Top 10 Movie Spaceships

I have to admit that I'm a bit of a sci-fi nerd, and so when I see some of these marvelous constructions I can't help but freak out. If they're designed well enough then they can become an integral part of the film and an international icon. Here is a list of my top ten favorites from various films that have been organised by the little child inside me. There may be some spoilers present, so you have been warned.

#10 USCSS Prometheus (Prometheus)

Okay this might have originated from a pretty unpopular film, but there's no denying that this spaceship isn't awesome. It might not compare that well to the various other vessels in the prequel of this film, but there's little argument that the USCSS Prometheus deserves to be on this list. Originally built in 2091, this spaceship looks good for a reason, and that is down to the one trillion dollar price-tag. For that huge sum of money this ship has the ability to reach the farthest depths of space that humanity can possibly explore, with the hope of finding the truth about the human race. Standard issue specification includes four nuclear powered engines and a top speed greater than that of light, making it not only the quickest, but the most advanced ship available on the market. As you would expect it's full of optional extras that range from holographic communicators to regenerative shields. It had the perfect potential to be a film classic, but the shoddy quality of the directing and scriptwriting made sure this was a massive waste of time and effort. Its demise came when it was heroically driven into an alien ship that was theoretically supposed to have been traveling with the intention of destroying Earth. That much wasn't really explained in the film, but then again neither was anything else.

#9 Mothership (Close Encounters of the Third Kind)

This thing is fucking huge and looks pretty damn awesome. It gives me infinite respect for aliens that might be out there, as this is almost like the 'Grand Designs' version of anything else film has to offer in terms of spaceships. It's purpose might be to abduct humans on a colossal scale, but they at least have the common decency to slow down the ageing process if nothing else. The man responsible for this impressive creation is director Steven Spielberg, who proves he has a keen eye for shipbuilding by using a design that he designed and modeled by himself. Like his directing, the model has an insane amount of detail included, even down to the creation of tiny components, such as a VW Campervan. Thanks to Spielberg's hard work this entry is a joy to behold, and the film perfectly encapsulates this feeling of mystery and wonder through both the plot and the atmosphere. It's no surprise that the humans in the film are instantly drawn to it when it looks like that. Just the lights are enough to make me feel eight years old again. It's no wonder that this film has become such a classic when it has a spaceship like this.

#8 Borg Cube (Star Trek)

Seriously 'Star Trek' fans, what the fuck is this? It has to be the most impractical vehicle of all time; it's just a flying cube. In terms of aerodynamic and practicality this has to be almost useless. It is essentially one huge sitting duck that defeats the laws of physics, and has no right to be as devastating as it actually is. Despite The Borg not going to physics lessons, they do know a thing or two about shipbuilding as this distinct vessel packs one hell of a punch. The logic behind the 3km cube design becomes apparent when you discover that this universal shape has designs which make no two ships  ever the same, which does make it a pain to navigate, but also makes it one big hardpoint that has no obvious weakness. When you couple this with its numerous armaments that include cutting beams and missiles then you have a recipe for destruction of both planets and ships. As the crew of the 'Starship Enterprise' found out, this really is much scarier than it actually looks, and for that reason it deservedly lands a spot on this list.  

#7 Cheops Class Warship (Stargate)

I've always thought 'Stargate' was a shitty franchise, but you do have to admit that this ship looks pretty awesome. The technical aspects of the design mean absolutely nothing to me. I'm sure if you were a 'Stargate' fanatic then you would just love to lecture me on this ship's specifications, but aside from looking quite menacing I honestly don't care. You may be wondering why it appears on this list, and that would be down to various features it has that make this a very unique, if strange spaceship. For starters it has a throne room which opens up when the ship docks onto one of the ancient pyramids that litter ancient Egypt. I'm sure this does limit production since there aren't many pyramids about, and it's a bit useless if the battle is in Russia, as you would have to tow the whole pyramid along, but it's a pretty cool feature, if very impractical. However the most distinct feature about the ship is that it has the ability to enslave whole civilizations, which for a hidden talent is quite shocking. Any citizens who aren't compliant will be sent to the on-board dungeon that suspends inmates in cells of rising water levels. This truly is a sadistic creation, and so it's a good job that it was produced with little thought. You can't really take a spaceship seriously when the lighting system still runs by naked flame torches.

#6 USCSS Nostromo (Alien)

By far the most superior ship that graces the brilliant 'Alien' franchise. This petty vessel might only be designed for mining, but at 42 million dollars it's also quite well equipped. We never get much of a glimpse as to the exterior of the ship, and the above screenshot is the only sight we really get. The interior however is the focal point of the original film, and sets the dark and claustrophobic scenes perfectly with its narrow corridors and low level lighting, setting the audience up for some good old fashioned scares. This ship met its demise in the original film when it had to self destruct following a xenomorph infestation. There wasn't really much to save at that point since the alien had killed almost all the crew, but for a one film outing this ship has left an impressive image. 

#5 Starship Enterprise (Star Trek)

Yes this really is only number five. This legendary ship is a wet dream to the majority of nerds out there, but unfortunately its charms don't have the same effect on me. Don't get me wrong it's an attractive ship, but apart from being the setting to a classic 'The Firm' song, this vessel has very little meaning to me. It is perhaps best known for being the home of legendary astronaut Captain James Kirk, and joins him on his various missions to boldly go around the galaxy, discovering various things. There have since been about five million other captains that have taken the helm in various reincarnations, but none have come close to the icon of Kirk, who has now become almost a deity to sci-fi fans worldwide. There is still the argument to whether this or the upgraded Jean Luc Picard version was the better of the two, but I often find that the latter models have a certain something missing that simply cannot be covered up with improved technology. However the ship has always maintained those handsome saucer aesthetics that have helped establish a global franchise.

It's fair to say that this is probably the most popular entrant on my list, and that's not just down to the nice visuals or brilliant door noises. The original crew was just such a better mix of eclectic personalities, and so the sense of adventure just naturally flowed through this ship. It's almost like the Rolls Royce of spacecraft, and you could moan at Kirk for looking a bit flashy. That would explain why Kirk manages to pull every single female alien he meets; something that I'm not jealous about at all. Kirk and his ship have become such an icon that NASA decided to name one of their space shuttles after this ship. Admittedly it was only a test shuttle, so it boldly didn't go anywhere, but that's quite an achievement from a work of fiction. The original ship was destroyed however when those damn Klingons tried to get their hands on it. captain Kirk subsequently blew the thing up so they couldn't capture it, which ended the dreams of many single men worldwide.

#4 Star Destroyer (Star Wars)

The flagship of the Imperial fleet in 'Star Wars'. Throughout the franchise these ships have become an absolute icon, and can instantly make any space battle about two million times better. Just the first sight of these bad boys in the opening scene of the fourth episode was enough to get you excited, and it gave you a sense of just what the Galactic Empire and the 'Star Wars' franchise was all about. Its huge image sent chills down your spine, and that was only increased when you found out that the name comes from the fact that it can destroy whole star systems. It's a ship that even Han Solo has trouble with fighting, and that means a regular pilot probably wouldn't want to mess with one. That might have something to do with this 1.6km long death machine having thousands of laser turrets and ion cannons to take down just about anything. Just one look at that dagger shaped silhouette and you knew that business was about to pick up.

It's a ship I would love to have a go on, until I got force choked through a video by Darth Vader for being a shit admiral. His ship, 'The Executor', would be an improvement to this, as that's even bigger. But in the 'Star Wars' universe they're both just awesome ships. You can now get a collectors model of Darth Vader's 'Executor', and although it's a rare and valuable item, I would still pay big bucks to get my hands on a cinema icon. That model might not be 11km long, have weapons, or actually fly, but you can still be an absolute badass like Darth Vader without having to conquer the universe first. Well, they can almost conquer all of it. They can't conquer anywhere there's an asteroid field, or anywhere that has admirals that look like giant squid, but that's a small price to pay for such a legendary ship.

#3 Discovery One (2001: A Space Odyssey)

This might not be the most famous ship to ever grace the silver screen, but to get a taste of what this is all about then please listen to the ambient sounds this thing makes for twelve hours straight. That video will show you that this ship doesn't do anything flashy or impressive like everything else on this list, but instead becomes an integral part of the almost flawless plot to the Stanley Kubrick masterpiece. Unlike the other ships on this list, this is almost the entire setting of the film, and it's vital role gives viewers a unique sense of isolation and foreboding that are essential to the space based plot. In other films the character would promote the ship, but here those roles are reversed, and Kubrick subtly creates his powerful characters through the aid of this rather standard ship. Central to this is the artificial intelligence 'HAL', who might just be the greatest villain of all time. His reliance on the ship's mainframe sums up what an important role this simple star-ship has over the plot, which I do beleive is far superior to anything else on this list.

