scratch-mark

Speaking Engagement at The 21 Convention

I got an email from Anthony Johnson a while back about speaking at the convention he conceived of at the age of 17, made it real at 18 and now, at 22, has made international.

I didn’t immediately accept the invitation. And then, my Googling gave me a bit of pause. Apparently, Anthony and his convention are tied to the Pickup or Seduction Community (here, too) and some of the word on the street is that it’s just all about superficial pickups involving the skill of the con, going for the physically acceptable but intellectually weakest of the species human with vagina, and making the most of it. For a night.

But I’m glad I looked deeper. After all, casual glances at me often give people the impression I’m just an angry blogger when in reality, I’m trying to make things a bit more interesting than is my impression of a lot of stuff out there. So, after checking things out, learning of who has spoken there before (mentioned in the video interview, below), noting what a serious young man Anthony Johnson is by skimming his blog, I decided to accept. And if you’re so inclined, you can attend too.

T21C 2011 Orlando

Now, here’s the post of Anthony’s that really clued me in on what I was dealing with and made me affiramatively decide to pitch in and help: The PUA Community? – and Its Cardinal Sins (PUA: "Pickup Artist").

Regarding which coaches to avoid, oh boy. I do not even have a specific answer for this question, because the PUA Community is packed to the gills with thieves, liars, and shady business practices – but then again, how many coaching industries aren’t? …

Which brings me to one of my final points in response to your e-mail – the cardinal sins of the PUA Community. …

  • Cardinal sin #1: Encouraging you to place anyone’s judgment over your own.
  • Cardinal sin #2: Stemming from #1, give primary concern to observations (responses from women and your environment), and secondary concern to your own thoughts and emotions (if at all) in any given situation.
  • Cardinal sin #3: Success with women requires compromise.

Well, that’s just bare excerpts and there’s a lot more in that post that I find quite impressive. So to sum it up for me, I’m convinced that this is a needed and wholesome movement, which Anthony and I discuss in a video interview lasting just under 10 minutes. [Do note that Anthony was kind enough to push forward on this scheduled interview even though his house had been broken into and robbed only hours before.]

The 21 Convention Interview with Anthony Johnson from Richard Nikoley on Vimeo.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

95 Comments

  1. Neill on May 19, 2011 at 15:55

    What I find so interesting is how guys all over the place get into this way of eating / exercising so easily. I wrote a post about the so-called ‘manosphere’ a few weeks ago and paleo / primal seems to be quite popular amongst that corner of the web.

    It goes to show that the perceived unwillingness / laziness of people to handle their health is in part because they’ve been taught stuff that simply doesn’t work. No wonder they are reluctant to try what they perceive as a fad diet (remember, diets are only for women).

    I wonder how paleo / primal is growing amongst women? When I talk to my female friends about it they immediately tell me it sounds like Atkins. I guess women have been marketed various diets for many years now and it may take longer for paleo / primal to make an impact.

    Who knows, maybe the recent post Hawaian Libertarian about raising his baby on Paleo will worm its way into the public awareness?

    • Dave from Hawaii on May 19, 2011 at 20:34

      Who knows, maybe the recent post Hawaian Libertarian about raising his baby on Paleo will worm its way into the public awareness?

      Judging by the number of naysayers and skeptics who registered their disapproval that Mark Sisson would link to my humble little blog…well, I wouldn’t count on it.

      • Anthony Dream Johnson on May 20, 2011 at 04:02

        Dave, I’ve been trying to send you a speaking invite to the convention for a long time. If you’re interested, shoot me an e-mail via the contact form on my blog (just click my name).

        Awesome blog btw.



  2. keithallenlaw on May 19, 2011 at 15:56

    Well, shit, if Richards going then the women will be flocking over him and I aint gotta snowballs chance in hell of getting any play. Will you please save some for me Richard if I decide to go? HA!

    Thanks for the post!

  3. rob on May 19, 2011 at 16:07

    I have been a PUA for over 36 years, starting at the age of 12, and I am glad to see the movement gaining some recognition, more parents should encourage their sons to join the community, in this day and age the Boy Scouts just aren’t relevant, boys want to start macking not camping.

