Sign in to follow this  
algernonsidney

Anthony Johnson and his conventions

Recommended Posts

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

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

Long time. Good to see you again.

:)

I don't know that much about these people except for Stefan Molyneux, who I like in general. I don't agree with him on a few things, though, and I don't find much interest when he plays Dear Abby. I seriously dislike his form of presentation where he makes a sarcastic remark every two or three sentences in a frantic tone--he doesn't do this with interviews, only when he's by himself. But, overall, he is clear in his meanings, is mostly reasonable and rational, and has one hell of a work ethic. I admire all of those qualities.

I bopped around for a couple of moments looking into these other people and, from the impression I got and the persuasion techniques I saw being discussed, this movement is an outgrowth of the PUA (pick-up-artist) movement from around the time of The Game by Neil Strauss.

Some of that shit is powerful, too. There's a guy name Oren Klaff who took their principles and techniques and, instead of using them on women, applied them to making pitches to venture capitalist companies with great success.

I have a feeling these conventions are staged to take advantage of the current backlash to the MeToo movement and super-radical feminism. In my view, all this shall pass. Is this part of the MGTOW (men-going-their-own-way) movement? 

Also, a guy showed up a couple of years ago here on OL who runs a male empowerment thing out in California. I can't remember his name, though.

It's probably because I come from a different generation, which has other forms of indoctrination that did not involve gender, but I don't resonate with these things. I'm not against them. I just don't feel anything inside when I try to analyze the issues they fight over. 

Probably, at root, they are mostly about political power and the issues are merely hooks to justify their noise. Kinda like with the female-oriented folks they oppose. And, on all sides, it's about getting laid, of course. 

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an interesting perspective on all this. I was born in 1971. My parents were born in 1931 and 1934. My grandparents were born from 1894 to 1906 (I think). So, I had parents and grandparents who were all married before the so-called 'sexual revolution." The "system" that we had before all that was far from perfect. It worked about as well as any system we've had though.

It look me a long time to realize that things had changed. Incidentally, the biggest redpill for me were some things that happened at the seminars at the Institute for Objectivist Studies in 1995 and 1996. It took me a very long time for me to make sense of what had happened and why it had happened. I still don't exactly who said what or why they said it. I do have a much greater understanding of all this now.

I don't think it is that common for women to lie in court to lie to the police. There can be legal consequences there. I do think it is very common for women to lie or exaggerate in social groups, clubs, networks, and other things like that. And, of course, it doesn't have to be a lie. If a woman says something like, "That guy is creepy," the organizers of an event will bar the "creepy guy" from the event without asking for any facts.

Guys like Neil Strauss, the seduction community, the manosphere, and other things are all a response to this kind of garbage. MGTOW is just one section of the whole men's movement.

Unfortunately, Anthony Johnson also exhibits some of the most negative traits of some Objectivists. In 2019, he decided to rebrand his conferences and company. This lead to him parting ways with Rollo Tomassi (I don't know if this name is real or fake). The breakup was very ugly with Anthony making accusations like "conduct unbecoming a speaker", etc. It was something that seemed way too much like some of the bad breakups that have happened in Objectivism. Now, Anthony is embracing guys like Molyneux and Mike Cernovich.

Many people (myself included) have taken Rollo's side in the breakup. In fact, I have gained a lot of respect for Rollo and the others for how they have handled the schism.

As far as I know, Anthony has never been to ARI or similar events. I haven't asked him.

Many of the men in the redpill scene are as much about self-improvement as anything else. They would agree with Francisco when he said that a man who chases women despises himself. One of the men at 21 Con said that "you will never lose women pursuing excellence." I found a lot of high-achieving men at 21 Con, and they were also guys who were high achievers when it comes to women.

I have met a lot of men who are high achieving in their professional lives at Randist events. These same men are also very low achieving when it comes to women. Nathaniel Branden went through four marriages. I think Jimmy Wales has had three. Some guys are successful, but they seem to be the exception.

I have not read Rollo Tomassi's books yet. I have listened to him a lot though. Rollo has not read Rand, although I do think Randists can sympathize with the name of his books. Rollo has been married to one women for 23 years and has a college-age daughter. Go here:


https://therationalmale.com/

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, algernonsidney said:

Many people (myself included) have taken Rollo's side in the breakup.

Chris,

I don't mean this to be critical of you. It's just the way I try to see things at first.

Enough preface and here goes.

Why take any side in a breakup?

From what I've seen, people on both sides offer great advice and information--and some mediocre to bad, for that matter. I doubt any of them could pass any ideological purity test.

So what is the standard for choosing a side? The tribe? One particular issue or event? Whim? (At least I could see it if you were paid good money to take a side... :) )

My unsolicited advice is for you to take Chris's side. Always. And if anybody doesn't like that, fuck 'em.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nathaniel Branden was very successful with women. His second wife died tragically. If not for that he'd likely had just two marriages.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rand/Branden breakup was not "silly." That implies trivialities. But what was important then is no longer now. The ideas remain.

--Brant

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2020 at 10:35 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Chris,

I don't mean this to be critical of you. It's just the way I try to see things at first.

Enough preface and here goes.

Why take any side in a breakup?

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.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2020 at 12:23 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Nathaniel Branden was very successful with women. His second wife died tragically. If not for that he'd likely had just two marriages.