It might not be amazing to look at, and secretly I will admit that it's a bit dull, but complaining about that would just be missing the point. This ship isn't designed to be put on a poster, it's designed to be as realistic as possible and to reflect the relatable themes of the narrative. In that sense it works just brilliantly, and you still do get that sense of amazement when you see it, just that it's not that childhood joy that you get with some more elaborate creations. This ship proves that Kubrick really thought about his films, and it seems amazing that he could produce such a realistic interpretation of a spacecraft in a time when mankind hadn't even landed on the moon yet. We'll ignore what happened in the bullshit sequel, as that saw this ship as a tourist attraction rather than a serious message, and so please just watch the original if you'd like to remember this legend for what it actually was.

#2 The Death Star (Star Wars)

Just the name 'Death Star' is all you really need to know about this humungous ship. Is there honestly a better looking or better named ship than this in the history of cinema? Well maybe the number one entry, but this has far more presence. That presence is down to the fact that this thing is 100km long, which of course means it can commonly be misidentified as a small moon. This sphere of unlimited power has the ability to take on just about anything and even destroy whole planets with a single shot, as I'm sure Princess Leia can vouch for me on that fact. In cinema it really is the ultimate weapon, and so in true underdog style it had to be defeated by a pretty pathetic army. All it took to destroy this behemoth was one well timed shot down a small design flaw, which was a bit of a low blow by the Rebel Alliance. Still, I'm not going to complain about that sequence, as that's one of the best sequences in the original film.

Maybe if the Empire had bothered to do up the ventilation shaft then this wonder of engineering would still be standing. Throughout the films the second, and much larger version, was never finished and so is unfortunately excluded from this list. This creation has had such an impact on society that a petition of 25,000 signatures actually tried to get the US government to fund the building of one. The light hearted petition actually gained enough signatures for the American government to take it seriously, but unfortunately they didn't go through with the proposal after it was estimated to take around 833,000 years to complete. I am surprised though. I would of thought the Americans would have jumped at the chance to destroy other cultures after stealing all their resources. Still, political statements aside, this was a ship that blew my mind as a child, yet somehow still gets beaten by something else from the same franchise.

#1 Millennium Falcon (Star Wars)

In a rather succesful outing for 'Star Wars' this is the best that franchise has to offer in terms of spaceships; and how can you not love this bad boy? In theory it should fall under the 'brilliantly shit' category when you compare it to everything else in the 'Star Wars' galaxy, but that doesn't really matter when you have a ship that looks as cool as this does. I honestly believe there is no ship I would rather pilot, except for maybe that Star Destroyer, but that can't make the jump to hyperspace, which is a childhood obsession of mine. The amazing design for the ship actually comes from the rather humble design of a hamburger, making this the most American creation of all time, and also one sexy burger. This ship has freedom running through its design, and that alone is something very special. All it needed now was a legendary duo to fly the ship and the production team were on to an instant winner, and that's exactly what 'Star Wars' fans got with the iconic Han Solo and Chewbacca combination.

Under the smugglers leadership the 'Millenium Falcon' managed to become one seriously pimped out ride that managed to fly well despite looking like a pile of shit. The fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy was so good that it managed to clear a whole asteroid field in a unit of distance rather than time. That not impress you? Well this ship also destroyed both Death Stars, escaped the entire Imperial fleet, and managed to escape from the original 'Death Star'. That's pretty damn impressive for a flying hamburger. It was no wonder that this ship was the focal point for the new film's trailer. What a moment it was to see the Falcon again, and hopefully the appearance of this ship will lead the way for yet another epic 'Star Wars' film. Oh I can only dream. 

Morons of the Internet: Steve Coogan (22/03/15)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have comedy legend Steve Coogan who thinks he's better than everyone else,proving why his new regime is the only way with the help of a 'Top Gear' controversy. I know this is an old article, but it's recently become quite popular again thanks to the Jeremy Clarkson fiasco.
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2011/feb/05/top-gear-offensive-steve-coogan?CMP=share_btn_fb
_____________________________________________________________________________

Do you know what Steve, I'm also a fan of your work. I really do believe that the character of 'Alan Partridge' was really well put together. But I too have had enough when a comedian thinks they own the whole fucking genre and then subsequently judges other people like a power hungry dictator. In case you didn't know, this argument was started after the hosts of 'Top Gear' made fun of a Mexican supercar by comparing it to a stereotypical Mexican person, which as far as I'm aware is a common practice in comedy. I'm sorry it's not high brow enough for you Steve, but the bottom line is that stereotyping is a common practice in many comedic circles. But your reasoning for all this is just astonishing. You genuinely think a joke becomes deplorable when it targets a minority, which must be about 90% of all jokes told. Of course jokes are allowed to target minorities, the whole point in comedy is to put yourself on a pedestal and mocking something else out of their expense. Does it matter if that subject is a minority or a majority? No, of course it doesn't, it's still a perfectly valid joke. Surely by your own logic it's now despicable to even think about mocking yourself, since the individual is the greatest form of minority. Surely if we had everything your way then comedy wouldn't be such an entertaining subject, and you would make a lot of people unemployed, including yourself.

But let's see if your point holds up about the comedic value of 'Top Gear'. As a regular viewer myself I can tell you that many flashy cars are compared to the county of Cheshire, due to the various stereotypes of that particular area. Now many celebrities live there, they're certainly not a minority, and they're not in an exotic location; so the majority of the time 'Top Gear' do follow your didactic guidelines, and so why are you criticising the whole show based on one remark? Maybe what they said was a little extreme, but nowhere in the article is there anything to suggest that this was a rarity. I also find this argument a little hypocritical, as it comes from the creator of the 'Alan Partridge' character, who if I'm not mistaken is a stereotypical man from Norfolk. I know that still fits in with your criteria, but is there really much difference between making fun out of the people of Norfolk and the people of Mexico? I think only the well written script was what kept your character from being in the poor taste that you belittle Top Gear's comments for being. Your still sitting on that pedestal making fun out of people, so I don't understand why this is suddenly okay. What gives you the right to define comedy?

Are you seriously fucking suggesting that casual racism is worse than actual racism? I think someone needs a bit of a reality check here. I've often considered the racial state of South Africa much worse now thanks to the abolition of Apartheid. I mean that was the less sinister proper and oppressive racism, which doesn't even compare to the casual racial segregation that plagues South Africa nowadays. I guess Coogan never understood the fuss about Nelson Mandela since all he did was arguably make his country even worse. It just doesn't matter how easy they are to spot. It only matters that the issue happens in the first place, and I hardly think a joke in poor taste from the comforts of a television studio is a serious issue. The fact that you even compare a harmless joke to the atrocities of the KKK is simply unbelievable. 'Top Gear' apologised for their remarks and didn't breach any broadcasting guidelines, so what's the issue? Is it now going to be mandatory for jokes to be approved by you in case you don't like them? I didn't like a few of the jokes in 'Alan Partridge', but you know what? I just kept watching, because it really doesn't matter.

I just feel this whole article is patronising 'Top Gear' viewers. Steve, I know that stereotypes don't necessarily reflect reality. As an Essex boy you might be surprised to hear that I don't have fake tan on every part of my body, and no my girlfriend isn't a leggy blonde with fake nails, because you are allowed to be different in the beautiful county of Essex. The thing is though that whilst these stereotypes might not be the actuality, they still exist for a reason, no matter what personal experience you might have. If anything Steve, you're stereotyping the Mexican's that aren't even in their native country. It might not be a negative stereotype, but having a go at the principle when you're a culprit yourself is very hypocritical, especially when it's on such pathetic evidence. I for example can tell you that there are hardly any upper class people in the UK because I've met a few British people in Benidorm. Oh no, but that's a negative stereotype. I can't use that joke, not when the emperor of comedy has demanded so.

Oh yes, let's just promote my impeccable writing skills on my very own show. Yeah this doesn't sound bigoted at all. You just haven't grasped the fact that comedy is a subjective form of art, and so whilst your brilliantly written jokes might sound okay to you, they might be differently received by people behind a television screen. The world of comedy isn't owned by you Steve, and so you have no right to start bashing those low life failures on 'Top Gear' because you didn't like one of their jokes. You're now just becoming ignorant. You've become just another version of them, putting yourself on a pedestal to mock a television show that's made itself an easy target. You're not the first person to have come up with dramatic irony, so please stop trying to define it.