    I have finely honed my PUA skills to the point where I am widely recognized as “The Velociraptor Of Love”

  4. Dregs on May 19, 2011 at 17:41

    Richard,

    Unrelated to this post: I noticed that you dipped your toe into the dust-up at Don Matesz’s Primal Wisdom the other day in his post about Saturated Fat, Blood Viscosity and Disease.* Although the back-and-forth between Matesz, Michaeljohn and Guyenet got pretty accrimonious and prickly (mostly on Matesz’ part, I have to say; Michaeljohn and Guyenet expressed their misgivings strongly but they remained polite).

    I do think this type of debate is important within the paleo community because there may well be an unhealthy tendency to feel the we have figured it all out and that we can all stop worrying about health and diet because we are protected by eating paleo. But, as we all know paleo diets can vary from eating nothing but fish and vegetables (a la de Vany and Cordain) to eating nothing but red meat and high-fat dairy (a la someone like Kurt Harris). And to preclude that possibility that one or more paleo-compliant diets CANNOT lead to disease is a dangerously close-minded approach that all of us would do well to avoid.

    I applaud Matesz’s decision to raise the issue, but I equally applaud Michaeljohn and Guyenet (and you) for engaging Matesz in that debate. Now, Matesz has apparently taken down the posting. Maybe I shouldn’t conjecture about his reasons for doing so, but I tend to think he didn’t like the criticism and maybe even had concerns about his professional reputation, etc. This, I think, was a mistake. A key reason for the success of the paleo movement is its willingness to challenge orthodoxies, withstand criticism and pursue scientific truth wherever it leads. Challenging orthodoxies includes challenging PALEO orthodoxies.

    If Matesz is right, he is right and he should maintain his position, continue to research it and continue to educate the public on it. If he is wrong, he is wrong and he should revise what he said and admit his error.

    Anyway, I thought that this issue was worthing pursuing here to see if you have further thoughts on this.

    I would throw out a final thought for people to consider: modern paleo-style diets in the United States have a relatively short history. That many of us have achieved good results on these diets may have led us to stop thinking about the LONG-TERM effects of a certain diet. Maybe the Standard Paleo Diet is great for reducing weight and other things when one is a certain age, or for a certain period. But maybe it increases risk of, say, colon cancer, hardening of arteries, etc. in the LONG-TERM. I am an ordinary person: I have no idea what the right answer is. But I certainly want that research to be done by paleo-sympathetic researchers and experts, and I want that debate to be encouraged within the paleo community (and, for that matter, the community at large).

    Thoughts?

    * (Don titled the post “Melting Temperature of Dietary Fats”. I still have it on my Google Reader although without all the comments. There were 76 comments the last time I saw the post before it was taken down.)

    • Richard Nikoley on May 19, 2011 at 18:00

      Dregs.

      Yea, I was dissapointed he took down the post, particularly wit no indication of respect for the commenters (mine was a mere blurb), but Masterjohn should get props.

      While I’m willing to consider that heaping fat on everything might be misguided health wise (and is not Paleo – I agree), I think his premise and intro to the post about melting points was, frankly, absurd.

      On the other hand, the whole thing made me zero in on a concept I think is quite lacking or underemphasized in paleo, so I’m chewing on a post. Preliminarily, some of those thoughts are posted, by mere coincidence, on Lyle McDonald’s forum under the ‘paleo rage’ thread, about me.

    • Kurt G Harris MD on May 19, 2011 at 20:20

      @Dregs

      “eating nothing but red meat and high-fat dairy (a la someone like Kurt Harris)”

      You can’t spell Masterjohn and don’t read very carefully either, apparently. I eat eggs, dairy fat and red meat. I also eat green vegetables, sweet potatoes, white rice and basically anything but wheat veggie oils and soda pop.

      Why do some people always try to paint things as more extreme than they actually are? This is what I hate about the whole stupid “paleo” movement. The Matesz fiasco is a perfect illustration. Either one must force down animal fats for optimal health or – no wait, they will kill you after all.

