space for a trilogy? Ocean’s 8, 9, 10 followed by the 11, 12 and 13 that we already have? STOP! Ubisoft do it, Disney do it, DC do it…why is there this need to create the number of films so far in advance. It just leads to rushed final products, sloppy storylines and disappointed fans!


Why hating this film actually Supports Equality

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t view it as sexist to be against this film, Ghostbusters, a female Doctor Who, ETC. I actually think that my opinion is more supportive of female roles in films that those who will blindly go see it simply because it’s an all-female cast. Why? Because this is simply another desperate attempt by Hollywood to earn the “we use females in major character roles” badge. Look at some of the films that have been aimed at women recently: Ghostbusters was an absolute disgrace, Bad Moms and A Bad Mom’s Christmas that basically appeals to mothers who wish to escape from their children to party. How to be Single which was like a female “lad’s” movie and also just plain awful.

Meanwhile films that actually display abusive behaviour towards women such as the 50 Shades of Grey franchise are applauded, respected and smash the box office. Why? There are some incredible female roles in film and TV that people just seem eager to ignore. Peggy Carter in either her own series or Captain America where the role highlights some of the many difficulties faced by women in the workplace both then and now; Game of Thrones has some of the top female characters ever that repeatedly display brilliance and cunning over their male counterparts; Eleven in Stanger Things; Mulan; Jessica Jones; Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs is another example of a woman overcoming very real issues; Rey in the Force Awakens; you could say Katniss Everdeen but I thought those films were pretty poor; Dana Scully from the X-Files; Ripley from the Alien series; Buffy the Vampire Slayer; and not forgetting the brain box from Harry Potter: Hermione Granger. Not to mention upcoming characters like Captain Marvel and I’ve heard that Wonder Women is a great character although I’ve yet to watch the film.

THESE are roles that should be representing women within the entertainment industry. Original characters, original storylines and all of whom are strong and powerful characters: many of whom demonstrate the ability to overcome genuine issues faced by women today. Isn’t THAT what feminism should be promoting? Instead of these disgusting reboots of remakes where the female cast are simply stepping into the shoes of men?


Final Remarks

So hopefully you understand my point of view. I’m not against films like Ghostbusters and Ocean’s 8 because it’s a female cast. I’m against them because as films they suck ass (just predicting Ocean’s 8 here) but also as someone who completely supports equal rights (I’m not a feminist because I believe the movement has become toxic, a conversation for another time perhaps), I believe that films like this don’t give power to women or demonstrate powerful female characters. I think it’s simply an attempt to show that women can do what men can do…except that it’s based on films that don’t need to be rebooted and were better suited to a male cast. Bill fucking Murray, man!


As always, I appreciate being followed both here and on Twitter! I welcome any and all comments or criticisms and if you think that something I’ve said in this article is wrong or unfair, by all means let me know.

The Conspiracy Conspiracy


What is a conspiracy? Well to use the first definition that Google displays it’s: “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful” or “the action of plotting or conspiring”. However, we are all familiar with how the word is used today. If you get the label of a conspiracy theorist, then it means you wear a tinfoil hat because you’re worried that the aliens who shot JFK and planned 9/11 are using their base at Area 51 to read your mind. Keep in mind that the term “conspiracy theory” doesn’t directly refer to someone believing some crackpot theory. It’s simply a theory related to a group’s secret plan.

As such, I want to use this post to explore this idea that perhaps we need to view conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists in a different light. Similar to how the blanket term of “drugs” is often used as if all drugs are equally as dangerous or equally as addictive or remotely the same substances whatsoever. Yes, we have class systems for these drugs but just keep in mind that weed is in the same level as amphetamines, ketamine and barbiturates. But this isn’t a drug post.

So what will I be looking at today? I’m going to look at some of the extremes: the conspiracy theories that really do deserve to be up there on the “tinfoil hat required” list while also looking at some of ones that turned out to be very factual despite being mostly ignored today. I’m also going to cover an area that seems to be avoided or seen as the “no-man’s land” in every single aspect of life: the middle ground. For some reason you’re either down the rabbit hole or you’re not. There’s never an opportunity to stick your head in to take a look.

Get the Tinfoil Hats Out

I’m going to keep this section fairly short and light-hearted (all to build you up for the later sections). The truth is there are a million if not billion random conspiracy theories out there that I’m sure we’ve all heard. The Elvis one is always a go-to option but rather than explore that one further, let’s warm up with another musical icon: Paul McCartney.


Paul is Dead

What about the idea that Paul McCartney died in a car crash in 1969 and The Beetles covered it up and replaced him with a look-a-like? This is one that I only heard about recently and it’s certainly an interesting one. Apparently, at the end of the song ‘Strawberry Fields Forever’ you can hear John Lennon saying the words “I buried Paul”. People have even interpreted the album covers as being signs as well. The famous Abbey Road cover being a nod to the funeral which is why Paul is barefoot. This theory was put to rest pretty quickly when Paul McCartney took part in an interview with Life (I’m sure the pun was intended) magazine in which he acknowledged the rumours as being ridiculous…sounds like something a Paul McCartney look-a-like would be paid to say…


From Bombs to Tsunamis

I’m sure we all remember the horrific tsunami that took place on Boxing Day 2004 in Indonesia. The scientific explanation is that the 6.4 magnitude earthquake that took place triggered the tsunami and everything that followed. However, there are those who believe that the US government (or at least some section of the US military) detonated a 5-10 megaton bomb in order to trigger the tsunami as a way of sending in “relief support”: All in an effort to claim oil fields. Apparently the type of waves in the area were indicative of an underwater explosion. Combine that with the fact that the US had aid there incredibly quickly and you have a fishy situation. Out of all these slightly crazier conspiracy theories, this is the one I view as being most likely…not that I believe it but I just think that the US government is capable of literally anything!


The Moon is a Hologram

Yup, you read that title correctly. The moon it seems is a hologram and the Illuminati or some other secret society has pulled the wool over our eyes for decades. It’s hard for me to go into this one with an open mind, mainly because the entire conspiracy doesn’t make a great deal of sense. From what I can tell, this theory began when an amateur photographer observed the moon for a year and noticed ripples of some sort. He then came out and expressed the idea that the power system was failing which is what caused the ripples. He notes that while doing this he spotted an unlisted satellite that is one of many that projects the moon into our sky.

If you’ve never heard of David Icke, he’s an intelligent man who has bought into what seems like every conspiracy that has ever existed e.g. Saturn is the home of the lizard people who run this world in their human costumes. I first encountered Icke several years back when a talk about the nature of reality, the governments of the world, the holographic universe theory ended with him butchering by favourite Bill Hicks moment: “Just a Ride”. I have nothing against Icke as a human but I do get the feeling that he peddles a lot of nonsense in order to gain from it financially. If you make a theory crazy enough, there will always be people who will hop on board.

Anyway, Icke suggests that the moon being a hologram is all part of the Illumanati’s control over us. By presenting a fake moon, they highlight their power. It doesn’t end there. Oh no, sir! Apparently, the real moon could still be out there and could even be home to a population of alien colonisers. We will be looking at the moon landing further on in the article, I’m sure you’ll be happy to hear.


The Reptilian Conspiracy

In case you’ve managed to avoid hearing this one: The Earth is home to shapeshifting lizard creatures who rule the planet. These aliens are known as the Annunaki (which is based on ancient mythology from the Sumerians, I believe) and the Royal Family are actually lizard-people. Of course they are just the low level lizard people. We once again visit the opinion of David Icke, who claims that the bible references these lizard people (of course when you look at the mentioned passages, you don’t get that impression at all).

