Does Anyone Fact Check Zeitgeist?

Does anyone actually try to fact check Zeitgeist's claims? If I made a movie and stated every other religion came from Judeo/Christianity you'd quickly fact check that, but because their isn't as much knowledge about it, you take other people's word for it.

I keep hearing them and no one is asking a basic question, in 2014 where everyone and their momma's religious text is on line, where's the comparable text? As a person who loves both religion and myth this has been annoying as hell. People can pull this BS off because Egyptian and other mythologies aren't as well known as the Greek and Roman. And I know this is going to piss some people off, but aside from people quoting Zeitgeist, while there's minor similarities, most of the connections to Jesus and other deities are forced at best.

Jesus birthday is NOT Dec 25, the Catholic Church did that because other deities birthdays was celebrated on that day. (Pope Julius I this made this the official date).

Horus nor Mithra had 12 disciples, in fact most of the times there's no reference to any ancient (before Jesus) story that states this and no one seems to be able to find it.

Jesus is said to be born of a virgin Mithra is born of a rock. Horus’s mother is Isis. Seriously?  How is that the same?

Horus was never baptized. "Anup the Baptizer" doesn't even exist. Someone made up a character to compare to John the Baptist. That means this is a straight up lie. If you have to make it up... obviously you don't believe your own claim.

Now before you jump on me (what usually happens), do the research yourself. No matter what you believe, if you're making these claims you should be able to find the text that proves these things. NOT quotes from other the actual text itself. The Bible is online and there's various "Books of the Dead" online, so you should easily be able to find those text. But no ancient (before Jesus) versions of these stories exists that state these things. Now other similarities may exist, and you may have other arguments, but these are the big ones people keep using and they are non-existent.

Are You Willing to Swallow the Slenderman Hysteria?

AP Photo/Abe Van Dyke

I'm not a Creepypasta fan, but if I were in my teens or even early twenties I probably would be. I'm a fan of Poe and old school horror like Frankenstein and Dracula, which you can even see the influence in my work, some of the characters even pop up. But though I don't frequent the site I do know enough about Slenderman from the movie games and other snippets. And I understand that when a 12 year old girl convinces another to assist her in trying to stab a classmate to death, we're not dealing with fiction anymore. BUT are you willing to swallow the new's take on the events? Sure I'm willing to believe that two twelve year old girls stabbed another, but the Slenderman take is "internet is bad" propaganda. Here's the rub, at best it's just two psycho 12 year old white girls tried to kill another girl. End of story. 

What do love is the fact so many people have gotten a bit smarter and aren't buying such bullshit excuses in 2014, but what saddens me is some of the more uneducated people are. And uneducated/uninformed people tend to have the most power and be the most vocal and most easily given over to mass hysteria. Most won't read a Slenderman story (because most don't read), some may see the Slenderman movie, but in the end there's still a need to excuse the actions of young white girls for no other reason than they're young, white and girls. If these girls were young black boys would we really be even talking about Slenderman? Because black people aren't even supposed to be able to use computers save to upload to Worldstar Hip-Hop, right? So Slenderman would never be brought into it. Doesn't fit the stereotype and if it doesn't fit you can't show it. 

Fact of the matter is you're dealing with 12 year old, white female psychopath and no one wants to call it what it is, so we look for crappy excuses. Now if they said they did this because of "Jeff the Killer" I could see a connection. Jeff is still fictional and known to be such. But they chose the one character that you really don't know what he does to people. He's a ghost, an entity, a being with no real MO save for popping up and scaring people. That's pretty much the same MO you use at a friend's surprise party. That's partly what was cool about "Slendy" his MO was a mystery.

These girls are manipulating the authorities and the press is running with it because it makes good media. Telling the press they're trying to be Slenderman's proxies? Does his proxies stab people? But the end everyone knows Slenderman is fictional, which rips a major hole right in their bullshit story of trying to proxies. I would love for Dr. Phil to get a hold of this little brat and tear her a new one. 