      Avoid unnatural agents of disease outside your evolutionary experience like excess veggie oils, and sugar and refined flour.

      Apart from that, you can run on either animal fats or starch just fine. Neither one is poison if you are not diabetic and it’s nuts to have ever thought either one might be.

      And by the way, Matesz is now just Carbsane with a beard. They both prove that you can read all you want, but it’s all useless if you can’t think. Absolutely zero credibility going forward. To suggest “simple physics” and a few moments of contemplation is a basis for thinking rheology of the blood is determined by melting points of dietary fat is just insane. He understands neither physics nor physiology.

      Fatty acid and triglycerides are present in tiny quantities in the blood and are bound in micellar form with no expsosure of the acyl groups to the blood (which they are not miscible in) , hence the degree of saturation has zero direct effect on blood viscosity. Blood viscosity is largely dependent on exactly one parameter – total red cell volume. It has jack to do with fatty acids.

      Matesz may as well have said he believes in astral projection and reincarnation, which he probably does anyway. “Chinese medicine”, indeed. What a charlatan. At least Deepak Chopra is warm and fuzzy.

      • Dregs on May 19, 2011 at 20:44

        Kurt, it was not my intention to pigeon-hole your diet as consisting of just two things. My point was that there are a huge range of diets that fit comfortably within the paleo / primal / archevore / whatever-you-want-to-call-it paradigm. For many lay people, such as myself, this leads to a sense that there is still a great deal of uncertainty as to what any one particular diet will do for any one particular person over a long time period. I was using a kind of shorthand to describe what I see as very different approaches within the [whatever-you-want-to-call-it] paradigm of eating. Apologies if I implied that you are advocating a narrowly defined diet.

        The following is a comment I recently left at another blog re: your approach.

        “As for Harris, his blog is simply great. His “Archevore diet” principles (previously labeled “12 steps to eating paleo”) is the clearest and easiest to follow exposition of how to eliminate the neolithic agents of disease from one’s diet that I have found.”



      • Kurt G Harris MD on May 19, 2011 at 22:03

        fair enough. I didn’t mean to be thin skinned. I am just rather freshly frustrated by some of the straw men being burned regularly burned by Carbsane, Matesz and others, and such shorthand characterization is hard to read when I have taken pains to distance myself from the insulin theory, “all carbs and plants are poison”, etc.

        I suppose the substitution of animal fat for sugar and flour is read as gorging on meat, but my diet is not all that meat heavy. And there is no proscription against plants.

        I’d also like to get away from the idea that particular diets will “do” anything in particular. I think that is one of the problems we have in our discourse. We should just think about “not doing” things – “not doing damage”- and then eating real food. Too much thought is given to optimality, when there is really no such thing. We will all die eventually no matter what we eat.



      • Nathan7469 on May 19, 2011 at 22:35

        Great comments Kurt, in particular the last paragraph.
        That pretty much says it all.



      • Dregs on May 19, 2011 at 23:30

        Thanks, Kurt. Anonymous / pseudonymous commentators like myself would do well to keep in mind that bloggers like you are putting yourselves out publicly, and that we (commentators) should not lightly or casually try to summarize or attach labels to you that lead others to misinterpret your positions and your work. So I certainly understand your frustration, and will keep this in mind in the future.



      • pfw on May 20, 2011 at 10:23

        “Too much thought is given to optimality, when there is really no such thing.”

        Thank you for saying this. Someone with credibility really needs to start smacking people upside the head with the fact that optimum seeking is inherently flawed. There needs to be a new term coined (trough avoidance? dunno) for the contra approach.

        Stephan recently posted that the null hypothesis for optimum seeking ought to be “humans are best adapted to diets where starch predominates over fat”, which struck me as a perfect example of this problem. The null hypothesis should be “humans are not adapted to any particular diet.” I respect Stephan immensely for his thoughtful approach, but even he it seems falls prey to the optimum problem.