Apparently this species arrived on Earth via flaming UFOs and manipulated the human race into being their slaves. Only then did they realise that to truly rule, they would have to use their shape shifting power to become human. I’m all for believing in ancient aliens and civilisations but this one definitely requires a tinfoil hat to be a part of.


From Downright Crazy to Downright True

Of course not all conspiracy theories are quite as out there. There are many, many examples of governments creating shady plans in order to benefit their own agenda. Some of these are just downright terrifying to imagine but will also set us up for the final section. This section won’t cover anything that isn’t factual. I might share my opinions on them but the cases themselves are all completely true.


Operation Northwoods

This is an incredibly interesting yet also terrifying report. It’s suspected to be one of the reasons that JFK was assassinated (more on that in the next section) Operation Northwoods was a proposed false-flag operation. Who proposed it? Certain groups within the US Department of Defence and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that’s who. The proposal called for the CIA and several other agencies to commit acts of violence and terror against US civilian and military targets while under disguise as Cubans.

Some examples of these acts included: hijacking planes while dressed as Cubans with Cuban identification; attacking Guantanamo Bay in order to kill military targets while again, being disguised as Cuban soldiers; blowing up US ships and finally, planting bombs and carrying out attacks in US cities. The purpose of this was to create a strong public opinion that invading/going to war with Cuba would be necessary.


MK Ultra

Ever worry that the government might be poisoning you or brainwashing you? Sadly, Project MK Ultra is a true example of this. The CIA (an agency we will be referring to A LOT!) carried out highly illegal tests on both US and Canadian citizens (all unwitting). What was the aim? Well, they wanted to find the most effective techniques for interrogations and brainwashing. So they tested a wide variety of drug methods such as dosing people with LSD. They also tried hypnosis, sensory deprivation and a wide variety of other techniques including verbal and physical abuse.

Ultimately, while an investigation was carried out to determine all the shady shit the CIA had been doing, very little was done in relation to the MK Ultra project. Most of the files were destroyed at the command of the head of the CIA at the time, Richard Helms.


The Snowden Files

We all remember the relatively recent breakthrough that the NSA and the GCHQ had been spying on not only enemies but also allies. Both organisations right under our noses had carried out illegal and certainly shady mass data collection and if not for Edward Snowden, we would be none the wiser. Once again, very little has happened as a result of this and the US’s reaction to a whistle blower has been made quite clear which doesn’t bode well for any future releases of this nature.

Of course this won’t have stopped there. The CIA uses Snapchat to collect facial recognition data and Mark Zuckerberg is still all too willing to supply any information he can to any paying buyer, especially government bodies. People like Theresa May want us to have less privacy and if the Snooper’s Charter had gone through, apps like WhatsApp that use encryption to keep messages private, would have become illegal unless they supplied governments with backdoor access.

It’s safe to assume that most of our data is still being collected, they’re just finding more and more ways to do it.


I could write about so many more but I don’t want people to get bored but at least you’ll have seen a glimpse of some of the shady acts that our governments have been very willing to do. If you’re interested in these sorts of historical moments, then I suggest you read up about the WTC bomb of 1993 (I think) and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. This brings us on to the final section.


The Middle Ground

One thing that needs to be addressed in terms of conspiracy theories is the middle ground. Why can’t I believe part of a conspiracy theory but not the whole thing? We view them as being one extreme or the other. The reason I’ve named this post The Conspiracy Conspiracy is because I think part of the reason people ignore the middle ground is that they simply don’t want their bubble to be burst. If we can agree that the above example are factual then are the following ones really so hard to believe? I’m going to basically give you an overview of my beliefs on the following well-known conspiracy theories. I personally can’t see any reason why it’s such a stretch to believe them.


The Moon Landing was Fake

Ok, hear me out. I believe that we went to the moon. I’m not about to deny that we did. However, I think that while we did go to the moon, fake footage was also shot. I’m inclined to believe the Kubrick conspiracy version of this i.e. Kubrick was brought in to film the fake version and left clues to this throughout other films such as The Shining. My belief is as follows: NASA and the US were about to make history by being the first to send men to the moon. Were people just going to accept that as fact? Of course not. If someone claimed today that we had men on Mars but didn’t provide proof, we’d label them a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

As such, I think a back-up was created just in case there were any issues. In the event that the mission as a whole failed or the footage wasn’t available, then this back-up version would have been used. I’m not even against the possibility that some of the fake footage was added to the real footage. I just think we need to be open minded about the whole situation. There are many examples of Neil Armstrong and the others clearly hiding details. Don’t believe? YouTube and the Internet will be your friends!


JFK Assassination

I am a strong believer in the idea that this wasn’t just the work of Oswald or Communists or whatever other official explanation was given. Everything about the assassination screams “conspiracy” and yet for the most part, people ate up the official story. You only have to look as far as the autopsy photos changing, bullets changing, footage being destroyed, files being set for declassification and then delayed.

Is that not enough? Well, what about the ridiculous number of eye-witnesses who died within a few years of the event? Not that their individual deaths were suspicious (although cut breaks surely are) but the sheer number that have died in that time is certainly bizarre and an anomaly. It is said that the odds of them all being dead by 1969 is one hundred thousand trillion to one.

A YouTuber whose channel is Bright Insight led me to the idea that George Bush Senior may have had a direct involvement in JFK’s assassination. He was working for the CIA at the time (one of the agencies seen as most likely to have carried out the assassination) and since he became president (followed later on by his son) it’s no real surprise that keeping this under wraps would be essential. Especially since that leads to a whole bunch of questions about other times the CIA and the Bush family may have joined to commit illegal activities.



Truther is a word often thrown at someone who doesn’t agree with the given narrative about the 9/11 attacks in New York. Am I a truther? No…well, sort of. If you viewed it as a scale with believing the narrative being 1 and believing Bush himself piloted the planes via remote control as 10, I’m probably in the middle: Somewhere between 4 and 6.

Everything about the event just seems off. If you ignored everything else and simply focused on how the Bush administration handled the event that alone would raise suspicions. It just so happens that that isn’t the only evidence. Just to be clear here, I don’t believe that explosives were planted in the buildings or that the CIA organised the attacks (although if you read up on the WTC bomb several years previous, it certainly raises some suspicions).

However, I do believe that it is completely possible that the attacks were allowed to happen and were closely monitored as the day went on. I do believe that the US government received countless warnings that such an attack would take place. I do believe that the attacks were used to fuel public opinion and mount an unnecessary invasion in order to take control of oil and opium. I also believe that the 9/11 Inquiry was great at avoiding any real answers or investigation and that thousands of people had their lives torn to pieces and got a mumbling moron President making everything worse.


In Conclusion

So what is the conspiracy conspiracy? Perhaps it’s a plan from a secret society to turn anybody who questions the official narrative into a tinfoil hat wearing nutjob…or perhaps it’s just a title that has no real meaning that to sound catchy. I’m not genuinely implying that the word conspiracy is in itself a conspiracy…but I think that as a society, we’ve attached connotations to the word that ought not to be there.

The point of this post isn’t to debate conspiracy theories. The point of it is to highlight that sometimes, your government and my government are responsible for some extremely shady shit. Yet we let them get a pass over and over again. It’s like letting your dog shit on your pillow and then just shrugging your shoulders because fuck it! I think we all need to take a step back, look at the evidence and decide whether something is believable or not. Just because someone suggests an idea that goes against everything the media or your teachers or your parents are telling you, doesn’t mean that you should rule it out.