I can see what they're doing, blame-shifting and playing to the cameras/news media. According to the stories one of the girls states, ‘‘The bad part of me wanted her to die, the good part of me wanted her to live.’’ Really? Seriously? According to FOX News 6 Milwaukee, neither girl even felt remorse. Are we not willing to treat these girls as the psychos they are? If not, maybe we'll have to find Slenderman, his cousin Splendorman and Jeff the Psycho and lock them all up because we have to get them off the street. The conspiracy side of me is going crazy, but I'm going to end this one here and not even go into if this is an attempt to see if they (those in power) can shut sites down based on specific incidents or how this may play into the hands of those attempting to kill net neutrality. 

Wow, Taylor Chapman! Over a Receipt? Really?

I don't know really know what to say here. I'm not one whose quick to cry racism or even call someone a racist without all the facts, but I do know, that Taylor Chapman doesn't like people of Arab decent, nor Indians who look like they may be of Arab decent. (Nithi is more likely an Indian name).  Obviously she likes black guys... if they're rappers, considering her sad attempt to flirt with Ludacris.

Now I do tend to have some fun at the expense of how some young women with advanced degrees act toward others with less education, but how pathetic do have to be to get to the point where you're using your BA in business as an excuse to berate an $8 and hour worker at a Dunkin Doughnuts? At least have the decency to have a masters like the other women who try to use their advance education as a way of proving they are better than you. (Or know more than you even when they have no real experience in said field outside of what they learned in class).

What I'm more concerned about is Chapman having access to space ships and weapons of mass destruction. Obviously she's fully prepared to colonize Mars and on top of that apparently can command nukes at her leisure. Also she seems to be prepared to go on her Mars trip alone as surely her boyfriend/fiance will second guess her when she says she's going to give him food that been tainted with urine or whatever and has no problem putting this up online for all to see.

Seriously though, was Chapman drunk, high, just a dumb racist or all of the above? Or was this a desperate plea for attention, to have us do what we're doing? Talk about her. She is an actress, but the Happywok commercials she's starred in have been pulled from Youtube. Right now no one will probably hire her in the business world, but entertainment is a different animal. In fact if one can't be loved, they can be hated and create fame from that hate. Isn't that what's she's really done? I mean you don't have to do much to be celebrity now days. Kim Kardashian is mainly famous for being a hot chick who has sex with famous black guys and look how far she's gotten. But if nothing else, Kim K. is indeed hot, which is a commodity in Hollywood. Is there a market for a crazy, average looking, not so great actress whose only claim to fame is she's an asshole who throws around random racial slurs and awkwardly flirts with rappers? Like a low budget racist Kim Kardashian. I'm sure their is. And if push comes to shove she can always run for something as a Republican candidate in Florida.

Is The Anita Sarkeesian Type of Feminism Destructive to Subcultures?

Edit: I feel I need to say this: I definitely disagree with what was done to Anita Sarkeesian (any actual threats, the game and messing up her site). Insults and such I don't mind as anyone with an opinion goes through that but, anything going beyond that is bullshit! People need to have some boundaries. 

I'd say the answer is a resounding YES! If Sarkeesian is the gamer she says she is she knew the community in which she was going against and knew the venom she would receive. While some things were vicious, cruel and unwarranted at the same time they played into her hands. But the gaming community knew what was going to happen and that's why they reacted the way they did.

See, if things go her way, it won't be an end to male privilege, but an end to fun. Men will be shamed and villainized for liking certain games and women in the culture will be hit with a join or die mentality only seen during the time of The Crusades, where women active in the culture are dismissed if they show no interest in the religion of female self worship known as feminism while trying to beat Halo.

Here's the 8 step process of how to destroy a subculture via feminism:

1. An activity is created, usually one based around some form of entertainment. The entertainment is action packed and attracts boys and men. Women aren't locked out or told not to do it, but it's something women themselves seem to simply not be interested in save for maybe a small few. 

2. As boys and men gravitate to it women tell the boys and men they're not interested in said thing and even goes to point of ridiculing the thing and men who're into it. So a subculture is formed to get away from ridicule and shaming (usually by women ironically). 

3. As time goes on women get involved in this activity and then as more time goes on more girls and women get involved. The men are shocked, and indeed suspicious as women are not common in the activity. Eventually women are welcomed with open arms as men see the women mean them no harm and are only there to enjoy the activity as they are.