    • skitterling on May 20, 2011 at 08:52

      From the Venus posts on, I starting wondering if Don Matesz had snapped or been replaced by a pod-version…

    • Nutritionizt on May 20, 2011 at 13:16

      Dregs,
      I second your thoughts on Don’s removal of the melting point/blood viscosity post. I believe the real value of his post was in the comments. Where else can you get a spur of the moment conversation (debate?) between credible figures and laypersons for all to witness?

      It was a great opportunity to present thoughts and stances while backing them up with research and science. Unfortunately, not only was the post removed, but the insights and information within the comments are gone. I believe it cheats the subscribers, as they are there to learn and become educated. Masterjohn, Guyenet, and Matesz … all in the same discussion on one topic? Doesn’t get any better with a rare event like that.

      Richard, keep up the great work!

      • Richard Nikoley on May 20, 2011 at 13:42

        Nutritionist. If you check Chris Masterjohn’s Twitter feed from yesterday, he happened to have a tab still open and was able to preserve th first 70 comments out of 76 (I think), and he posted them to a FB post which I believe may be Oren access.

        Otherwise, archive.org might be a place to check, though I think they only archive the web periodically.



  5. Dregs on May 19, 2011 at 18:40

    Oh, right Masterjohn, not Michaeljohn…

    I look forward to the next post, and thanks for giving us a head’s up here.

    One last thought about the Primal Wisdom temptest in a teacup: Although Matesz became unnecessarilly rude and dismissive in his responses, I would say that an underlying theme is his responses was that, as a professional and advisor to others, he takes this stuff seriously, which is a good thing: OTHER PEOPLE’s health, not just his own, is on the line, and he is thinking about that at every moment. I would like ALL of my doctors and medical professionals to feel, at some level in the back of their minds, that they are concerned about the quality and state of their knowledge. Of course the irony here is that in taking down his post, Matesz is falling back into a mentality of certainty and invulnerability….

    • Richard Nikoley on May 19, 2011 at 19:52

      Good point Dregs, one which I actually thought of commenting on. But I think Don basically made the same mistake he made in noticing the problem in the first place. There is no one diet composition that works for everyone. Not high fat paleo and not low fat paleo.

  6. Dregs on May 19, 2011 at 19:14

    Checked out the Lyle McDonald forum you mentioned. Had actually never visited that website before.

    I was laughing that some detractors there were using the terms “Nickoley” and “dogma” in the same sentence. Talk about not getting what you are about.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 19, 2011 at 19:54

      Indeed. If I’m dogmatic it is in anti dogmatism.

  7. Hugh on May 19, 2011 at 19:58

    The pickup scene is easily misunderstood (much like paleo). For the most part its not about teaching men how to get laid, its about teaching men to find a girlfriend/wife. It’s about teaching men to respect themselves, which in turn leads them to respect women. It’s about leading an interesting life and not being a needy person. It’s about being a leader. It’s about understanding social cues, not for the purposes of manipulation, but to facilitate enjoyable social interactions for everyone.

    It makes sense too that paleo & “pickup” work together, because they both rely heavily on the principle that humans are evolved animals. Pickup comes from the social angle, paleo comes from the diet/fitness angle. Combine the two and you have a seriously powerful person on your hands.

    As for the Don Matesz thing, I just don’t get the tone in his recent articles. Him and CarbSanity. And Lyle McDonald for that matter. And all the other detractors. They see us as a bunch of dogmatic lemmings, which does not reflect my experience. My views on nutrition & health are constantly in flux, nothing is sacred, and that seems to be much more the norm among this crowd than any other clique or group of like-minded individuals anywhere. I always love when one of those people fires a missive against paleo, calling everyone a bunch of ditto-heads basically, and the comment section is immediately littered with….ditto-heads. “I’m on your side too, aren’t we all so fucking smart.”

    • Richard Nikoley on May 19, 2011 at 20:18

      Great comment, Hugh. Really great.

    • Dregs on May 19, 2011 at 23:44

      There are a great number of areas tied together by a common thread, and they are not limited to just paleo and PUA.

      They include “paleo” eating, PUA (or, more accurately, male / female relations, as Hugh mentions), HBD (i.e. human biodiversity as it relates to politics, sociology and psychology), Austrian / paleoconservative economics, realpolitic in international / diplomatic relations, etc.