I’m not saying believe every crackpot theory you hear. I’m saying that you should look at all the evidence and come to your own conclusions. Government conspiracies are probably in motion right now so don’t go down the path of saying “a government could never get away with that”. They have and they will again. When a red flag is raised with an issue but a group of the people believing it also believe that the Earth is flat, don’t assume that your point of view is wrong or that theirs is…

…And when it comes to the CIA, assume the worst.


Don’t forget to follow me on Twitter to be kept up-to-date with writing I do outside this blog. If you have a taste for conspiracy theories, check out one of my older posts that looks at how the petition system in the UK is simply there to make you feel like you tried and failed to make a change.

Star Wars Episode VIII: The First Order Strikes Back

So this post is going to be a sort of combination of two things. Primarily it’s my current expectations for the next Star Wars film but it’s also a rant about the use of trailers. I haven’t seen the film yet so don’t worry about there being spoilers. Everything I saw is based on the trailers or my own predictions.

Speaking of which: Remember when you watched a trailer and thought “wow, that looks interesting” whereas now you watch it and basically get the entire idea of the film. I bet if they released The Empire Strikes Back today, the trailer would end with Vader saying “No, I am your father…”


Star Wars So Far

What can be said about Star Wars that hasn’t been said before? Nobody can deny the fact that it’s an incredibly interesting saga and obviously a successful one. That’s not to say that it doesn’t have glaringly obvious flaws! Whether you look at the inconsistencies, the average storyline or the predictability Star Wars in a sense is eye-candy. It’s great to look at it, it’s great to think about but is it perfect? No. In fact the closer you look, the more you realise that the effort should have been moved away from the special effects a little and more towards a competent storyline.

I won’t get into a whole original vs prequel trilogy debate beyond this paragraph as I think I can sum it up that quickly. The original trilogy was awesome because of the characters. The special effects may have been good for back then but they aren’t now and yet, people still love the films. If you can overlook the Empire essentially being defeated by stone-age bears then sure, the storyline was ok. The prequels on the other hand, look pretty fantastic (for the most part) but again, the storyline just isn’t that great. They had a target they had to aim for but somehow the arrow they fired went up and down, left and right, curving all over the place before getting there.

I think that these new films are a chance to retell that story without being predictable: something I’ve yet to see happen. The Force Awakens was cool but nobody can deny that it was exactly the same plot as the original Star Wars. Even Mark Hamill has come out and said that they’re all about the money. There is no heart or soul going into it anymore, they’re basically playing to the most generic audience to try and make the most money. More on that later! For now, let’s talk trailers.


What’s with the Revealing Trailers?

Something that I’ve noticed happening more and more recently is revealing major plot points in the trailers. The Simpsons movies was the earliest example of this for me. All the funny moments were in the trailer so when you watched the film, it felt like you’d seen it before. Thor: Ragnarok…Wow! Can you imagine how much better that film would have been if you never expected Hulk to appear? In the film they even go into it as if the audience is going to be shocked.

Every single trailer had the Hulk in it! I would LOVED to have seen that film without knowing such details. I wish trailers could go back to being teasers. Enough to interest you and get the excitement pounding at the inside of your chest like you’ve just recently encountered a face-hugger. Rather, we get the movie in bitesize form.

It’s like all the big reveals you get now before things are even released: all in an attempt to build up hype but why? Do they seriously think people wouldn’t go see Thor without Hulk or go and see Star Wars without seeing so much of the film in the trailer? Recently they announced that there is a “big shocking moment of truth” in the upcoming Star Wars film…couldn’t they just let us find that out for ourselves?

I remember when we were nearing the start of the 6th season of Game of Thrones. I was late to watching the show (the 5th season was halfway through when I played catch-up) so I’d never had to deal with trailers for it before. I remember watching the first trailer, thinking to myself “wow, this is incredible” and then slowly realising that I now knew pretty much the entire storyline. I mean the trailer was practically the whole season just squashed into a minute.

This is also when I realised just how ridiculous the idea had become. For Game of Thrones season 6, we got something like 3 teaser trailers. If it had ended there it would have been great. Then we got a slightly longer one. Followed by maybe 3 more? 4? 5? For season 7 I avoided every single trailer I could. When it came on TV I looked away. When YouTube recommend it, I avoided it. Quite frankly, I enjoyed this season a lot more. So let’s look at the Star Wars trailer.


Why Star Wars is going to be average!

If you’re a Star Wars fan then you’ve most likely seen the trailer. Star Wars Episode 8: The Empire Strikes Back…Again? It’s so blatantly copying the structure of episode 5 and yet, people are losing their shit at the idea! I can guarantee you that they’ll try and top the father reveal from Episode 5 and guess what; it’s going to be awful. Other than the trailer, I’ve avoided everything I can in relation to the new film.  Why? Because I’m still eager to go and see it. My expectations may be low but I have hope. Not a new hope mind you, just a slowly fading away hope.

This is why I think these new films are flawed. In episode 7 we had the same thing. Oh look, Han Solo is killed, of course. Any guesses as to whether Leia dies on episode 8? What about Luke in episode 9? That isn’t the issue though. They’re using too much symbolism of light vs dark and while it worked for the older films, they’re missing their shot with these ones.

I mean let’s take the trailer apart a little. You have what is essentially the assault on Hoth. In fact, if you look closely in the trailer, you’ll see that the same ATATs are still being used. Where they got them from is a question I’d love to have answered. It’s good to see that 30+ years has led to the machines now walking like apes.

We already know we’re going to have a Yoda-Luke training parallel here so that’s hardly a shock. Part of me hopes that when Luke says “I’ve seen this raw strength only once before” that is isn’t talking about Kylo. After Kylo being beaten pretty easily by an untrained Rey in the previous film, that would just be an embarrassing moment.


Let me Use the Force to Glimpse the Future

Here’s my prediction and it could be completely wrong: Rey is going to train with Luke. We see that much from the trailer. She’s going to reach a point where she has to leave to save her friends. Despite having been in the same situation himself, Luke will try to convince her not to go. Eventually she will and it will lead to her confrontation with Kylo Ren. Rey is going to use her anger and it will become hatred. Ultimately, she will join the darkside through manipulations from Snoke. There are rumours that we get a force ghost in this so my prediction would be that Anakin convinces Kylo Ren to come back to the light side of the force. Then there will be this big dramatic change where Rey is now bad and Kylo is good. I don’t think Luke will die in this film. If he doesn’t, he’ll definitely die in the next one though.

The film will end with an evil Rey. I wouldn’t even be shocked if she ends up being the one who kills Leia or Luke. I’d say Finn but there is absolutely no way that Disney is killing one of only two or three black actors. Speaking of Finn, you’ll also notice from the trailer that he gets another mock-lightsabre fight. The first one was bad enough but now he fights like that again? And with Phasma no less…

My only alternative theory is that Rey might not turn to the Dark Side but she will pretend to. Her plan will be to get close to Kylo and Snoke in order to infiltrate the First Order and shut them down from the inside. The First Order will then reveal that they have a reason for doing what they’re doing and in fact they aren’t just a galactic dictatorship.


Side Theory

I think there will be many throwbacks to the previous trilogies in this one, most likely in an attempt to fix plot holes and continuity errors. However, I do think that this could be an interesting opportunity for them to advance the storylines from the prequel trilogy.

When you watch the prequels again and get past some of the awful acting and bad writing, you realise that there was a point to Anakin’s view of things. He wasn’t in the right by joining the Emperor but he was in the right about the Jedi and their view/involvement in things.