--Brant

Branden was only successful after he took on the role leader of a guru. Cult-leader game has been known to work very well--see David Koresh. Peikoff himself is also on his third marriage, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, algernonsidney said:

Branden was only successful after he took on the role leader of a guru. Cult-leader game has been known to work very well--see David Koresh. Peikoff himself is also on his third marriage, I think.

Your stew might work except for the bag of sugar you threw in.

I guess Trump owes his success with women to being a billionaire.

Nathaniel met Barbara before either met Ayn. And Ayn went bonkers over him before any "cult" came into existence.

His third wife, Devers, was about as far from cult stricken as imaginable.

 --Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Your stew might work except for the bag of sugar you threw in.

I guess Trump owes his success with women to being a billionaire.

Nathaniel met Barbara before either met Ayn. And Ayn went bonkers over him before any "cult" came into existence.

His third wife, Devers, was about as far from cult stricken as imaginable.

 --Brant

What kind of success is this anyway? Both men have at least two divorces.

Divorce is the biggest failure a man can experience. Most divorces are initiated by women, and most men lose a lot of money in them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2020 at 10:41 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Also, a guy showed up a couple of years ago here on OL who runs a male empowerment thing out in California. I can't remember his name, though.

Chris,

Here is the thread I made that prompted the guy to show up.

A Different Kind of Objectivist Romance

I looked this up because the name Socrates rang a bell from videos I had seen, then I remembered the name Anthony Johnson.

The thread dealt with one weird case to me. Johnson was proposing to breed certain kinds of women out of the human race and claimed that blow jobs were not sex.

:)

He really did and I'm funning in the way I framed it, but I felt for the guy.

He didn't post on OL, though. Instead, a person from San Diego named "Mike Olberding" got in touch with me offline soon after this thread went up. He wanted to talk personally with me about some issue involving coauthorship for a book on golfing or something like that. But the personal message thread was called "Relationship," so it was pretty obvious that this was Johnson. Anyway, we talked on the phone and his real issue was about writing an autobiography, but I don't remember it well. The questions he had involved storytelling. I know something I said clicked and seemed to have solved a problem for him in framing the story. He soon signed off and we have not communicated since.

That's about all I've got on Anthony Johnson.

I tried to watch the videos you posted, but I couldn't get through more than about 10 minutes of each. I saw that these people got wound up--that the matter and personal spats were important to them. I just don't resonate with this niche.

In fact, during the Rand Branden split, I imagine people outside of O-Land who looked in felt the same as I do about this manosphere feud.

The main theme from the outside appears like squabbles over money and fame and power within a small space, but from within the space, people treat it as massive betrayals that threaten the future of mankind. :) 

I don't mean to make light of this for insiders. After all, within the Rand-Branden thing, I played a small part when that awful book by Valliant came out.

Right now, I'm merely reporting what I see when I look at it from different perspectives.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, algernonsidney said:

What kind of success is this anyway? Both men have at least two divorces.

Divorce is the biggest failure a man can experience. Most divorces are initiated by women, and most men lose a lot of money in them.

 

Divorce as failure? It's only a tool. Without divorce's context you can't bottom line it. Sometimes not getting divorced is bad.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Chris,

Here is the thread I made that prompted the guy to show up.

A Different Kind of Objectivist Romance

I looked this up because the name Socrates rang a bell from videos I had seen, then I remembered the name Anthony Johnson.

The thread dealt with one weird case to me. Johnson was proposing to breed certain kinds of women out of the human race and claimed that blow jobs were not sex.

:)

He really did and I'm funning in the way I framed it, but I felt for the guy.

He didn't post on OL, though. Instead, a person from San Diego named "Mike Olberding" got in touch with me offline soon after this thread went up. He wanted to talk personally with me about some issue involving coauthorship for a book on golfing or something like that. But the personal message thread was called "Relationship," so it was pretty obvious that this was Johnson. Anyway, we talked on the phone and his real issue was about writing an autobiography, but I don't remember it well. The questions he had involved storytelling. I know something I said clicked and seemed to have solved a problem for him in framing the story. He soon signed off and we have not communicated since.

That's about all I've got on Anthony Johnson.

I tried to watch the videos you posted, but I couldn't get through more than about 10 minutes of each. I saw that these people got wound up--that the matter and personal spats were important to them. I just don't resonate with this niche.

In fact, during the Rand Branden split, I imagine people outside of O-Land who looked in felt the same as I do about this manosphere feud.

The main theme from the outside appears like squabbles over money and fame and power within a small space, but from within the space, people treat it as massive betrayals that threaten the future of mankind. :) 

I don't mean to make light of this for insiders. After all, within the Rand-Branden thing, I played a small part when that awful book by Valliant came out.

Right now, I'm merely reporting what I see when I look at it from different perspectives.

Michael

Yes, that is the same Anthony Johnson. He was constantly obsessing over Medusa and how she had wronged him. I don't know a lot about their relationship.

I only watched the videos because I wanted to know the truth. There are lots of people claiming to be gurus, coaches, philosophers, and self-help experts. Many of them  have lives that are a mess and should not be taken seriously. Would you hire a personal trainer who is 50 pounds overweight?

I watched Anthony's video. I was just thinking: "Yes, this guy is an Objectivist." Anthony's behavior isn't that shocking because I've seen it in the Objectivist movement.

There is a lot more than just dating and relationships at the 21 Con. Men talked about starting business, fitness, nutrition, clothes, and law. It really was about being the best man you can be. There was a lot of useful stuff that I have never seen at any Objectivist events.

By the way, here is Yaron Brook speaking at the 21 Con:
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this