      Perhaps we can think of it as the theory of the “Gods of the Copybook Headings”. Nature, not wishful thinking, matters. The common thread is trying to understand all things human — human nature, human relations, politics, physiology, diet, exercise, sexual relations — by understanding Man as he is, not as we wish him to be.

      I discovered the paleo diet through Dennis Mangan. Roissy not infrequently drops posts about paleo diet, HBD and Austrian economics, etc. There is a lot of cross-over among these areas and we will see even more of it as each group increasingly sees the commonalities among these different areas and issues.

      • Anthony Dream Johnson on May 20, 2011 at 04:00

        Nice comment Dregs. Brings to mind the quote “Nature to be commanded is to be obeyed.”



  8. fil on May 19, 2011 at 21:55

    funny enough, i found the paleo community through the pickup scene.
    so seeing this post was quite a surprise

  9. Trish on May 20, 2011 at 00:21

    That guy Anthony seems like he’s okay, but he’s also a bit of a psychological exhibitionist – a la Charlie Sheen. Despite all of the slick marketing and new-age spiritual lingo he is constantly throwing around for his every passing thought and activity, the fact is that he’s just a guy in his early twenties who is developing both intellectually and spiritually into a full grown adult (fortunately, judging from what’s available about him online, virtually all of that development is in the right direction). Nevertheless, he feels some strange need to take the things the rest of us learn and practice quietly and turn them into these grand specticals and social events. Perhaps it’s the only way he can make himself believe that he really believes them himself? Honestly, I’ve never read or heard anything from this guy that is really original or ground breaking. That’s perfectly okay so long as what he is purveying is true, but it just comes off as if he’s constantly trying to make himself a leader or get more than he deserves (which would make sense, given his roots are in pretending to be more appealing to women than he actually was).

    Here’s a perfect example: The 21 Convention is still, ostensibly, a “pick-up artist” convention. Spin it however he wants, ultimately it’s still just about improving oneself so one can attract and bed beautiful women. (as opposed to that being a nice byproduct of wanting to improve oneself for a socially-conscious reason like, say, wanting to play a sport more effectively). Why is his convention, then, still even remotely about “the art of seduction” if not merely for the fact that Anthony Johnson once bought into it’s premise 100%? In true psychological exhibitionist form, now that he’s beginning to realize that sleeping with the prettiest women around isn’t all it’s cracked up to be in terms of personal fulfillment, instead of just admitting that (even if just implicitly by dropping the whole PUA element from his convention completely), he has to keep it incorporated lest he be seen for what he is: a guy in his early twenties developing into a full-grown adult. The ostentation is of this guy some times is, quite frankly, nauseating.

    It’s as if, having realized that being able to seduce women at will isn’t actually fulfilling, his new source of personal fulfillment is being able to turn whatever he’s interested in at the moment into something people will pay to hear (even if 99% of those people fall into one of two groups: those who want to have what they already know repeated to them, and those who are only thinking to themselves “whatever you say, so long as it will help me get pu**y”). What Anthony needs to do is to keep doing HIT, keeping eating paleo, keep thinking roughly like an Objectivist, get a serious job and shut the hell up lest these good ideas become, at best, cheap self-help caricatures of themselves – or, at worst, the untenable tactics of “pick up artists” who don’t understand them and practice them for all the wrong reasons.

    • Jo on May 20, 2011 at 00:39

      Bang on, well said.

    • Jo on May 20, 2011 at 00:48

      That’s just it. People like to shroud what PUA are all about, using all sorts of euphemisms to make the obvious ( that it’s a method for picking up women so you can get laid ) more palatable. It encourages all the wrong things, and only reinforces antisocial thinking and behavior.

      • Anthony Dream Johnson on May 20, 2011 at 03:40

        No, of course not, all PUAs want to meet and pickup women to discuss politics and basket weaving. Sex is obviously evil, and 2 rational adults are not able to perform this act, in whatever context and relationship they choose, without forever condemning their souls to the pits of hell.

        I for the record, am very introverted and anti-social. I don’t mind it at all. I’ve love to hear your explanation as to why this is “bad”.