4. Eventually people get together and have some form of convention or gathering. Promoters find out it's male dominated event and hire female models. Other women find out it's a male dominated  event, buy space and bring items to sale. To get attention they dress in genre related costumes that appeal to the male audience, the audience most likely to buy.

5. Later other women come in and get involved in the activity as well as men bringing their wives girlfriends, sisters etc as the activity is becoming cool and mainstream. 

6. Finally an agressive radical feminist enters the building. She has no real interest in the activity and if she does she can not move past her feminist ideologies to enjoy it as the others are, no she must condemn the men and free the women. She writes an article, creates a series or piece that "exposes" the activity. 

7. First she must make a claim of sexism and oppression and tells the women they don't have the privilege men have at said event, while not be able to showcase said privilege. The women who dare rebel against them will be cast off as blind and not having an opinion that matters in their crusade. 

8. This woman/group will attempt to cause confusion and animosity between the sexes. They won't create anything for the community, but will only criticize it, as they were never really into it to be begin with and with that will try to reshape the whole community to be a safe space for a the people who are least likely to be involved. They won't rest until they restructure the community so a very few can be happy, while villainizing the core group who created the community and the culture itself.  

This describes Anita Sarkeesian. A woman who, in my opinion is a scammer, but was paid over $100,000 for a series of videos researching sexism in gaming. Sarkeesian made the video series Tropes versus Women examining various "tropes" in video games and pop culture. Most time Sarkeesian is greated by love and affection by those who buy into her threat narrave of men oppressing women and locking them. She disables comments so no one is able to argue against what she has to know is often misleading and inaccurate information. Sarkeesian constantly misrepresents or straight out lies to make her points. (Please see her content for yourself).

She is only one person in a new wave of feminist for pay who seek out problems and try to change sub-cultures to suit their desires (and line their pockets) based on the idea men are hiding some kind of privilege, even while it's clear women have same privileges (and these privileges are mainly based on the time you put in and the money you have to spend). 

In 2011 feminist Natalie Wilson went to Comicon (admittedly her first). Was she interested in it? Of course not. She simply wanted to see what us MEN were up to and how we were abusing the poor women there and of course she claimed sexism. While she starts off pretending she was somewhat understanding of the culture, the same claim is made, women are harassed and leered at when dressed in skimp clothes that no one forced them to dress in. But she ends with:

"Yet, despite the general male domination of Comic-Con, despite the woman-as-object meme apparent in the exhibit hall, and despite the off-putting commentary of some panelists with obviously unexamined white/male/heterosexual privilege, I nevertheless left Comic-Con with the feeling that fandoms are indeed becoming more diverse (though I was unhappy to see “No Women Allowed” T-shirts at several of the large clothing booths). 

While her only good point was about Adult Anime be open for all to see (although she gives no example so I don't know what she saw or if it was even pornographic), in the article she implies that the diversity of fandom is somehow based on what men are doing and fail to breakdown that it has more to do with women simply not caring as much. She also still works under the threat narrative women will be mistreated at comic conventions and that male unexamined unchecked white/male/heterosexual privilege run rampant. Also she pushes the same form of thought policing feminist seem to be keen on, the idea that you must be politically correct to go out amongst others.

Realistically, isn't this just a bunch of people buying comics and cartoon crap, taking pictures and talking about it? That's mostly what I see when I go to Comic Cons. And then she acts shocked no one takes her seriously when talking about sexism at a Comic Convention. No one is interested. They came to the con to get away from reality for awhile, then here you come. 

And finally Rebecca Watson, who is another one known for doing this, but instead of trolling geeks she did it to the Atheist community. She wondered why women weren't coming to atheist and skeptic conventions. She worked to alert other women about them and spoke on women's issues. But what Watson became known for was a man saying to her, “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?” 

She went on Youtube and said And explained she felt sexualized and hit them with, "Guys don't do that." Watson's not unattractive, but she's no Beyoncé either. But according to her men are slinging it to her 24/7 and she's swatting it away all day everyday. The idea that a man my be interested in a woman who has the same interest even just to speak with her or even be in a relationship is mind boggling to her. The atheist community lashed out at her just like gamers did Sarkeesian. And of course she cried victim. 