This will take us back to Episode 5 where Luke enters the cave and decapitates Vader only for this mask to explode and reveal his own face. Luke becoming Vader is less symbolic of him becoming evil and more symbolic of him realising the truth of the Jedi: that they had become a corrupt organisation. Luke seeks isolation because he realises that Vader was right all along (despite going about it the wrong way) and he can’t come to terms with that. Sure, his isolation appears to be due to Kylo Ren and perhaps that was the trigger.

What if there becomes a new rule of two for the Jedi? Whenever there are too many Jedi, there also ends up being unbalance in the force (quite literally) and so things have to be reset. This would stick to the prophecy: Anakin DID bring balance to the force and he did destroy the Sith!

Now there is a new enemy that spawns from the attempt to create more Jedi. The imbalance leads to one of the pupils being tilted towards the Dark Side. Leia claims it was Snoke who lured Kylo Ren to that side but what if it was the Dark Side itself? We know the force is an energy that surrounds everything but also that to some degree, it has consciousness, even if through the deceased Jedi.

What if we take this one step further and view the force vs the dark side as being quite literally light vs dark…but it is in fact the same thing. The light side of the force is the dark side and the dark side is the light side. One energy that needs to remain in balance. Luke realises this and flees. Perhaps he knew that the force would one day bring someone to him but he needed to be patient. I mean it could also be a Lost type scenario where you literally have white vs black exploding out your ears.


My Hope for the Future

I wish I could say that I hope episode 8 and 9 will be incredible and take the saga to a whole new level of entertainment. Sadly, I’m not super optimistic and so my hope lies in the other films. I was never ever ever ever ever a fan of the idea of bringing the Star Wars films back. I was even less of a fan of their anthology films…but Rogue One actually changed my mind about that. Out of all the films so far that was the one I imagined I’d hate the most. I mean as far as I was concerned, we really didn’t need to bridge between episode 3 and 4.

I was pleasantly surprised. I mean they still made it super cheesy and I feel like it could have been a lot better but still, pleasantly surprised. My initial thoughts on a Han Solo film are about the same but I’m coming round to the idea. An Obi-Wan Kenobi film is DEFINETLY something I can support. Seeing Ewan McGregor back in the role would allow me to forgive the Star Wars saga for some of its mistakes.

That being said, I heard recently that it might be a prequel. If it’s a prequel and NOT Obi-Wan between episodes 3 and 4 then I’ve lost all faith in the saga. I mean that would just be absolute nonsense. A) Ewan McGregor doesn’t look that young anymore. You can make-up the shit out of him but he was baby-faced in Episode 1. B) As much as I’d love to see Liam Neeson return as Qui-Gon Jinn, I could settle for a force ghost. C) I feel like a prequel of the prequels is just unnecessary. We could get some real character development for Obi-Wan as well as some Vader scenes quite possibly. We could learn more about the rise of the Rebellion and the Empire.


You may be wondering why I haven’t mentioned the Star Wars Battlefront games. The truth is, I think they speak for themselves. If a Playstation 2 games from 2004  and 2005 have a higher entertainment value, better storyline and are still played after 13 years then I think that says a enough about EA and their money hungry, soul-sucking company.


If you have any comment or questions, be sure to leave them below. Don’t forget to follow me on Twitter where I post some of the work I do outside my own blog.

Electric Dreams: Pompous Storytelling in 52 Minutes or Less

In order to fill the hole left behind by Black Mirror, Channel 4 (in the UK) has started airing a TV series called “Electric Dreams”. Following the same format as Black Mirror, each episode is a stand-alone story and in the case of Electric Dreams each episode is based on a short story written by Philip K Dick. For those unfamiliar with the name, you may be familiar with films such as Blade Runner, Minority Report, The Adjustment Bureau and TV shows such as The Man in the High Castle which are all based on stories written by him. The purpose of this post is not to critique the work of Philip K Dick as he is undoubtedly a very talented author and an incredibly creative individual. I do however have some issues with these TV adaptions and two episodes in, the likelihood of success for the rest of the series is doubtful.


It should be obvious but just in case it wasn’t: there will be spoilers within this post. I can’t say that it will be a great disappointment as anything that can be spoiled was obvious to begin with and where things can’t be spoiled it is because there is nothing to spoil. I’m going to start in the most obvious place: episode 1. The Hoodmaker kickstarts this new series and follows a police detective, agent Ross. Perhaps more recognisable as Robb Stark, Richard Madden does an excellent job as far as I am concerned. In this world, humanity has a clear divide between those who can read minds and those who can’t. What I could only view as a clear parallel to internet privacy (and privacy in all matters technological) the police have started using these telepaths (marked with a birthmark-style discolouration on their skin) in order to better control crime and deal with the rising demonstrations and revolts that seem to be taking place within this city. The public are against a new bill which gives the police the power to use the telepaths during interrogations and to aid in finding criminals due to the fact that the distinction between a criminal and a member of the public seems to be too thin to see. So we follow this agent Ross and his newly allocated telepathic partner as they try to track down someone who has been making hoods which give the wearer the ability to keep their thoughts hidden. Think Magneto’s helmet in X-Men. Ultimately the episode ends with telepaths killing people who stand against their quest to be the ultimate power on Earth. The “twist” (if you can call it that) is that agent Ross has been born with the ability to naturally block telepaths from reading his mind. I can’t say it came as a shock but ultimately his partner has to decide whether to help him escape the room that has just been set on fire or to just let him die. She reads his mind and finds out that he has been racist towards her kind and the episode ends without us knowing whether he was saved or not.


My issue with this episode is not the story line itself as I actually did find the concept incredibly interesting. My issue is that they crammed the entire thing into a 52 minute long episode. In that time we are supposed to notice the gradual relationship building up between agent Ross and his partner, something that we don’t really get to see happen over time and instead seem to be somewhat instantaneous. We also don’t get to fully explore the uprising that is taking place out-with the main storyline. All we get are tiny glimpses into an interesting world. Trying to force these stories into hour-long segments is not only ridiculous, it’s impossible. Black Mirror did a much better job in using 90 minutes as the general runtime of their episodes as it allowed for a more in-depth character exploration. This is even more apparent in the second episode.


Impossible Planet, the second episode in the series follows inhabitants of a distant planet. We learn early on that Earth was destroyed by a solar flare (I think that’s what it was) and that these planets are basically ran by a franchise of sorts. Long story short, a deaf old woman named Irma and her robot companion RB29 hire two tour guides (slightly above the role of bus tours) to take them to Earth. The two guys, Brian and Ed decide to fake the journey and to take her to a similar sized planet instead. Along the way strange things seem to happen such as Irma telling stories of her grandparents and showing Brian a photo of a man that looks exactly like him standing next to a woman that looks like a younger version of her. These two people are apparatnely Irma’s grandparents. The episode trickles on with the relationship between Irma and Brian growing more peculiar and with RB29 showing anger towards the crew and concern towards Irma. The episode ends with Brian and Irma stepping onto a destructive and poisonous planet (the fake Earth) and ultimately seeming to run out of oxygen and die (while seemingly hallucinating the story that Irma had told about her grandparents swimming naked together).