      • Jo on May 20, 2011 at 12:33

        I didn’t mean anti-social as in the definition of a shut-in. I meant anti-social, the opposite of prosocial, the defining word in antisocial personality disorder.

        When did I ever criticize sex? I criticize PUA methods as unsavory and manipulative. I don’t agree with the lingo PUA employs ( “oneitis” “full close” yeah those are the true marks of a respectable method ) nor the fact that PUA relies on a “technique” for seducing women, thus reducing human behavior to some petty formula based on power plays ( see “negging” ) instead of accepting that human behavior is complex and cannot be mapped so simply. Employing manipulation and NLP to seduce women and get them into bed is just not classy to me. Sorry. Seedy and underhanded? Sure.



      • Ken on May 20, 2011 at 16:41

        the manipulation criticism is one I hear all the time from detractors of the crimson arts. It’s a tawdry conceit. All goal-oriented communication — verbal or nonverbal — is a form of manipulation. When a woman advertises her cleavage she is manipulating men to do her favors or otherwise impress her. When a man works hard at his job to buy a nice car and house he is manipulating women’s attraction mechanisms. When both refrain from picking their noses or farting in public they are manipulating people’s impressions of them.



      • Jo on May 20, 2011 at 18:23

        When you’re refraining from picking your nose or farting in public, that’s adhering to social norms ( not to mention avoiding negative reinforcement in the form of embarrassment or dirty looks ), that isn’t manipulation unless you’re just relying on the small nuances of semantics to get your point across. Calculated manipulation, based on a techniques which utilize such things as “NLP” ( suggestive language, emotional tricks, mirroring [dishonest in itself], infiltrating your target’s psyche through “keywords” to promote your own agenda ) is different. It is “active manipulation”, whereas what you refer to as being within the same vein ( adorning oneself or dressing in a certain way to give off a certain impression ) is not.



      • Ken on May 20, 2011 at 18:52

        It is in the same vein, everything we do is either passive or active manipulation when interacting with people, it isn’t a bad thing, you’re trying to portray or liken manipulation as the same thing as a crime done with malfeasance.



      • Richard Nikoley on May 20, 2011 at 22:03

        Jo:

        Hilarious. If you two would only read yourselves (you and Trish). See how pathetically helpless you wish to make yourselves look.

        “Keywords.”

        Oh, you poor, poor miserable creatures. There outta be a law, I guess.



      • Trish on May 20, 2011 at 16:03

        What is rational about a young woman having sex with a guy who’s picked her up precisely because she believes – and he knows she believes (but is loathe to admit because he prefers to think of himself as some kind of non-codependent ideal individual) – she believes that his approaching her in this way isn’t something he does regularly?

        Talk all you want about it being about your “skill”, or “confidence”, or even your philosophically-evolved lack of guilt about appropriate “casual sex” (which, by the way, I agree is a valid concept), but the bottom line is that you’re taking advantage of women who don’t think the same way (and who think you think the way they think).



      • Ken on May 20, 2011 at 16:37

        “What is rational about a young woman having sex with a guy who’s picked her up precisely because she believes – and he knows she believes (but is loathe to admit because he prefers to think of himself as some kind of non-codependent ideal individual) – she believes that his approaching her in this way isn’t something he does regularly?”

        Who cares?



      • NM on May 29, 2011 at 19:10

        The men should care, really, since they’re leaving money on the table, so to speak.

        *Plenty* of women would like to have more sex than they have…*without* feeling that the man in question thinks he is getting laid at her expense. By treating women as human beings, and sex as some sort of excellent shared activity rather than a business transaction, everybody wins. The guys I know who maintain this attitude tend to have had very active and varied sexual and relationship histories, with a disproportionately low percentage of nightmare ex/nightmare hook-up stories.



      • Sonagi on May 20, 2011 at 18:10

        Caveat emptor in consentual sex. Both men and women are capable of adjusting their strategies through experience to get what they want. Women have a canny ability to assess a man’s intentions, an evolved trait critical for survival since sex carried a risk of pregnancy for most of human history. Though birth control has almost eliminated this risk, the instinct remains. Women can deal with men as they are. Don’t underestimate our sex.