I just don't understand why you think comedy needs to be groundbreaking. What's wrong with rehashing old comedic formats? I'm truly sorry that their programme isn't as revolutionary as yours, but why does that make their jokes any less valid? You must understand that every programme has its own individual style, and if you don't like that then simply don't watch it. The millions of 'Top Gear' fans worldwide don't want the show to follow you autocratic joke format that dictates what form of comedy has to be used, as they subjectively prefer a different style as their human beings. Why should you make a joke out of 'Top Gear' for simply being better than them? Isn't there a bit of a mirror appearing here? Let me put it to you this way; let's compare 'Top Gear' to a fast runner. This fast runner can do the 100m sprint in under ten seconds, which is certainly commendable. Sure many people have gone quicker before, but it's still great fun to watch a man run very quickly over a short distance, and he should be applauded for that. Now 'Alan Partridge' on the other hand is more of a Usain Bolt. I'm sure many people would prefer to watch such a revolutionary and groundbreaking athlete, and he's a much superior athlete to that fast runner over the distance of 100m. But does that mean Usain Bolt should chastise that runner for being slower than himself? Maybe that runner has much more impressive talents elsewhere and so shouldn't be judged on one attribute alone. Maybe the majority of people would choose to side with that runner over Usain Bolt because there are many ways of doing things. This runner for example might beat Bolt at a game of FIFA, or in the case of 'Top Gear', the amount of viewers. The point I'm trying to make here is that just because you think you're in someway superior does not make it right to simply dictate the qualities of something you consider 'lesser'.

It just doesn't stop. Why should their content be regulated by you? To be fair to 'Top Gear' they have become the world's most watched factual television show, whereas 'Alan Partridge' never got anything like that in terms of records. I'm not saying that instantly makes the 'Top Gear' comments acceptable, but it seems as successful broadcasters they know that controversy equals cash. You then go back into hypocrite mode with a scathing remark that relies on stereotypes for its comedic value, which seems all too familiar. If we apply the same principles of your argument to your comment, comparing the hosts to middle aged punk rockers, then you become a culprit of everything you've told us to hate. Of course you would think this is fine considering how 'Top Gear' is in no way a minority, but you did it at the expense of punk rockers. Most punk rockers I know don't pogo at their niece's wedding, and so by your own standards this joke is in poor taste. It seems that your didactic regime is not only hypocritical but incredibly stupid considering the great Steve Coogan can no longer make a joke. Face it Steve, you're just as bad as 'Top Gear'. 

Don't get me wrong Steve, I think you're a twat, but you are entitled to an opinion, even if that opinion happens to be flawed and moronic. If you don't like their content then that's fine, and you're certainly welcome to write an article about it. But what I do have a problem with is when you try and talk down to viewers and the makers of 'Top Gear' like you're some supreme being who controls comedy simply because you're better than everyone else. To chastise a tried and tested formula for having content that is no less valid than your own is just ignorant. You make yourself look like a bigoted hypocrite. So start showing some common sense and we'll pretend that this never happened.

Morons of the Internet: Zoe Williams (18/03/15)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have quite possibly the stupidest proposal of all time from a writer who ends up sounding like an uninformed power hungry dictator. I know it's a bit late in the 'Top Gear' fiasco, but you just have to see the stupidity on display here.
_________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2015/mar/11/jeremy-clarkson-suspended-eco-feminist-top-gear?CMP=share_btn_tw
_________________________________________________________________________________

Oh wow, just wow. What the fuck has eco-feminism got to do with the recent demise of 'Top Gear'? Already I can tell that you're views on the show are going to be both stupid and irrelevant. You don't help yourself by introducing the subject with a load of made up bollocks. Seriously what evidence do you have to suggest that Jeremy Clarkson denies the existence of futuristic cars? I wasn't aware you could see into the future, and so how you can lecture the man on being in the wrong side of history is incredibly ignorant, especially considering that a significant part of 'Top Gear' is centered on upcoming cars and technology. I get the sense that you're not an avid viewer of 'Top Gear', and I'm not an avid reader of your column, so we're both at a disadvantage here. The difference is I look at statistics, where as you choose to chat complete shit instead. You say there's no future for a show like this, yet it's the most watched factual television show throughout the world, repeatedly churning out high ratings. Of course there's a future for things that simply aren't eco-friendly, in fact if anything it's almost the reverse. Formula One for example is having somewhat of a boom period, and even Red Bull are sponsoring the very act of  'people doing stupid stunts in cars'. So am I supposed to believe the transnational corporation that's invested millions of pounds in it, or your uninformed opinion?

But the worst thing about your vision is your flat out ignorant personality. How dare you try and demonise a whole section of our society by just redefining it as you wish. I would like to think that I'm a petrolhead, despite my terrible car at the moment, but I also believe in climate change. Oh, but in your definition that means I can't possibly be a petrolhead, unless of course you haven't got a fucking clue what you're going on about. Liking cars and objecting a fundamental and proven part of science are not synonymous, and you almost make being a car lover sound like a cult. Let's have a quick look in the dictionary shall we, seeing as they might actually know how to define words. The Oxford Dictionary simply states that a 'petrolhead' is a "car lover". That's it, nowhere in that definition does it say a denier of climate change. Does suddenly having a passion for eco-friendly cars mean you loose the status of 'petrolhead'? No of course it doesn't. A false statement to kick off the argument that's based on assumptions. What a great start.

Wait hang on. 'Top Gear' agrees with you. Jeremy Clarkson himself said he loved the 'i8', despite some noticeable drawbacks, which predictably you haven't picked up on. In fact 'Top Gear' regularly include cars like this in their content, so what eco-feminism has to do with changing the programme is a mystery. What makes environmentally friendly cars so much more special? It's a consumer programme at heart, and so you have to approach things from an unbiased perspective, and yes that does mean reviewing more than one type of car. I'm pretty sure the population would differ on their opinion of the world's coolest car seeing as Aston Martin is named as Britain's second coolest brand. That's a use of statistics there, which is something that seems to allude you. I just get the sense that you have no idea what you're going on about.

This lack of knowledge again becomes apparent with yet another false statement to base an argument on. In no way has the car superseded the world's environmental concerns, as then surely you would commonly see the use of electric cars on the streets. Maybe you don't because the cars are not sustainably produced and impracticable compare to their petrol rivals, which is again a point you've completely missed out despite it being a massive factor. We're still working on electric and hydrogen powered cells, and unlike you 'Top Gear' realise that this is the case, diminishing any possibility of this eco-friendly dreamland that you live in. You just completely miss the purpose of 'Top Gear', and if you could relate to it then you might realise that eco-feminism has nothing to do with this issue. 'Top Gear' gets those huge ratings because of its entertainment value, with only a small part of it down to the actual cars they feature. The producers of the show did try a more factual approach a long time ago, and the ratings were inevitably poor, and so it subsequently got axed. Your 'solution' would just alienate that target audience that has been the success of the show, all because of your bias towards cars that are too good to be true. This is just commercial suicide. 

'Behind the curve'. What curve? It's already the most watched factual television show worldwide. How can it possibly do any better? Maybe you're the one who needs to catch up with this curve that hasn't been distinguished. After all, there are no shows that promote eco-feminism anywhere the near the level of viewers that 'Top Gear' pulls. Maybe people don't care if it's eco-friendly or not, and actually just want to watch things because they like the look of it. From my past experiences with eco-feminism I can tell this writer that spirituality and mystical connections have nothing to do with the 'Top Gear' format, and adding it in would be cataclysmal. Face it, ploughing into a ditch and laughing produce serious viewing figures whether you like it or not. It doesn't need your autocratic wisdom, especially when you completely miss the point of the whole show. It gets views from being an entertainment show, not shitting out your ecological propaganda. 

Oh boy, we really reach the peak of shit here. A 'macho culture' allowed it. Just fuck off. How many other shows are there like 'Top Gear'? Was 'Downton Abbey' a product of the macho culture as well? Just an unbelievable statement. How you can make a generalisation as bad as that is beyond belief. And for what? Because this motor show happens to be scientifically illiterate, something that I would actually praise the show for. Clarkson himself has a degree in engineering, so unlike you he knows what he's talking about. How about leaving the experts to talk about what they know, and you keep your eco-feminist bullshit locked in your head where it should be. Stop demonising the things that have shaped society. Can't you comprehend that fossil fuels are just brilliant? They run society, and so why shouldn't there be a programme that glorifies them? That would be like me moaning about 'Grand Designs' because it didn't contain designs with human teleportation devices, all because that's how I thought history would pan out.

