Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/17/2020 in Posts

  1. 1 point
    In late 2018, I attended an event called the 21 Convention. One big reason is that the founder is a guy named Anthony Johnson. He is definitely an Objectivist and has said so on his show The Red Man Group. He started the 21 Convention when he was in his teens and is now around the age of 30. Yaron Brook has also spoken at the 21 Convention in the past. During that time, he has re-invented his event several times. He initially invited men from the seduction community like Ross Jeffries and Steve Mayeda. He has also over the years focused on self-improvement, inviting fitness and business gurus like Drew Baye and Elliot Hulse. The conference has become more focused on becoming an anti-feminist or even a male supremacist conference. In 2018, it was clearly a RED-PILL conference. Unfortunately, Anthony has also shown some of the same narcissism that Rand showed. He has had quite a few bad breakups with speakers--most recently Rollo Tomassi and Richard Cooper. His breakup with Tomassi has been about as silly as the one involving Rand and Branden in 1968. Personally, I've taken Rollo's side in all this. He has gotten a lot of attention lately because of his upcoming 22 Convention. The 22 Convention is advertised as a "mansplaining event," with the goal of "making women great again." He has been getting a lot of coverage lately--almost all of it negative. Here are some samples: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7838273/Make-Women-Great-convention-hosted-MEN-teach-attendees-ideal-women.html https://nypost.com/2020/01/02/mansplaining-conference-hopes-to-make-women-great-again/ https://www.dallasobserver.com/arts/florida-men-who-have-never-touched-a-woman-free-of-charge-want-to-make-women-great-again-11845861 Anthony's Facebook profile is here: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100024606491279 The 21 Convention is here: http://www.the21convention.com/ The 22 Convention is here: https://22convention.com/ Here is what 21 and 22 Convention speaker Stefan Molyneux has said about all this: https://youtu.be/PbuuSKLVWr8
  2. 1 point
  3. 1 point
    Good investigation from the BBC: How a boy from Vietnam became a slave on a UK cannabis farm
  4. 1 point
    That is a good question. First, Anthony made some charges against Rollo that were very much the same tone as the charges Rand made against Branden. Here is a video Anthony made, and it is quite silly: Here is the response from Rollo Tomassi, which includes a few others: I have not totally disavowed Anthony Johnson. There are still some speakers I would like to see at 21 Con, but I doubt I will go back. I also won't be surprised if Anthony and Molyneux have a bad break up in the future as well. There is just way too much narcissism there.
  5. 1 point
    The Rand/Branden breakup was not "silly." That implies trivialities. But what was important then is no longer now. The ideas remain. --Brant
  6. 1 point
    Part 3--without comment so far. I haven't even seen it yet. But I know it's good. I've seen Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham comment on it this morning. That means it is going to get a bigger splash audience than normal. Michael
  7. 1 point
    Long live John Galt We have taken the White House and renamed it Galts Gulch
  8. 1 point
    Emperor Trump anyone !!!!!!!!!!!! Hail, my president , my Emperor, my King !!!!!!!!!!!! I love you , Mr. President !!!!!!
  9. 1 point
    Tough question. Ideally I'd want schools run on a mixture of Montessori and Summerhill methods, foster a culture where the individual (NOT the "School Community" (or the tribe or the pack or the group or the master race or the brotherhood of the proletariat or the nation state)) is seen as the fundamental unit, there's no "school spirit" and no religion, and there are absolutely no rules EXCEPT "do not start force/fraud/coercion/bullying." Run classes like a University. No coerced attendance, lecturers have expertise but not authority (observing Sharon Presley's distinction between the two). No uniforms. In other words, treat children like human beings rather than pack animals. As a consequence, they'll be less likely to act like pack animals themselves (i.e. bully others and create conformist cliques). Authoritarianism CREATES and PERPETUATES bullying; the military is full of 'hazing' but there's almost none in universities (some fraternities are an exception but they're basically structures that exist for those that gravitate towards pack-animalism). Montessori schools are basically bully-free, authoritarian schools are full of bullies. More freedom, less bullying. Some people might say some kids "need" structure and control, but I say that people naturally thrive under freedom. I certainly did and I'm not Superman. Call me a social darwinist if you will, but those that "need" structure and control strike me as malformed examples of human beings. My daughter went to a Montessori pre-school and is now in a Montessori elementary school. She will be entering sixth grade, the final year of her Montessori elementary school. I cannot say enough good things about her school. It is truly a wonderful, nurturing place. All of the Montessori values are strongly emphasized. In addition to a first rate academic education, the entire educational experience is beautifully balanced. The focus is on the development of the total child, not just academically but socially and ethically. Needless to say, kids are strongly encouraged to be nice and to respect each other's rights. This is an integral aspect of the school's culture. Bullying is absolutely not tolerated. And there are no school uniforms. The idea is most definitely not to prepare the kids for a regimented, soul-destroying life in the military or anywhere else. Maria Montessori was definitely a woman way ahead of her time. She was a true heroine. Martin
  10. 1 point
    Tough question. Ideally I'd want schools run on a mixture of Montessori and Summerhill methods, foster a culture where the individual (NOT the "School Community" (or the tribe or the pack or the group or the master race or the brotherhood of the proletariat or the nation state)) is seen as the fundamental unit, there's no "school spirit" and no religion, and there are absolutely no rules EXCEPT "do not start force/fraud/coercion/bullying." Run classes like a University. No coerced attendance, lecturers have expertise but not authority (observing Sharon Presley's distinction between the two). No uniforms. In other words, treat children like human beings rather than pack animals. As a consequence, they'll be less likely to act like pack animals themselves (i.e. bully others and create conformist cliques). Authoritarianism CREATES and PERPETUATES bullying; the military is full of 'hazing' but there's almost none in universities (some fraternities are an exception but they're basically structures that exist for those that gravitate towards pack-animalism). Montessori schools are basically bully-free, authoritarian schools are full of bullies. More freedom, less bullying. Some people might say some kids "need" structure and control, but I say that people naturally thrive under freedom. I certainly did and I'm not Superman. Call me a social darwinist if you will, but those that "need" structure and control strike me as malformed examples of human beings.
  11. 1 point
    This is not true. Either sentence. Care to elaborate? Since I've read about the theory, I've kept my eyes open and seen situations where it seemed to fit. Judith Hazing is group sanctioned bullying. There use to be a lot of it in Fraternities and the military academies, archetypically West Point. General MacArthur stopped the worst of it over 80 years ago. The idea is you are an outsider until bullied (hazed) then you are an insider and get to bully the to-be-initiated. In the U.S. military discipline and group training does this job. When hazing gets out of hand and into the news the brass step in to stop it. I have no doubt in many foreign armies extreme hazing goes on but it has nothing to do with combat readiness and having one's back protected. For instance, in the Soviet army hazing went so far as to include homosexual rape of newly drafted recruits. In my three years in the army I never experienced hazing. True, I was not in a regular combat unit, but I underwent basic training and advanced individual light weapons training and jump school at Ft. Benning. In Special Forces I was with senior non-commissioned officers, all highly trained specialists. Hazing simply means that the hazed is going to be looking for revenge. You don't want someone like that watching your back. Young, unmarried males with guns are the most dangerous creatures on the planet, aside from their political leaders. --Brant