I found this episode to be completely ridiculous. Not only was it facing the exact same issues as the first one (such as lack of time to tell a decent story) but it also leaves the ending far too open. Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE a show or film that leaves you thinking. Any of you who bothered reading my Westworld post know that I got completely hooked on the tiny details that led to a larger explanation. I more often than not find it completely unsatisfying when a show or film just throws the explanation in your face without making you work for it. So maybe the story in this episode just went completely over my head and if that is the case then I’m happy to admit that. However, I couldn’t see any real solution or explanation for what happened and any ideas I’ve since come up with just feel like I’m grasping at straws:

  1. A) Maybe these two characters live the same lives over and over again. Perhaps they die and are reborn with the same memories buried deep away in their mind somewhere. Brian died long before Irma and she had to find him and lead them down a path that kills them both in order to be reborn again at the same time but she wants him to remember the same way that she remembers.
  2. B) What I think is perhaps a darker theory but also a better and more realistic one is that Brian had already come to terms with the fact that him and his girlfriend wanted different things. His life is grim, he clings onto this hope of advancing through his job even though he realises that he’s going nowhere. You see at the start how little effort and enjoyment goes into his work as a tour guide which I think adds evidence to this fact. When given this opportunity to earn more money, he slowly begins to envy this old woman who has spent the little bit of time she has left just hoping to get one glimpse at the planet her family came from. She knows she’ll be at peace when she sees it and yet he can’t come even close to such a feeling. I think that when Irma shows him the photograph the man doesn’t actually look that much like him but his mind, so desperate to find something to cling to, makes him see himself in that photograph. Irma (either intentionally or not) manipulates Brian into putting everything he has left into her ending and her story. Brian knows all too well that going out onto the planet is suicidal and yet he does it anyway because to provide this woman with this one last wish gives his life some sort of meaning that he just wouldn’t have had otherwise.

Neither of these is a particularly strong case and another explanation would be that there really is no real explanation. Perhaps this is just a love story that shows you that millions of miles of empty space and dying homeworlds isn’t enough to get between true love. That is why I’m not a fan of this episode. There just isn’t enough evidence to go on in order to have a truly interesting storyline. It’s one thing to leave the story a little open to interpretation or to have storylines hidden within other storylines but to have no real storyline and to just leave the creation of the story up to the audience is just lazy.
So I ultimately think that this series is going to fail. It’s been given good ratings so far because people want it to be good and it should have been good. You have a great cast acting out stories by a great author but the lack of time in which to tell the stories is ultimately going to be the downfall of the series. If you’re going to try and make a dark and gritty TV show that makes people shudder but also makes them think then you need more than 52 minutes to be able to do that. These stories take place in worlds very different from our own so you are having to set up literally every part of these world’s from scratch without the entire episode feeling like a setup. Either that or you need an episode that is mostly setup and character development followed by another episode that explores the story. Imagine how much better either of these episodes could have been if there was another whole episode left to explore the story.  I think it is about time that we realise that throwing a big-named cast into a show should not be a guaranteed way to make it a success. Black Mirror did it for their latest season and ultimately that combined with the Hollywoody feel just made the episodes feel less intense and gripping (for the most part). In the first couple of seasons you had a few recognisable faces but ultimately none of the people were likely to sway your decision to watch the show. I’ll put my hand up and admit that when I saw Richard Madden and Bryan Cranston in some of the trailers, it made me want to watch the show. It puts us in this mindset that surely these actors wouldn’t sell out for a TV show with poor writing, right? We then enter into the show with this expectation and ultimately the whole thing can be a bit of a let-down. I’d rather have an amazing storyline with slightly rougher acting than having amazing actors relaying a shit storyline.


Lust, Longing and Bouts of Anxiety

“If you meet somebody and your heart pounds, your hands shake, your knees go weak, that’s not the one. When you meet your ‘soul mate’ you’ll feel calm. No anxiety, no agitation.”

– Random quote apparently from a Buddhist


Until recently I don’t think I would have appreciated the value of this quote: we see in films people talking about their hearts racing, how they’re so nervous that they’ll make a mistake, that they go weak at the knees when they see someone they “love”. So when we feel these similar emotions we believe that it’s a sign that we’ve met a compatible partner, someone to whom we are physically and emotionally attracted to. For me, the idea of having weak knees, shaking hands and a racing heart sounds a lot more like something negative (my first thought being an anxiety attack) rather than a moment I’d look back on fondly. This is ultimately what I want to talk about today: “love” or at least my own version of it and the effect this has on anxiety (based on my own experience).


I always feel a bit hesitant to use the word “love” (never mind discussing it on a blog) because I feel like it has certain connotations that should be positive but are often perceived as negative. I mean you can love a dog, love a family member, love a friend, love all people, a band, a food, a drug, the fact that it’s not raining, sand, you can say you love pretty much everything in the world until you get to someone with whom you are romantically involved with and then it becomes this weight of pressure. It’s almost like using the term “love” is a quicker way of saying that you want to marry someone, have children, spend your retirement gardening together before being buried in the same plot of land that you’ve already purchased…maybe it’s the fact that I hate the idea of doing all those things but I’d like to think that I’m not the only one who sees it that way. As soon as the word love is used I find it creates complications or can cause the same feelings as being stuck in an elevator (when it’s not completely mutual that is). I think that love is tricky to discuss because not only does everyone have their own image of what “it” is but we’ve all experienced it in different ways from different sorts of people and our own experience of it won’t always be positive. Some people fall in love instantly, some never do, some people think they’ve loved only to realise they haven’t and for some it’s the opposite way around. I think love in itself is a combination of emotions which makes it more difficult to pin down because one might feel different emotions when in love than someone else would. I’d say that love is trust, happiness, comfort, lust, etc. Is that all love is though? Love can involve sadness but you’re not sad because you’re in love, you’re sad because you can’t have love. Maybe the person you love is with someone else or maybe they’ve been chosen for the first mission to mars. Anyway, I’m getting off topic here so let me get back on track: how does all of this relate to anxiety and mental health in general?


I’ve mentioned previously in a post that I suffer from varying forms of anxiety: I have incredibly debilitating social anxiety (slowly improving) as well as anxiety attacks that can be triggered by certain situations. Physical contact with other people used to be a challenge for me as well but I’ve mostly overcome that now. I’ve been in relationships before where I’ve initially felt anxious but quickly got past it only for my anxiety to still be rather prevailing in any other situation, even when with this person. So it came as quite a shock to me recently when I met someone, a complete stranger, with whom, from the get go I seemed to just feel comfortable. I mean there is always going to be that initial awkwardness of having to use the typical starter questions but once we were past that we got on like a house on fire. The real challenge was meeting friends of this person in social situations that would usually have me sweating and feeling at my most uncomfortable but nope, I felt fine and actually felt confident to a degree. Something about being with this person and knowing that they are there just removes some of the fear. I mean I’m sure a therapist would probably tell me that most of my anxiety stems from a fear of humiliation; I mean I can even think of examples off the top of my head quite easily of when this deep-rooted issue would have been cemented in place. So I guess when you are with a group of people and know that the person there who means the most to you isn’t going to put you down or view anything you say or do as weird, stupid or abnormal then you can just relax and be yourself. Perhaps it is the societal pressures to conform to the norms that lead us into these anxiety-ridden black holes.


This change isn’t just limited to situations involving that person though. I started noticing it in other areas of my life: at work I have a supervisor who other than being a racist, homophobic, bigoted alcoholic, caffeine-addicted chain-smoker is also just a bit of a dick. When I first started working there I would put up with it, I’d pretend to laugh at his awful jokes, I’d agree with his narcissistic and ego-inflating statements about his “skills” and my hatred for this man just built up with each day. Along comes this person and without even being aware of it I start taking on the views and opinions of this fossil to the point where he starts saying things like “you need to go back in your shell” and “I’m not liking this side of you”. Areas of work that I used to dread and actually fear became sort of “meh” and I quickly adjusted to them being part of the job. People who I used to avoid talking to I’ve since became quite friendly with simply because I found it easier to talk to them without freaking out about what to say. Most of this took place without me even being aware of it and I believe that it’s down to not only the physical side of being with someone (I don’t mean just the sex, although obviously that does play a major role in altering brain chemistry in such a manner) but also the emotional side. It’s not often that I can spend time with someone and be completely myself. I mean I’m exaggerating a little bit here but it’s certainly true that I usually have to keep some things locked up inside my brain or at least control certain aspects of my personality. SO I guess just being able to release all my built up “me-ness” is therapeutic to such an extent that I am able to relax a bit in other social situations.