You then decide to make the most stupid point in existence. You have the audacity to call 'Top Gear' scientifically illiterate, yet it seems you have no knowledge of the subject yourself. Apparently being territorial is not what being a human is about. Excuse me, would you care to open any history book ever written. Humanity, and also nature, has been founded on the very idea of territory. The only reason you're sitting in a nice office at the center of a global city is because of mankind's self centered push for territory. Whether you like it or not feminism is still dependent on that because that's a part of not just nature, but human characteristics as well. If you disagree then I suggest you take it up with Mr. Darwin or the countless scientists that have approved of his work. Even if you become more ecological you can't get rid of this desire. I'd like to think stone age homo-sapiens were pretty ecological, and yet they wiped out the neanderthals in a huge territory dispute. You've certainly just written the most stupid sentence I've ever seen, proving that you know nothing about this subject, and that you're argument is completely pointless.

You basically want to make a slanted and biased documentary because you think that's the only way forward. By doing that you would completely alienate the target market of 'Top Gear', who see cars as not simply a mechanism of travel, but a passion. You would be willing to sacrifice the entertainment of millions for your own personal satisfaction, with a goal that has a completely irrelevant focus on feminism. You have the ignorance to moan about Jeremy Clarkson for not knowing what he's talking about, when you yourself haven't got a fucking clue. You're essentially a virus for television. If you don't like 'Top Gear' then simply don't fucking watch it. Nobody's forcing you to, and I'm sure there's a documentary on BBC 4 about how the patriarchy is destroying society with GM crops that is much more suited to your tastes. Remember, controversy equals cash.

100th Piece of Content

I didn't expect to ever get to this stage. But here we are, and unfortunately I don't have any celebration plans. That was underwhelming wasn't it.

Top 10 Star Wars Video Games

Seeing as I'm a massive Star Wars fan and that there's a new film on the horizon, I thought I would share the games that I used to play as a child with the hope that the Star Wars galaxy was actually real. As a video game license, this franchise has produced some absolute classics. A memorial to a franchise that has now been engulfed by the Galactic Empire known as Disney.

#10 Star Wars: The Old Republic (BioWare) (2011) (8/10)

A great game that's now become free to play. Yes, that's right this free game doesn't even make you buy micro-transactions to compensate for its suicidal business plan. All in all this is certainly the best free game you can buy today, unless maybe you manage to get 'Red Dead Redemption' off of one of your mates. But anyway, this MMO became the most expensive game ever made at the time of its release, and was estimated to have cost about 200 million dollars when it was eventually finished. The content might not reflect that huge price tag, but BioWare's hard work was not all for nothing, even if it is now freeware. Don't think that's because it wasn't popular, this game was actually the most subscribed MMO of all time for its first few months, and that is quite an achievement, and so it seems embarrassing that it's now at your disposal for absolutely nothing. BioWare are giving away a perfectly polished game to your PC, and you would be stupid not to take advantage of that. Come on, how brilliant is that?

Don't think that because it's free it's not worth getting, in fact I would still consider this the game that has come the closest to getting the MMO genre right. Yes there are still the inevitable problems with the servers, and you can never get away from the millions of wankers online, but it just feels alive, and that's brilliant. BioWare have also left their usual markings on the game with their signature dialogue wheel and exceptional character customisation, and that's really nice when you couple that with a pretty damn decent storyline that varies with each character class. It has the huge, rich quality that you expect from a 'Star Wars' universe, and there's a lot of little gadgets and trinkets to find that help to customise that experience into an enjoyable one. The gameplay can be a bit monotonous at times, but that's a small price to pay for a game that was always destined to go wrong. It almost did fail, but thankfully the core elements are great fun and I can't recommend giving this at least a try. Just watch the trailer, that makes the game look 15 million times better than it actually is.  
 
#9 Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga (Traveller's Tales) (2007) (8/10)

The almost erotic relationship between 'Lego' and 'Star Wars' comes to a climax in this game, capping off another fantastic 'Lego' game. Of all the games that Traveller's Tales have made, this one is the classic. It had no right to be any good, but this children's toy managed to woo gamers with bucket loads of charm that oozes out of every sequence. Technically it's a combination of two games that cover their respective trilogy of films, with the older films not surprisingly being much, much better. That doesn't really matter when they're all lumped on to one disc, as they just essentially retell the classic story of 'Star Wars'.

That's not to say this isn't fun, far from it. It might be predictable, but the eccentric characters and well designed levels make this a game that feels totally unique, and a worthy addition to the 'Star Wars' franchise. The game never makes you do things their way, and instead you're given free reigns to tell your own 'Star Wars' based adventure. It was a nice touch to allow you to play as one of fifty characters at any one stage, and that meant you could explore each map fifty different times and get a completely new experience thanks to each characters unique abilities. This gives it a huge replay value, and if you do eventually get bored of the story driven narrative then you can just start a fight with everyone in the cantina. Quite simply this is too much fun for what it is. Just try telling me that it's a game for young children.

#8 Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (LucasArts) (2008) (7/10)

This is a classic example of a game that sounds a lot better than it actually is. In reality this is a game with some very big flaws, but managed to redeem itself by becoming the only 'Star Wars' game to use The Force effectively; and by an absolute mile as well. That one mechanic was pulled off to perfection, and as a selling point it was just brilliant. As a result this game became the biggest selling 'Star Wars' game until 'The Old Republic' came along, even if this wasn't the breath of fresh air everyone had hoped for. Still, that doesn't really matter when you can just fling anything you like wherever you damn well please. The actual story bridges the gap between the two sets of trilogies, and although it's not the best written story of all time, it's still an engaging and ambitious tale that aims to rekindle some magic in the 'Star Wars' franchise. I think it has to be commended, as although it's not technically sound, it does do a bloody god job of creating a new story without ruining anything that concerns the films. That's something that very few developers can pull off without just simply retelling the plot from films.

The clever use of the storyline is just one of the many ways this game cleverly uses its creative license, even if that isn't integrated with the poor combat system and lackluster graphical performance. However there are many features that this game excels out, such as using The Force, and it certainly doesn't do the franchise any shame, but I just expected more. In the end it just ends up feeling like a budgeted 'Saint's Row'. This over the top, arcade style presentation becomes most apparent when you bring down a Star Destroyer with your bare hands, which is just ridiculous, even in a sci-fi. I know this game rather distorts what's physically possible, but there is a limit. It's like they simply gave up after they pinned down the idea, which is a shame for a game that showed such great promise. Come to think of it so did the sequel, and that was even worse.

#7 Star Wars Galaxies (Sony) (2003) (8/10)

As a product of its time this was simply mindblowing in scale. The thought that you could now travel seamlessly across the whole 'Star Wars' galaxy was something I thought unimaginable at one time. Again, that sounds too good to be true and more overambitious than anything else, and so as a result this game was such a success that all it's servers were shut down in 2011. There are projects to recreate these servers, and there's some out there in beta testing, which might eventually bring back this cult classic to the public attention, but as a video game this flopped. As an MMO it might not do anything special, but for a taste of the 'Star Wars' universe it didn't get any better. I can still remember finding huge abandoned cities just by exploring the vast map. The exploration element was just unreal, and that's what games like this should be about, huge and beautiful landscapes that are filled with endless possibilities.

Then there was the customisation, which was just sublime. You could even get yourself a job as an entertainer or a trader. That must have been my favorite part. Literally the only thing you had to do as an entertainer was find a cantina and just dance for no actual purpose. There was even a skill tree so you could learn new moves. This game didn't just build a world, it also created a living society, emulating a 'Star Wars' universe to an amazing degree of accuracy. That's unfortunately where the praises end, as like real life this game was fucking brutal. For example, at the time of release you could only become a Jedi if you unlocked the special requirements, and from there you only had three lives, and so once you died three times you could never play as a Jedi again. They didn't even give you a lightsaber for 15 million hours. No wonder people decided to improve their cooking skills and redecorating their apartments instead. Needless to say these endless overhauls and mucking around eventually ruined the game as players got tired of all these revamped mechanics still not removing those annoying bugs. That's such a shame, this really could have been the ultimate 'Star Wars' video game.

#6 Star Wars: Tie Fighter (Totally Games) (1994) (8/10)

Oh what a beautiful, pixelated classic of an arcade game. What better way to reenact some awesome space battles from the cockpit of a Tie Fighter, thankfully fitted with the noises to go with it; I could listen to those for hours. The sequel, 'X Wing' was also pretty good as well, but unfortunately in that one you weren't in a Tie Fighter so it doesn't make the list, even if it was a good underdog story. You do end up feeling like a bit of a bastard playing as the Empire, although that becomes more a feeling of satisfaction by the end of this game. Seriously though, this had a decent little narrative going on, something that you don't usually get from flight simulators.