What was the problem with all three of these scenarios? People (men and women both) were enjoying something and a random feminist came in and felt gaming shouldn't about games, comics shouldn't be about comics and Atheist conventions should be about Atheism, but should be about women's issues or have a place for it even when the event has nothing to do with women as a group. But through the eyes of feminism everything has to be about women and more often than not, about the women who're forcing themselves on everyone involved including other women in the culture who're just there enjoying themselves. 

I'll leave you with the immortal words of Rebecca Watson, ladies, "Don't do that."

CNN Thinks It's Okay to Manufacture News?"

Say what you will about Alex Jones, but he's on point here. In this video he shows CNN anchors manufacturing news. Some people won't even take time to view it because it goes against their belief that the new media tells the truth. CNN, particularly Anderson Cooper was all over the Sandy Hook story when it first broke, but now there may be proof that CNN is still manufacturing news. 

Law Enforcement Prepared to Shoot Pregnant Moms and the Elderly

According to InfoWars.com, Law Enforcement Training Inc, a company out of Minnesota that makes and markets training equipment for law enforcement, has started marketing "No Hesitation" paper targets that are made to train officers not to hesitate when accosted by pregnant women, children and elderly people.  

Retired officer T.F. Stern states, “Why are top training target suppliers for the government supplying the likes of the DHS with “non-traditional threat” targets of children, pregnant women, mothers in playgrounds, and elderly American gun owners unless there is a demand for such items?” and  "There’s something wrong, seriously wrong here. If we start to desensitize law enforcement officers, have them disregard humanity, to feel nothing’s wrong in shooting a pregnant lady or an old man with a shotgun inside his own home…then what kind of society have we become? How will police officers react after they no longer believe they are part of the society which they have been charged with policing, when they have become used to shooting pregnant ladies and old men?

Stern also states, "At the risk of being politically incorrect, America isn’t a third world hell hole, at least not yet, like the Middle East where female suicide bombers hide explosives under a burqa, walk into a crowded shopping area and detonate themselves in the name of Alla.  Heaven forbid anyone point this out for fear CAIR might lodge a complaint for having been singled out; never mind that it’s true."

But the fact is I truly believe the government are indeed trying to turn us into a third world hellhole. They want cops to be on edge. Did you see what went down with the Dorner incident? Cops shooting at random people who didn't even match the description? The cops are becoming as much of a threat as the criminals. Why is this okay?

Does Chick-Fil-A Have to be Politically Correct?

Photo by Mike Stewart / Associated Press

Chick-Fil-A is an openly Christian chain of restaurants. With that being said, they believe gay marriage is a sin. Because of this stance Boston's Mayor Thomas M. Menino said “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Menino stated to the Boston Herald.

I'm not going to get into a religious debate, only point out that the problem here is, this is illegal. See, a business like Chick-Fil-A has a right to a belief. Menino stating that Chick-Fil-A is discriminating is an insinuation and not a fact. Unless there is evidence Chick-Fil-A is either not hiring gays or not serving them or giving them poor service (as a company policy or practice) there is no grounds for stating or insinuating that they discriminate. That could be grounds for a slander lawsuit.

There is nothing in the law that says business owners must believe any specific thing. You have Christian business owner, Atheist business owners,  gay business owners and the like. But there is nothing that says one has to believe or disbelieve a religious idea. So today's lesson will be about the way the free market works.

Chick-Fil-A,  is a chain of restaurants that openly espouse Christian values and ideologies. They don't hide it and it's been part of the company's identity for years. The way the free market works is that if a Chick-Fil-A comes to your town and you don't agree with their beliefs, then you don't shop there. If enough people don't shop there then the restaurant closes. Simple. So gays and gays supporters have to convince people they are right and that people shouldn't patronize their chains. The problem is, many people do agree with their stance and will still shop there as is their right.

BUT, the Mayor opens the city up for a lawsuit, because they are encroaching on Chick-Fil-A's religious freedom by openly discriminating against them. If the Mayor doesn't know this maybe he should take a class in business law. (I used to work for a Corporate Counsel law firm). It is unconstitutional and illegal for the Mayor to block Chick-Fil-A on the basis that they're religious beliefs don't fit into what he feels is the proper political mold.  It is Chick-Fil-A, that is being discriminated against.

-Nate