I am of course not implying that you should be with someone just because they make you feel more confident and comfortable than you usually would but I am saying that for me, this is an incredible feeling to experience and it is certainly a lot more enjoyable than being with someone where you are constantly worried that you might fuck up. I mean isn’t that the dream relationship? I remember it being said pretty well in How I Met Your Mother when the mother (whose death was some of the most ridiculous writing ever and led to the worst ending of any TV series) says that she wants someone who not only tolerates or accepts her quirks but wants somebody who actually enjoys them and encourages them (I’m paraphrasing but it’s something like that). As any of my fellow introverts will know, there comes a time after socialising where you just need to be alone for a little bit to recharge. I can get to the stage pretty quickly given the right situation and often if I can’t recharge my social battery, I struggle to function and ultimately just get a bit irritable. One thing I did notice with this person is that I could spend days with them and I didn’t once think that I needed to leave to be alone. I mean it’s not like we were just in the same room for that time either, we were in each other’s personal space for prolonged periods of time. I remember leaving a party we’d been at and going back to the flat to just relax and that’s exactly what we did: relax. I left for work the next day without feeling even slightly exhausted (at least mentally) and didn’t need to hide in my cave for the next two days to recover from an evening of social interaction.


There is another issue that i’d like to mention quickly that i’m sure some, if not all of you have experienced at some stage. Remember when you’ve been attracted to someone and you start messaging them and every time your phone goes off you get a little wave of excitement run through your body then one day you send a text that might be a little risky or might be “make or break” and you get more nervous than you thought possible. Your phone goes off and you don’t even look in case it’s the reply and when it is you can’t even bring yourself to read it because you’re genuinely terrified of what it might say. Know what I’m talking about? Well there is also the opposite of that: where you enjoy chatting to someone but you’ve kind of grown weary of the conversation and when you see they’ve messaged you, you swipe away the notification usually to forget it was even there. I have great news: there is a middle ground and it’s a lot more enjoyable. You might say you like the “thrill” of the first option but I absolutely hate it. I get more stressed with stuff like that than anything else in the world. I nearly got kicked out of university on several occasions because I literally couldn’t open my e-mails out of fear i’d been kicked out…ironically enough the fear of being kicked out was the real cause of me nearly getting kicked out…anyway, back to the point: the middle ground is getting the thrill of that person messaging you but also not feeling like you need to respond straight away. You can send somewhat risky messages but still not feel like the Earth would be doing you a favour by opening below you and swallowing you up. This was just a minor point I wanted to add that doesn’t really have any relevance but still seemed worth a mention.


Anyway, this is a different sort of post from what I’d usually write about but what can I say? My brain took me in this direction today and I’ve just sort of let it type until it feels like it’s got it at all out. As usual, if you have any questions then please don’t hesitate to ask. I love responding to any queries and comments and knowing that at least one person reads a post of mine and enjoys it or takes something away from it just makes it worthwhile.




Journey into the Unknown!

For anyone who reads my posts regularly (which may be nobody) you’ll be aware that while my posts are usually rants (hence the name of my blog) that convey my opinion on some trivial matter such as a film or game series, I tend not to reflect on my own personal life.

Today I have decided to go out-with my usual post-type and share with you some insights into my mind and current life plans. Usually I try to introduce the topics I plan to cover but this is mostly going to be off the top of my head as I’m writing so we’ll just see how it goes.


I’m mostly going to discuss a trip I’m about to take but I feel like in order for you to understand my concerns and fears I need to invite you inside my little bubble of a life just to highlight how far outside my comfort zone I’m about to go. These pieces of information may seem rather random right now but I swear it makes sense in relation to this post. Let me briefly describe to you why I never really go out and experience life to the fullest:

For starters I have awful social anxiety…I’m not even sure if it’s limited to social situations, maybe I just have anxiety in general, but certainly a key component of it is social. It can sometimes takes me months before I feel comfortable talking to someone in a normal capacity so typical day-to-day situations tend to involve me going out of my way to avoid social interaction with strangers.

For a very long time I was unable to get a job because most jobs involved social interaction and the thought alone made me feel ill. I started having anxiety attacks in exams which soon spread to other situations (to be fair, I was at uni at the time and most of these situations also involved me being hungover so I think it was my mind associating feeling nauseous with certain situations). Suffice to say that several times while at the cinema I would spend most of the film trying to convince myself that I didn’t need to get up and leave which as a movie lover (possibly addict) was incredibly disappointing. I have improved a fair bit but perhaps that’s a discussion for another time. On top of my social issues, I am also one of the fussiest eaters you will ever meet. For as long as I can remember I haven’t eaten any fruit or vegetables which as you can imagine, limits my diet quite a bit. It’s not like I eat everything else either, I basically have the diet of a 15 year old that has been left to fend for himself.

To add to my already limiting characteristics I also have a phobia of spiders but not just your run of the mill phobia, oh no, I am absolutely scared to death of the little bastards. Let’s just say that I’ve fallen out of a lot of trees as a result of this highly irrational fear. You can therefore assume that I will not be visiting Australia any time soon (in fact Antarctica is looking all the more promising). I do understand that Australia really isn’t that far from Thailand and that I’m most likely walking into the real world equivalent of the Forbidden Forrest with its nest of extremely large spiders.

Again, I have somewhat improved on this over the last few years but if a spider is bigger than a thumbnail (for example) then chances are I won’t be able to deal with it unless it’s on the floor and I can drop a very heavy book on it. So this should hopefully paint a fairly clear picture as to why I have the time to sit at home writing blog posts about Star Wars, Assassins Creed, drug laws etc…now let me share with you how I’m about to be catapulted out of my comfort zone.

I’ve been working for the last 6 months and recently realised how badly I need a holiday. As someone who lives in Scotland, I’ve never ventured outside of Europe and even my trips out of the UK have been to areas where the lifestyle is pretty much the same e.g. Italy, Rome or Spain. My initial thought was Egypt because out of everywhere in the world, that is where I want to visit the most. I had looked at flights and hotels but quite quickly came to the conclusion that if I went to Egypt alone I just wouldn’t experience everything there was on offer.

I’d go look at stuff but not really immerse myself in the culture. Luckily, a friend of mine was planning a holiday to Thailand and some of the surrounding countries. I’d personally never even considered visiting anywhere near there for a whole host of reasons (primarily the spider issue) but when given the options of going there for three weeks or waiting months, taking time off work and ultimately going nowhere and doing nothing with my time, I felt that the first option was the one that would be most beneficial. So I handed in a holiday form, it just got approved yesterday and my flights are booked to head out on my adventure.

I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t considered not going at least 15 times today alone but you have to understand that I get cold feet with every single decision I make. Committing to any sort of party, event, holiday, anything will be followed by my brain giving me a list of reasons why not going could be the better option. Obviously the biggest ones that come to mind are things like giant spiders (or even just small spiders…really any spiders at all), the language barrier (but even just the social aspect with or without there being a language barrier), and of course the food. I’ve read that places like Bangkok are incredibly sociable cities and that the nightlife is amazing but I can’t imagine that being the case for someone who struggles to start and hold a conversation.