As a video game this is about as neat and tidy as you can get, and there's almost a brutal charm about everything it does. It never tries to be flashy about anything, but everything it does, such as the AI, is impeccably put together and almost faultless in production. It's also a brilliant flight simulator, and the attention to detail is remarkable. For instance when you increase the throttle to escape from enemy fighters it also has the adverse effect of minimising the impact of the shields, so you had to constantly balance out every action you made. As a simulator game this is something special, and it's no wonder that it's commonly touted as one of the best space combat games ever, although I'd give that to our next entry. Still, this game is the only reason I would ever consider getting out my hideous collection of floppy disks again. 

#5 Rogue Squadron 2: Rogue Leader (Factor 5) (2002) (8/10)

The best of the series that saw you play as the legendary squadron from the original 'Star Wars' trilogy. In this game you either got to play as Luke Skywalker, or the infinitely cooler Wedge Antilles, who will both be familiar to fans of the film as they're awesome characters. This game might not have felt as realistic as our previous entry, but it made up for that with fast paced and action packed battles that were so much fun to play through. For once you can tell the always arrogant and obnoxious Luke Skywalker to get fucked as you mow down far more enemies in comparison to his pathetic tally of womp rats. You still don't get to play as Porkins, which is annoying as he's the best character in the whole franchise, but that's a small price to pay for a great game. I can't think of another game that gets as close to the actual movies as this, and 'Rogue Leader' does a great job of recreating that magic.

#4 Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy (Raven Software) (2003) (8/10)

The game that finally gave us the chance to fulfill what must be everyone's childhood fantasies; now you could become an actual Jedi knight. It also paved the way to my teenage dreams as well, as this was one of the many predecessors to modern 'Call of Duty' games. So really we have a lot to thank this game for without even playing it. Thankfully it was also a good game to own, and this was in no small part to the wealth of customisation options that were available to your own personal Jedi that would accompany you on an interesting and well constructed story. The 'Call of Duty', I mean 'Quake' engine, hadn't yet been optimised for the first person shooter series, and so ends up looking a bit dated here, despite its consistently reliable performance. Like 'Call of Duty' this game was renowned for its multiplayer features, and also like the game it would inspire the multiplayer was pretty good as well. They weren't at the 'Halo' level yet, but as an addition they were greatly welcomed.

But a game like this should always be about single player, and the production of that seemed very thorough. The developers never forced you to play the game their way, and in fact you didn't even need a lightsaber, as there were mechanics added for shooting and force powers. This all helped to make the game feel like you were actually a Jedi knight, and the polished and refined combat made that experience all the more satisfying. Yes there may have been some issues with the AI, and some of the combat was poorly balanced, but for a game about swinging lightsabers there is nothing that comes close. The core elements were all crisp and well executed, leading to a very enjoyable game. You could even use double handed lightsabers. My inner child just had an orgasm.

#3 Star Wars: Empire at War (Petroglyph) (2006) (8/10)

A 'Star Wars' RPG that was actually good. Finally my prayers were answered. It even left out the prequels completely as an added bonus, and concentrated on the much better originals. It's not just land battles either, there is also a much superior game mode centered around space combat, which really is something special. In no other game can you command the likes of Admiral Ackbar or Han Solo across the whole of the galaxy, and that instantly makes it one of my favorite games. You can even play as the Death Star. I repeat, you can actually fly the Death Star and blow up planets with it. How can a game ever get boring when you can do that? As a party piece that's in a league of its own.

However the standout feature was the 'Galactic Conquest' game mode, that functions as more of a turn based strategy than anything else. It's a mode that's had some real effort put into it, and there's small signs that the developers have really thought about what they're doing. For example, you can only build certain units when you control certain planets, and each location conquered gives you a bonus, such as lowering the cost of certain ships. This heightens the strategic elements of the game to make it so much more than a classic of the genre, and that's just from some simple mechanics. Sure, it might not be a revolutionary game, but it's a well made RTS set in the 'Star Wars' universe. It's much better than 'Galactic Battlegrounds', and by just installing a few mods you can ensure some serious playtime. Great expansion pack as well; Christoforge recommended.

#2 Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (BioWare) (2003) (9/10)

The game that is widely considered one of the greatest PC games of all time, and quite possibly the best the sixth generation had to offer. I wouldn't go that far, but this is still one of only a few games that manages to encapsulate the 'Star Wars' epicness. It's another 'BioWare' entry, and so as you would expect it's business as usual, with engaging characters, and an amazing narrative that takes place in a beautiful setting. Instead of the conventional timeline this game is set a few thousand years before the storyline of the films, and although that period never really interested me much as a kid, it doesn't matter here thanks to the brilliant selection of diverse characters. They might not be household names, but protagonists such as Revan are orgasmically fun to play with. The climax of the story alone is easily one of gaming's greatest moments, and that's all thanks to the creative freedom that 'BioWare' allowed itself. In a way having the story in an unorthodox setting allowed the developers to do whatever they wanted, and with 'BioWare' that always means something very special.

It was no surprise that this game was brilliant, unless of course it was something pretty shocking. You see at that point we really didn't know what 'BioWare' were capable of, and so this was just another title that would abuse the 'Star Wars' license for a quick buck. What we didn't expect was a narrative that was on par with the classic films, and an RPG so rich that it made the rest of the 'Star Wars' universe look a bit pathetic in comparison. Maybe they should make a film about this. It would remove the almost faultless mechanics, but I think it's worth it to see that epic plot twist on the big screen. Somehow this didn't make the top spot, and that's thanks to an old childhood companion.
 
Tied #1 Star Wars Battlefront 1/ Star Wars Battlefront 2 (Pandemic) (2005) (10/10)

Well okay it was actually two childhood companions; I just couldn't choose. I love the second entry for its brilliant combat system and the inclusion of heroes, but then I can't help but love the maps in number one. I'm not saying the maps were lacking in the second installment, but the first game had maps that might just be better than any other game I can think of. My solution would be to get the game on PC and then mod the maps in from the first game. You won't be able to go on the online game modes with them, but they're still great fun for single player. My love for this game started when I was introduced to this game on the PS2, where it quickly became my favorite game on that console; so much so that it's now a member of my illustrious hall of fame. It easily gets that distinction for quite simply being the ultimate 'Star Wars' game. This had a detailed strategy game mode, obsessively fun multiplayer options, a decent campaign, great combat mechanics, and even the inclusions of space battles. There was even a game mode where you could pit the various heroes and villains of 'Star Wars' against each other on 'Tatooine'. Thankfully you can't do that over the internet anymore, but then you would always just end up being destroyed by endless Darth Mauls spamming the force push. But then multiplayer never was very easy.

There are a few faults with the game I will admit, and that's mainly from the downright idiotic AI. But on a game of this scale that becomes a minor annoyance, and in a full scale war it actually becomes something that sometimes benefits the game's style. This is what you wanted 'Star Wars' to be like as a kid, not like that diplomacy bollocks in episode one; this was the real deal, and nothing did it any better. When I was a kid I didn't care that there wasn't any customisation. I didn't care that it got a bit repetitive after a while. It just didn't matter when a game was this fucking awesome. You will never find anything else that encapsulates what 'Star Wars' is all about quite like this game, whether you're 8 or 38. Maybe this is just my inner child wanting you to experience what I once did, but I implore you to play it now. I promise you the chaotic madness will never get boring, and even though there's a third one of the horizon, you can still pick up a classic for next to nothing. Do it, before EA decide to ruin the third one.

Morons of the Internet: Free Thought Blogs (10/03/15)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have quite possible one of the most stupid protests I've ever come across. Of all the things you could ever do, what is the point in something as flawed and pathetic as this?
_________________________________________________________________
http://freethoughtblogs.com/heinous/2015/02/24/excluding-white-male-authors/
_________________________________________________________________

Oh god, how could you possibly read a book by a man; just what is the world coming to? The very thought of reading many books my many, many vile human males just makes me feel physically sick. Damn that patriarchy for teaching men how to write. It's times like these I just hate the thought of all those illiterate women who thanks to the patriarchy and people like you never get to write novels. In reality, which seems to allude this person, I find myself wondering whether any of this actually matters. Writing is a work of art, and so therefore completely subjective. If gender effects your perception of the novels then that's your narrow minded problem and not the fault of society. I would put good money on the fact that you picked up the majority of books by male authors because you liked the look of them, not because of what gender its author was.

Furthermore your 'solution' is preaching inequality within itself, so how it's supposed to cure the problem has yet to be answered. I just don't understand why you would actively handicap your mind like this just for the sake of petty equality, and only that on a personal scale. It's like you're saying that because you've read more books by a male author that their opinion is somehow now worthless, just because they have a majority of the say. Surely if equality is what you seek then you should give them an equal chance as well, and not just ignore them. Making a radical decision out of a trivial issue like this is just stupid, and everyone should have the ability to share their equally valid art, and not be instantly discounted because of their gender.

Well I guess it's no surprise that I can't agree with her views when I'm part of the loutish 'anti-victimhood brigade'. I guess I thought that equality had already happened, and that's all because of my intrinsic biases. Surely this author is right in suggesting that my foolish behaviour must be atoned for with active correction, which sounds like something from a George Orwell novel; but then I shouldn't mention that pathetic and worthless male author. My solution would be the 'why the fuck should I care?' technique, which will allow me to buy whichever book I choose because I want to do some reading, and not because I care about stupid things like what gender the author is. I just don't see why I should buy books that I wouldn't otherwise enjoy because they're written by a woman. Surely if I did that I would be creating the very problem I was trying to eradicate in the first place, and that would continue in a vicious circle. Oh, but of course it's only women that are being victimised. There goes my intrinsic biases again.

I'm not sure if this writer is getting other people to try and do it, and judging by the comments it's having that effect, but why should I discriminate against various authors because of only personal experiences? Now if you're seriously going to bang on about me for being inherently biased, then you need to have a long look in the mirror as your piece defines bias in every sense. Why can't you just accept that in the areas you were interested in male authors were superior, or at least were more interesting for your eyes. That has absolutely nothing to do with intrinsic biases or race and gender, and I only see this issue arising because you're making it, and not because it's a pressing concern to society.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and so I'm amazed at how she doesn't realise that this 'active correction' is just making more inequality, except only in the male direction. When that concept is reversed it's a plight on humanity, which makes this whole article pretty hypocritical; male authors have to make a living too. The concept of bias will always exist, no matter how much correcting you try, so what's the point in trying to eradicate it? It's not as if it's done any harm to your reading, you've just ended up buying more books by male authors, which really isn't the end of the world. You even admit that you bought books from a specialised area, so that should explain the inequality of your reading. That would be like me boycotting female authors because I'm a huge fan of romantic fiction, and I only have a sample size of one to base my radical theory on. Even after all that I'm still going to have that bias you keep banging on about, so my thoughtful action doesn't change anything.

It seems remarkable that you can then preach egalitarianism when you have not given the separate books an equal chance. For that to happen you would have to draw one out at random from a hat to remove any of those implicit biases, and only then could you comment on your thoughtful, if irrational response. You just end up sounding like a power hungry dictator that commands over the world's supply of books. I know what I'm doing is hypocritical "but that's what happened anyway." That would be like Hitler saying "I didn't mean to murder all those Jews, but that's what happened anyway, regardless of intent." You can't justify a whole argument by saying that. But maybe I'm being too harsh; at least for once someone has actually thought of a solution to a problem. Admittedly it's a problem that's simply trivial, but if she wants to handicap her own life then she can go right ahead. But please don't moan at people like me when they inevitably call you out on your pathetic argument.

I hate to repeat myself, but you're really not correcting biases. Reading from exclusively female authors is about as biased as you can possibly get, and if anything is actually more biased than your original predicament. As I've already said, you're just making the problem a whole lot worse. I just don't understand how you can fail to acknowledge that in the area you were interested in male authors were predominant. Logic would surely dictate that if you want to find more female authors then it's you who needs to adapt your interests, and so therefore these biases really don't matter. If only there was a saying I could use about not judging a book by its cover.

And we conclude with the most scientific use of statistics I've ever seen. This experiment is so reliable that I can't instantly see obvious and gaping flaws within the whole thing. A sample size of one is perfectly acceptable when backing up a theory with statistics, as obviously you're personal experiences are instantly reflected on everyone's reading tastes, and is in no way an anomaly. I just love how you put this in to try and defend your point. You recorded 1063 books for the sake of the most unreliable experiment I've ever seen. Surely you must have something better to do than tallying up all your books, which isn't at all an invalid method of data collection. I think biased is the term most scientists would use; and unlike yourself they know when to apply that word.

It just annoys me that feminism has got to this stage. It used to be about important things in society, and on a global scale it still is. But now we get some writer who thinks she's being victimised because of her personal book collection. I'm sorry if I can't relate to the situation, but in my eyes I couldn't give a single shit who wrote the book, I only care about the content. It's a work of art, and so the most important thing should always be the message and not anything to do with equality. Just please stop being so childishly stubborn and enjoy literature for what it is.

Morons of the Internet: Ecofeminism (06/03/15)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have a serious website trying to tell us what ecofeminism is. Just reading this it's unbelievable that people actually follow this. Even the experts can't get away from just chatting a load of bollocks.
__________________________________
http://www.thegreenfuse.org/ecofem.htm
__________________________________

I'd just like to say that I think this idea is ridiculous. All I can see at the moment is another excuse for social justice warriors to whinge about how their life isn't fair, and blaming it on something that clearly isn't the problem. Oppression of women and the exploitation of nature have nothing to do with each other, and to be fair I don't see women under threat from extinction because they haven't got equality. It's a bit funny that although women would claim the benefits from using the environment, the natural world still seems to be being exploited, so it begs the question of what this theory is really about. Going eco friendly will do jack shit for the treatment of women, as if anything mankind has become less eco friendly and more supportive of women. The whole premise of this theory just doesn't make any sense.

However I do like the idea that this group takes equality out of the picture; I do think it should be that way. maybe because I can't relate to women I don't understand why they need to be liberated. I understand that women might want to undergo a personal quest, much like the Native American 'Spirit Quest' where they would become one with nature, but why does that apply to a whole gender? I'm pretty confident that many women worldwide couldn't give a shit about your liberation, and so I can only see this as a pursuit for individual needs. As far as I can work out it's punishing the majority for the benefit of a select few. For once I find myself agreeing with conventional feminists, and I think this regime would cause unnecessary oppression and halt any progress humankind has made as a species.


Oh no my mistake, I could have sworn you said this wasn't about equality in the last paragraph, but we find out here that it actually is, and has absolutely nothing to do with liberating women. "In Western society women are treated as inferior to men". Really, would you like to back that up with evidence, because being protected by the same laws, having equal rights and being a valued member of society is not inferior in my books. You can't base a whole theory off of a sweeping accusation like that, even if it is a theory that stems from the stupid idea that nature is portrayed as feminine. Surely that's completely subjective; being social and sensitive does not mean you associate yourself with nature. I see nature as a hard and unforgiving place, so how does being overemotional tie in with that? I don't see why I should change my ways to benefit a minority because of a perception.

The first proof we get that this article is just tedious uninformed crap is when we suddenly decide to ignore science. The fact that this theory emphasizes the common misconception that the menstrual cycle is linked to the lunar cycle just shows how moronic your argument is. How anyone could think that was scientifically possible is another matter, but the only similarity they have is that the phrase 'menstrual' originates from a translation of the word 'moon'. Please, just give me some facts to work with; without them your concept looks like sentimental bullshit that has no relevance to anyone but yourself.

Oh fuck, even the expert can't help me as they just contradict what I've been moaning about. What hellish vegan, eco friendly dystopia are we suggesting here? I have nothing against people who choose to be vegan or want to be environmentally friendly, but please don't force it onto other people, or it will make you look like a bit of a hypocrite and a massive bigot. We then reject any form of hierarchy, which is also another hint that this is about equality, and also suicidal. Are they seriously suggesting that humankind could survive without any form of power structure? Even the structure of great apes has a hierarchy as it couldn't survive without one. Their society is primitive compared to that of humanities, and so imposing this system would ensure that we were in a state of anarchy, and I'm sure that civilization itself would soon crumble. Sharing power is one of the most stupid things I've ever read; with the selfishness of humanity that would never work. There's always going to be people that abuse power, and this radical movement has no strategy to combat that. Their theory just isn't sustainable and poorly thought through. Why the hell should I watch my species crumble so that a minority of morons can find power from within?