So why am I going? I feel such a trip could be make or break: No matter what, I’m going to be forced out my comfort zone so it’ll either push me to evolve or it will snap my psyche and leave me in the foetal position on a foreign continent. One of the biggest comforts (which is also somehow one of the fears) is that I’ll be just under 6,000 miles away from home. I’m going to feel like Sam and Frodo leaving the Shire. Strangely enough, one of the best ways for me to motivate myself in any situation is to relate it to a game or a film.

I guess it’s sort of my coping mechanism that also acts as an incentive. Different games/films make me want to do different things, for example: Far Cry 3 makes me want to try skydiving or get a tattoo or explore new cultures; 127 hours makes me want to explore and climb, to find adventure where I can, even if I’m doing it alone; Warrior makes me want to go to the gym…you get the idea. We will of course ignore the fact that the first two exams have pretty horrific outcomes for those involved and should really be adverts against exploring rather than what I use them for. So in order to prepare myself for this “adventure” I have started playing Far Cry 3 again (which happens to take place on an island in the area I’m visiting, although whether it is based on a real island or not is beyond my knowledge).

So why am I writing this post? I guess the same reason that people talk about their problems: it’s therapeutic. If I share my fears with random strangers on the internet then in a sense I’ve acknowledged that these fears are indeed real but that they shouldn’t hold me back from enjoying life. I mean we only get one, right? So what if a giant, face-eating spider jumps out of a tree and proceeds to chase me down the road…I should just look at it as life experience or inspiration for my book.

I mean if I stay trapped inside the boring little town where going to the pub to watch football is the highlight of everyone’s week then how am I ever going to look back on my life with fondness? Another way of looking at it: what if the Animus from Assassin’s Creed becomes a real piece of technology and someone tries to look back on my life (not that I plan on having children but that’s not the point). All they would see is me sitting at home watching films or reading. Would I rather they see that or would I rather they watched as I walk with elephants or visit ancient temples?

If I survive and make it back to bonnie Scotland then I’ll be sure to update this or write a new post which shares me experiences. If this is my last post then just assume that I died either by being killed by a spider or trying to escape one!

Ghostbusters (2016): The Other Side

So after the complete hate and negativity the female led Ghostbusters trailer received a little while back, I wrote and shared my opinions regarding my expectations for the film and ultimately why I thought it was going to fail. This isn’t in any way a unique train of thought, neither was it some of one-in-a-million prophecy that just happened to come true. I think most of us knew that for whatever reason the Ghostbusters film of 2016 was doomed to fail. Now that the film has become available online I decided to give it a watch, putting aside my presumptuous hate, my knowledge that it had 5.5 on IMDB and lost $70 million in the box office. Here’s what I thought:

While I did go in with an open mind, I have to say that it didn’t take long for the film to annoy me enough that I started taking notes on my phone of exactly why it wasn’t an enjoyable film. What I found interesting was that on the run-up to this film being released when it initially received its first batch of hate; it suddenly became sexist to say that the film was going to suck. If you thought it looked shit you were automatically branded a women hating pig who thinks that they shouldn’t have the right to vote and only belong in the kitchen. Yet here we have a film that spends its entire two hours going out its way to try and make females seem superior to males. This is where I began taking notes. You see the film opens up with a male tour guide showing guests around some hotel. He gets chased by a ghost, screams and cries and as we learn later, he soils himself. Of course the ghost that does all this to him is a female. We then basically get introduced to three of the four “Ghostbusters” and are told how brilliant they are: Two of them have already published a book on ghosts and both now work at different universities (one is a particle physics professor while the other is some sort of supernatural scientist but still shown as being very intelligent). We then meet the third member who, and I quote, “she’s a brilliant engineer and very loyal, she would not abandon you. She also happens to specialise in experimental particle physics.”  We then meet our 3rd male character of the film. This character we encounter admits that he screams in a disturbing way and basically refuses to go back into the hotel. It isn’t long before we are introduced to the soon to be receptionist for the team: Chris Hemsworth’s character: Kevin. Kevin is literally the most moronic character in this entire film. He covers his eyes when he hears a loud noise, he took his glasses lenses out because they kept getting dirty, he doesn’t know how to use a phone, he doesn’t know how to be a receptionist, he called his dog Mike Hat (which sounds like my cat)…he’s an idiot and the whole team know it.

We are then subjected to a wide array of disturbing vagina, boob and dick jokes for all the 13 year olds who were watching this film. Not to mention that Melissa McCarthy as per usual talks about food for far too long in this film. I can’t help but think about a recent episode of South Park where Cartman gives a talk in front of his school about how women are funny and it’s time we accept it. He tries to had the microphone to various female characters, telling them to say something funny. When they don’t seem to have anything funny to say, he begins telling them “go on, talk about your vagina. Be funny!” When you have female comedians such as Amy “joke-stealer” Schumer who basically only talk about sex and their vaginas, you can’t help but see Cartman as having a point, especially in relation to this recent Ghostbusters film. Just to clarify: I’m completely for female comedians and find plenty of them funny. It’s just that these women in particular were not at all funny and actually just made me cringe for the length of the film. What does it say that during a female-led comedy film, the only times I laughed was because if male characters? Ozzy Osbourne’s random appearance where he thinks he’s having flashbacks was one of the few moments I actually enjoyed because it wasn’t a dick/vagina joke or a reference to Mellissa McCarthy eating. I mean sure, there is the famous moment from the original Ghostbusters where the sentence “Yes it’s true, this man has no dick” but I think we can all agree that it’s a step above someone talking about getting slime “in every crack”.

I’m going to conclude this post (yes it is drastically shorter than usual) simply by highlighting the overall issue with this film: This film isn’t a loveable throwback to the original Ghostbusters nor is it a original film. It is instead a man-hating abomination of nostalgia and special effects trying to convince us that female led films can be just as funny as their male counterparts. I think for me, I can sum up how I felt watching the film by explaining how it ended. After some ridiculous fight and blah blah blah, the Ghostbusters eventually defeat villain by hitting him in the balls. Yup, the female-led team literally saves the day by hitting someone in the balls. If that doesn’t drive the point home for you then I don’t know what will.


The Flash: A Representation of Dumbed-Down Television

Anyone else noticing that TV shows (as well as films) seem to be becoming more and more dumbed down in order to appeal to a larger audience? This can take place in many ways, whether it’s the shows characters doing something ridiculous to advance the story or revealing something about themselves that only the slower audience members won’t have noticed or even worse, things actually not making sense in the shows storyline. I recently binge-watched two seasons of The Flash which is what sparked this post so I’m going to use that as my point of reference as it highlights most of the issues I plan on mentioning.


I had never seen anything to do with The Flash before. If there are Flash films I haven’t seen them, if there are games then I haven’t played them and while I know there are comics, I haven’t read them. I only began watching the show because I’d been led to believe that it had interesting twists and turns and a generally cool storyline. While I did find myself ultimately hooked on the show, it wasn’t out of intrigue or curiosity as much as it was out of hate and disbelief. I’ll admit that it’s certainly an entertaining show (as much as it pains me to say it) but there are some very clear issues with the show that apply to many, many others like it.