I just get the sense these people are completely missing the point. I wonder why male qualities are valorised? Is it because they've been vital to the survival of humanity as a species? Yes, and that's more than anyone can say for being associated with nature. How the fuck does that help anyone? Why shouldn't we valorise reason and intuition? Shouldn't they be considered positives from society as opposed to being emotional. It's times like this that patriarchal dualism sounds like a good idea. The whole thing is just a massive clusterfuck; especially that last paragraph. What the fuck are they going on about? How does fear of mortality and nature lead to inequality? It just doesn't make any sense. I've never considered women as a constant reminder of death, and I don't see anyone else punishing them because life's too short in their presence. There's just this ignorance towards the attitude of men throughout the whole website. Just because men didn't excrete the child doesn't mean they have no connection with it. Why should women be automatically associated with the child? As a man I have a biological connection with birth, so for ecofeminists to just shit all over that is pretty damn insulting. This whole generalisation is inadvertent sexism, and the overall theory is one of the most stupid and hypocritical things I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

I'll tell you how we can re-evaluate these qualities. Instead of whinging about them why don't you go and do something about it? Look at people like Ronda Rousey or Angela Merkel. I've never heard them wining about the patriarchy; they just get on with life and reap the benefits of their hard work. It's all very well telling men to promote female qualities, when you yourselves have been slagging off their qualities in every single paragraph. It's just annoying that everyone must stick to their stereotypes for this system to work, and of course it has to be men that make the commitment, the self centered bastards. It then just starts up with the random bollocks again. I must have missed the part of history when men were alienated from the domestic world. I never remember any stories of cavemen househusbands, but instead male warriors who would hunt for food because that was the most efficient way, not because they became alienated. This theory is just incredibly stupid, and it gets even worse.

Simple unbelievable, not only has this started the teachings of religion and cults, but it's just making stuff up to try and justify a point that was flawed anyway. There are still hunter gatherer tribes in the world, and they do the exact opposite of what you're suggesting, and have a male orientated society. And don't start banging on about how the patriarchy has been effecting them because some of them have no contact with the outside world. With this logic and evidence it can be said that if we did go back to a primitive time then the exact opposite would occur to what you're suggesting. I'm confident in saying that competition almost certainly was preferential during that time period of rival clans, or you're going against the very idea of tribalism and natural selection. Just look at other families in our genus, they live in a clan lifestyle that very much values the males over females, yet to apparently get equality we must become more like them. I just can't believe that according to this I must revert to poverty, for something that would apparently bring about equality; and how nature comes into that is still a complete mystery. As somewhat of a hedonist I find this completely bonkers, but then we get a taste in the next paragraph of what this theory is really all about.

Yes that's right, this theory is really about fucking spirituality, the very pinnacle of bollocks. I ask myself is there anything that spirituality can solve that conventional science can't; and most probably the answer is no. Ecofeminism it seems is on this unfortunate path, and whilst I have nothing wrong with people wanting to be spiritual or creative, I do have a problem with ecofeminism forcing it on people. The world works just fine with conventional methods and logic, and so the idea of being thrown back to before history is not a concept that should be taken seriously. If civilization has to be destroyed so that a minority can be spiritual then genocide might be the only option, and even then equality still wouldn't work.

Top 10 Worst Serial Killers

This is a change of tone from my usual ramblings over current events and pop culture. It's hard to approach a serious issue like this from a subjective viewpoint even though I do find this subject fascinating. War criminals and political leaders are exempt from this as they didn't actually do the dirty work themselves; this is for the people that acted on their own authority. Obviously their will be mature themes throughout, so don't say you haven't been warned.

Dishonorable mentions:
Ed Gein - Being the inspiration for three serial killers in various films is a pretty impressive achievement, but if truth be told skinning your victims is nothing compared to the horrors on this list.
Ted Bundy - Raped and murdered 12 young women in the early 70's to get their heads as trophies. What a charming man.
Richard Chase - A man who actually drank the blood of his victims. He did this to prevent the Nazis from turning his blood into poison, which to be fair was a big problem in late 70's Sacramento.

#10 Harold Shipman (Dr. Death) (1946-2004) (250+ Victims)

One of the most charming men of all time; this British doctor was responsible for the deaths of over 250 of his unsuspecting patients, making him one of the most prolific serial killers of all time. It might not have ended that way if he'd been caught in 1975 when he was fined for prescribing himself huge amounts of pethidine, a painkiller that unfortunately for Shipman's patients wasn't for his personal use. His primary method was to poison his patients, usually with a diamorphine overdose that made it seem like the deaths were a complete accident. This continued until 1998 when coupled with his terrible medical record he was found to have been forging the wills of some of his patients so they would leave him a large sum of money. He would claim the patients died of old age, and would then leave hundreds of thousands of pounds in his name. It was only when they recovered the bodies it was discovered that he was not only a murderer, but a fraudster as well.

In the end Shipman was given a total of fifteen life sentences and not surprisingly removed from his position as a trusted doctor. He only ended up serving not even one of these terms as he hung himself in 2004, an act that newspapers such as 'The Sun' couldn't get enough of, as they don't value human lives, even if it is the one of a murderous doctor. To the day of his death Shipman denied any responsibility for his murders, as did his wife, who can hardly be blamed for not wanting to accept the truth. There is a silver lining to this story, as his crimes may actually save more people in future years due to Britain's health legal structure being completely overhauled after this man's actions. I'm not trying to glorify or compromise with what this man did, but it's nice to know that his victims didn't die for nothing.

#9 Andrei Chikatilo (The Rostov Ripper) (1936-1994) (56+ Victims)

A total of 52 women were sexually assaulted, murdered and then mutilated by this deranged man between 1978 and 1990. Just the look of his picture sends shivers down your spine. This story begins with his childhood penis, which would be on the end of many jokes as it didn't work. The ridicule he got for his erectile dysfunction was all the motive he needed for his deranged actions. The only time he could reach the point of orgasm was to stab his victims whilst raping them to then masturbate over. He discovered this with a nine year old girl who became his first victim, but eventually he moved on to strangling and mutilating his victims with various weapons including his teeth, all under the cover of secluded areas. The majority of his murders were of young school girls who he picked up from various bus stops, then taking them into some nearby woods to manhandle and stuff their mouths with mud so nobody could hear them screaming. If he couldn't get an erection, which was almost all the time, he would then repeatedly stab them for his arousal.

Amazingly he was arrested once during the height of his killing phase, but was released due to the blood samples on the victim not matching up to his. This was of course a mistake, and it wasn't until an undercover officer saw him walking around with blood and grass stains on his clothing that he was eventually caught. His murders were so spread out that police never thought to link the crimes, and so he was a difficult criminal to catch. When they did put him on trial it was all over very quickly, and instead of a bulletproof screen he was given a cage in the middle of the courtroom that was built by the families of his victims, which is a pretty nice gesture. They then threatened to kill him throughout the whole trial, which isn't so nice, but you can't really blame them when faced with a man who did such evil things to their daughters. The Russian government found they had to execute him as a matter of national security, and in January 1994 he was killed by a firing squad under the orders of newly elected president Boris Yeltsin. A swift end to a despicable man.

#8 Pedro Lopez (Monster of the Andes) (1948-) (300+ Victims)

Yeah this one is slightly uncomfortable, not only because the man is still alive, but also because he's also a free man. Yes you read that correctly; somehow raping and murdering over 300 girls in Colombia doesn't get you a life behind bars, it only gets you released on good behaviour in 1998, 18 years after he was arrested for the second time. That's less than a month for each victim, and he's till thought to be murdering people. Well done the Colombian government, who to this day don't know where the man is located, which I thought would be quite important with a history like this one.

The usual signs that this guy's been around are numerous strangulation victims in derelict buildings and remote forests, usually found in mass graves of fifty or so bodies that police have found two of so far. He cites his motive as retribution for being gang raped during his first prison stint, which is something pretty traumatizing, but still doesn't excuse murdering those responsible and many others in around the country. Reading about this guy makes you realise that Colombia is the murder capital of the world for good reasons; a man with probably the worst criminal history of all time is released from your prisons not just once but twice. I wish I could say it's a fucking joke, but when the result is 300 lives lost it's something truly shocking.

#7 Dennis Nilsen (The Kindly Killer) (1945-) (15 Victims)

In terms of actual deaths this guy's a lightweight, but he finds his way onto this list for some very disturbing reasons. Those reasons mainly consist of this man's love of corpses, and he would acheive this by luring his victims into his Muswell Hill apartment in London by pretending to be in a position of need, often promising gifts or money. Once they were in his property he would strangle his victims and dress them up so he could have some company. Predictably he never got much of a response and so he would then dissect the bodies, keeping some momentos, and then flushed the rest down the toilet. According to Nilsen this was the most humane way to die, and he actually thought that he was doing his victims a favour by murdering them.

The motive for all this was out of loneliness, which almost makes the tale a tragic one. Nilsen's only friend in life had been his grandfather, and so after his passing Nilsen started killing innocent people to fill the void left by his sole friend's company. His first victim was murdered simply out of desperation when the man tried to leave Nilsen's apartment, and in a panic Nilsen strangled him so they could be together again, having sex with the corpse multiple times overnight. Nilsen would frequently masturbate and sleep with the corpses he collected before leaving them to decompose under his floorboards, which was much to the dismay of anyone who lived nearby. This would lead to his downfall, as local residents who thought the plumbing was causing the stench hired a plumber to inspect the nearby pipes, and he subsequently found human remains. An event I'm sure he still hasn't lived down to this day. Nilsen is still being held in a prison in East Yorkshire with no chance of parole, but one horrible legacy left behind.

#6 Joachim Kroll (The Ruhr Hunter) (1933-1991) (14 Victims)

This guy might not have been the sharpest tool in the shed, as it didn't take the police long to find him, but what he did in that time is pretty sickening. His killings were rather isolated, and it's still not clear what his motive behind this obsession with death was; Kroll just suddenly started killing people for fun. What he would do to the corpses is also fucking gross. After strangling the victim Kroll would have sex with the corpse and then masturbate all over it, sometimes having a threesome with a rubber sex doll. He would then dissect the body and gradually eat the parts. The police found him out on a simple door to door search, where Kroll gave himself up instantly, thinking they would give him help and not lock him away. The story goes that he showed the officers a mutilated corpse of a four year old girl, with her hand on a frying pan waiting to be eaten. When asked Kroll simply explained that he ate corpses to save on grocery bills, which is a pretty extreme measure and one that I don't recommend. Kroll's time came in prison when his heart literally exploded in an astonishing twist of fate. Still, I guess that's karma for you.

#5 Pedro Filho (Killer Petey) (1954-) (100+ Victims)

Probably the world's ultimate psychopath, if that's even an achievement. His whole life has been fucked up thanks to his father literally beating his brain out of shape when he was still in the womb. Even before this man's 18th birthday he had already killed 10 people, showing that this guy has been killing for all his life thanks to his dysfunctional family. This culminated when his father decided to kill his mother with a machete, and in response Filho executed his own father and then ripped out and ate his still beating heart. You would think it would stop at his 1974 arrest for his father's murder, but in prison it somehow gets even worse. By the time of his release he killed a total of 47 inmates, earning him a sentence of over 400 years. This didn't seem to bother the Brazilian government, and as we've found out, South American countries aren't great at keeping their serial killers locked away, and Brazil is no exception. The law states that a prisoner cannot be held for longer than 30 years, which is a pretty brave move when the lives of your civilians are held on the trust of your rehabilitation skills. Since 2007 Filho has been a free man, and is thought to still be operating in the Fortaleza region where he has thankfully only committed minor crimes since his release. Seriously Brazil, what the fuck did you think would happen with your stupid laws. 

#4 John Wayne Gacy (The Killer Clown) (1942-1994) (34 Victims)

This man is the stuff of nightmares. You always wondered why you were scared of clowns, and now it's not just their menacing appearance that will haunt you for the rest of your life. Clowns have always been freaky, but they're much worse when they decide to kill 33 teenage boys in their own home and then bury them under the floorboards. Apparently Gacy was actually a popular man in the neighborhood, often organizing gatherings and performing at parties where he would lure his victims into his home for some rape and strangulation. His original motive was that of sexual desire, but soon this turned into brutal murder from a sexually confused man.

There is a wild rumor flying around the internet that this man posed as a statue one evening in some random home. This is simply not true as first of all his victims were always murdered in his own home, and secondly he was caught by a family who filed a missing persons report for their fifteen year old son who had last been seen talking to Gacy about a job in the construction industry. Gacy's most common method to lure young boys would be to advertise jobs for his construction business, and only then would he capture the young men with his alter ego 'Pogo the Clown'. Eventually this crazed killer was dispatched by a lethal injection in 1994, increasing the total number of deaths from this man's atrocities up to 34, and with it the reputation of one of the world's sickest men.

#3 Jeffrey Dahmer (The Milwaukee Cannibal) (1960-1994) (17 Victims)

Possibly the most disgusting man in the history of the world, and there is even visual evidence for this. If you haven't just eaten then you can search for Polaroid images of this man' victims and see for yourself what a fucked up guy we are dealing with here. Dahmer's crazed killings began when his parents divorce drove him to explore his sexual desires, which included homosexuality and necrophilia. His first recorded murder was that of a hitchhiker at a time when Dahmer had just graduated high school. Dahmer drugged the man and had sex with him, bludgeoning him to death when he tried to leave. This would lead to a grizzly cycle that involved Dahmer picking up men from Milwaukee gaybars, strangling them, and then dissecting their remains to store in his grandmother's basement. He would keep various body parts in fridges, and mount skulls and genitals as if they were a trophy. How anyone never found out about this from the stench is surprising, and why nobody tried to stop this is another big question. Dahmer knew what he was doing was wrong, but as nobody cared he couldn't suppress his sexual and twisted urges.

His killings escalated even further when he was arrested and incarcerated for sexual assault. His one year rehabilitation programme failed and he started to lobotomize his victims to try and keep them alive and under his control for eternity. He would now drill into their skulls and inject them with acid while they were still alive in the hope of controlling them. Predictably this led to more deaths that increased on a weekly basis. Dahmer found he could no longer store the bodies so he had to start consuming them or dissolving them in acid baths, creating a thick sludge that could easily be flushed down the toilet. He still wasn't caught when the police found a naked 13 year old boy running through the streets. When asked Dahmer simply replied that the boy was his gay lover, and after a quick, and rather poor look into his house the police let him continue. The boy, who was the younger brother of a child that Dahmer had previously molested was then subsequently killed and raped by Dahmer. Unbelievable. He was eventually caught, admitting to the police that they wouldn't believe what they would find inside his house, with various body parts and photographs still being preserved. All through the trial he was calm and collected, just accepting his chilling actions as a way of life. His demise came from inmate Christopher Scarver who beat him to death whilst performing a routine chore, bringing to an end the worst murderer in US history.

#2 Aaron Kosminski (Jack The Ripper) (5 Possible Victims)

I have given this man a name, although the truth is we still don't know who the real 'Jack the Ripper' was. Kosminski was a Polish immigrant who was most likely to have been the killer, but thanks to the recent genetic experiment having significant flaws we still don't know the killer's identity. Even though we don't know who we was his status is that of legendary. 'The Whitechapel Murderer' became world renowned for the killings he orchestrated in the run down areas of London. All we know of him is that he sent a letter signed 'Jack the Ripper' to the police with a human kidney attached inside. Whether this was a genuine letter is still up for debate, as it could have been a publicity stunt, but what wasn't a stunt was the brutal way in which this man dispatched his victims.

His preferred victim was a prostitute, which makes this story even more compelling. The fact that in Victorian London people were captivated by the murder of some ordinary and insignificant prostitutes shows you how twisted this man really was. Jack would dissect his victims for the police to find later, often leaving them on the streets, but for his last victim, Mary Kelly, he just left her in bed. There are some pictures of that on the internet; they're terrible quality, but to say they're unpleasant is an understatement; you can barely recognise the corpse. To this day the legend has still not been solved, making this man the greatest crime mystery of all time, and also one infamous and deranged killer.

#1 Gilles De Rais (Bluebeard) (1405-1440) (~200 Victims)

On first inspection you might not think this guy looks menacing at all, heck he was even a distinguished military veteran under Joan of Arc, so why is he at number one? Well that has something to do with his personal life, when he wasn't leading Brittany or writing plays. You see De Rais was a rather strange man, and a big believer in the occult, often wanting to summon demons for his pleasure. When the demons didn't come to him he thought he must make a sacrifice to appease the angry spirit that wouldn't appear to him; that meant meant a sacrifice of young children. That's why in 1432 this man started killing local children to please the spirits, and that meant a lot of innocent local children that just kept increasing in number as the demon still didn't appear to him. Then it got a lot worse; he started to molest the children before brutally killing them for his own pleasure, getting aroused by their inherent fear. What he would do to them after that is just unbeleivable.

Once the children were brought to De Rais he would hang them by a noose so they couldn't scream. He would then masturbate onto their bodies whilst decapitating them, and then disemboweled their remains. There was occasionally a bit of torture beforehand if De Rais wasn't feeling horny enough yet, and he would even on occasion cut off their genitals and wank into the site of their inner organs that he would try and penetrate. Not finished yet he would then lie on top of the boys and laugh at them as they died a slow and agonising death, repeatedly kissing them in the process. If they were an attractive specimen he would then mount their heads on a spike to compare with his other victims at a later date, but if not he would burn the bodies and then bathe in their blood. I hope this is enough to convince you that this is the most sadistic man of all time, so please remember that you next time you moan about people watching porn for arousal. The final death toll was thought to be around 200, although some accounts suggest a figure of around 600, making him the most deadly and disgusting man on this well stacked list. He was eventually put on trial by the French government and executed for his atrocities that easily make him the worst serial killer of all time.