One of the biggest issues is the number of episodes per season which in the case of The Flash is something like 22 or 23. Don’t get me wrong, some shows have a lot of episodes and manage it perfectly fine but others fall into a horrible pit where we notice a formula being used that causes each episode to mirror the one before it with only minor differences. This isn’t the case for every single episode but I found it went something like this:

-the audience is shown a new meta-human doing something at the time of the particle collider explosion;

-Barry and his team/family discuss some problem that they are having;

-the meta-human shows up and causes trouble;

-some member of the team (usually Barry) thinks they have the solution;

-they don’t and they fail;

-ultimately some important lesson about family or teamwork or patience or whatever is learnt and this is used to defeat the meta-human.

We get this for about 40 minutes and then in the last minute or so, some mysterious event happens that adds to the overall storyline in some way that is meant to be like a cliff-hanger but usually isn’t. Essentially, 80% of the show is filler material and 20% is unique storyline. Don’t get me wrong, some of the filler stuff is hilarious and interesting but you can only watch the same thing happen so many times before it becomes boring. The Flash isn’t the only show I’ve watched where this has happened: Take Elementary for example, a show I should have enjoyed a lot more than I did. Elementary also uses this technique in order to add more episodes to each season. This is all well and good but eventually you just become bored of it. Some other examples of this would include Criminal Minds, The Mentalist, Marvels Agents of Shield (specifically the first season) and Lie to me, which are all shows that I thoroughly enjoyed but even they had points where it just wasn’t that interesting and ultimately the success formula acts as a negative aspect of the show. Lie to Me didn’t even have any huge, overall storyline but it still became very formulated. Even The Walking Dead has started to drag its heels in terms of new story arcs. I mean Lost has plenty of episodes and (despite the fact that it ultimately ended up being wildly disappointing) managed to keep each episode unique and interesting. Sure, it may not always have made sense and caused us to have more questions than answers but if a bunch of plane crash survivors on an island can remain interesting, shouldn’t that also be the case with superheroes/villains? I find that for many shows, especially ones of this nature where the storyline should be the focus; less is more. Take Game of Thrones for example, we get 10 episodes a year…TEN! Ignoring season 6 which in my opinion has also become a tad too predictable and has certainly been dumbed down to appeal to a wider audience, I’ve found myself constantly wanting more of the show. I only started watching it last year and I binged 4 and a half seasons in less than a week and still wanted more. Since then I’ve watched the first 5 seasons all over again, as well as the 6th. Breaking Bad is another good example. The number of episodes per season varied a lot (8-16) but the show managed to keep me entertained for almost the entire time. Breaking Bad is another one I’ve managed to watch twice without feeling like the same thing is happening over and over in each episode. What about True Detective or Sherlock? Both incredible shows (perhaps ignoring the 2nd season of True Detective) and yet they have very few episodes per season. I mean Sherlock only has three episodes…just three. So of course the number of episodes can vary depending on the show and the content. I mean take House for example: House has many episodes per season, it’s basically the same thing every episode and yet it is entertaining to watch because it isn’t the storyline that is important quite as much as the characters. I mean this works with a lot of shows: Friends, Scrubs, How I Met Your Mother, The Big Bang Theory, House…all of which are similar from episode to episode yet remain entertaining. That’s because while they may have an overall storyline, it’s the content of each episode that is important.


As I mentioned before, the general “dumbing-down” of TV shows is definitely an issue that is becoming more and more prevalent. We, the audience, are being spoon-fed every singly detail so that we don’t miss it. Why? Well because if some, if not all of the viewers can’t understand what’s going on or miss details that are vital to the story then they may give up watching out of frustration. I’ll once again refer back to The Flash here as I have a few examples in mind. As I mentioned at the start, I’d never seen or read anything Flash-related. So why is it that after watching episode one (spoilers ahead) where we see Barry’s mum being murdered, I could instantly tell you that The Flash would get his powers and end up travelling through time to that night? It was pretty obvious, right? Yet it isn’t until episode 15 through some far-fetched (even by this shows standards) scientific bullshit that blood is found at the scene 15 years after the event that proves older Barry was there as well as young Barry. Bad example? How about how obvious it was that “Atom-smasher” from the start of season 2 was from another universe? I mean it was incredibly obvious. I have an even better example: There is an episode in season 2 where the Trickster (played by Mark Hamill) dressed up as Santa and gives out presents to children. Just in case anyone hadn’t been paying attention, the Trickster conveniently pulls down his fake beard to reveal who he is. Not to insult anyone but if it took up until that reveal for you to realise it was the Trickster then I’m afraid you are part of the problem that I’m referring to in this post.


Then of course we have issues that take place within the show itself. So just to carry on with my Flash critique, I shall use a few examples from it to show you what I mean. In The Flash, there are often lessons that Barry learns that are ultimately meant to guide him down his path towards being the best hero he can be. One of the biggest of these is messing with time. In season 1, Barry goes back in time and alters events, soon learning how dangerous the butterfly effect can be. I won’t get into the specifics but despite how risky time travel is, he goes back not once, not twice but three times (that I’m aware of). One of these times he goes back with the intention of saving his mother’s life but decides not to, then he goes back to learn how to run faster and despite the fact that he gets chased by these time-ghoul things that hunt those who mess with time, he goes back again at the end of the 2nd season and actually does save his mother. This final journey back in time is as a result of his father being killed by Zoom who is from another universe. So just to reiterate my point here: despite Barry knowing how risky time travel is and how much can be changed, and despite Barry knowing that crazy time-wraith creatures are likely to hunt him down for changing too much, he decides to go back 16 or so years to change several events that took place: he saves his mother which in turn stops his father going to jail while also stopping the reverse-flash…why is this an issue? Well ignoring how much can change, there are several more logical options that could have been explored. I mean Barry could have gone back and saved his father or gone back before the portal to Earth 2 was opened, both of which would result in less change. Oh, and just to top all this off, this all takes place after Barry reaches inner-peace about his mother’s death, like literally a few episodes before!! I probably haven’t explained this in the simplest of ways but hopefully you get my point. I mean not only is this show completely illogical but it also fails at keeping characters consistent. Barry (or any of the other characters) can have a completely new personality or outlook on life from one episode to the next. One minute Barry is willing to do anything to get his powers back because Zoom has taken one of his best friends…but as soon as he is presented with an option he has to decline it and bring his dad in to help which ultimately leads to his death (another moment where Barry could have gone back and altered things to save his father without completely messing up the timeline). The whole point in having these characters behave a certain way is to give them a personality. You should be able to watch a show and when a character acts a certain way think to yourself “Ahh, that’s exactly the sort of thing he/she would do” but with the Flash, we go from one sort of behaviour to the other with no real explanation.


Don’t get me wrong, there are some excellent shows out there that ignore this ridiculously formulated structure (The Leftovers, Sherlock, Black Mirror, Mr Robot…to name a few) but are we losing a large portion of our entertainment to dumbed-down devolutions? I certainly think we are headed in the direction of just having superheroes appear, save the day and then return to their lair with no real storyline or character development whatsoever. As for The Flash? Well, I guess when season 3 airs I’ll have to decide if it’s worth me angrily watching it just in the hopes of finding a more interesting storyline. My only hope is that shows such as Game of Thrones pull themselves back from the edge of the abyss before we lose them to generic television forever. How long before we have an entire episode dedicated to Jon Snow’s morning hair routine? Probably a bad example because that could potentially be entertaining to see…but you get my point. Given that the Flash can time travel (among other crazy abilities) you would imagine that the story writing could be a tad less predictable or even just a wee bit more interesting. Perhaps we simply expect the unexpected and nothing comes as a shock anymore.

If you disagree and believe that I’m being unfair to the shows I’ve mentioned then by all means leave your opinion below. I’d love to hear whether it’s just me that thinks this.