    • Anthony Dream Johnson on May 20, 2011 at 03:56

      Not true. I am on the edge — Charlie Sheen is one step over it.

      “Despite all of the slick marketing”

      >> God are you kidding? I am widely known to have the worst “marketing” around. I build events the way they were meant to be built — I only have the bare minimum skill necessary for promoting them. I find it pretty amusing that you take me as a good salesman.

      “new-age spiritual lingo he is constantly throwing around”

      >>No, that’s just how I write. Weird huh?

      “Nevertheless, he feels some strange need to take the things the rest of us learn and practice quietly and turn them into these grand specticals and social events.”

      >>No, wrong again. I have the need to find great ideas and spread them — the ideas of other great men. The grand spectacle and social event part is also, bizarre, and very telling that you’ve never actually been to the convention.

      “Honestly, I’ve never read or heard anything from this guy that is really original or ground breaking”

      >>I’m running the first and only true men’s conference in the world. This has never been done before. In what way is that not original?

      “Here’s a perfect example: The 21 Convention is still, ostensibly, a “pick-up artist” convention. Spin it however he wants, ultimately it’s still just about improving oneself so one can attract and bed beautiful women. (as opposed to that being a nice byproduct of wanting to improve oneself for a socially-conscious reason like, say, wanting to play a sport more effectively)”

      >>Not only have you never been to one of the events, but from the sound of it, you’ve never watched a single video from the event, all of which are free. Your comment is by definition, fully ignorant. Socially-conscious? Bleh. Give me a barf bag.

      My convention by the way, and what it is about, is not for you to decide. I find it pretty strange that you are so eager to judge and shape something which you know nothing about, nor, play any sort of readership role in, or any role in at all, other than of a critic with the intellectual prowess of Oprah Winfrey.

      “keep thinking roughly like an Objectivist”

      >>>A commenter on my blog asked me if I considered myself an objectivist a little while ago. My response from memory was “Fuck no, I’m Howard Roark.”.

      Please refrain from commenting further on my blog Trish.

      cheers

      — Anthony

      • Jan on May 20, 2011 at 06:58

        “I’m running the first and only true men’s conference in the world.”

        Jesus, you’re young.



      • Anthony Dream Johnson on May 20, 2011 at 10:09

        ?



      • Jan on May 20, 2011 at 10:39

        For the record, I have children older than you. Just to clarify.

        One day, when you’re my age (48) and someone a good 25 years younger than you says something like, “I’m the only person doing such-and-such” or “I’m the first person to do this-or-that,” you’ll understand.

        All of this PUA stuff amuses me to know end. About 12 or 15 years ago, a book called The Rules came out. It was written by two women and was a primer on how to attract men, make them want to date you and, once you’d met Mr. Right, make him want to marry you. Much like what you’re doing, if what Hugh says is true.

        The “manosphere” has been around as long as the internet, even if it wasn’t called such, and many of the men who populated it became irate over this little book, calling the women who wrote it “manipulative bitches” and “cunts” and many more expressive and novel terms. But it’s okay when you do it.



      • Jan on May 20, 2011 at 10:43

        Sorry, that should be “no end.” Oops.



      • Anthony Dream Johnson on May 20, 2011 at 15:49

        You have children older than me. No kidding … I’m 22. Why and how is this relevant to anything?

        Who are YOU referring to when you italicize “you”? I’m not even sure I’ve ever uttered the words “manipulative bitch” or “cunt”. Where are you even getting this from?

        Your first paragraph is … I don’t have a word for it, but, “to clarify”, you are writing/talking to the most hardcore idealist this side of the Atlantic.

        One day I’ll understand?

        That day was yesterday.



      • Jo on May 20, 2011 at 18:42

        If you re-read what she said, she never alluded to your having said anything like “manipulative bitch” or “cunt” ( Note that the book she referred to was written by women. the statements uttered by men upon learning of what the book entailed). She’s drawing an analogy with the response to criticism of the PUA community.



      • Trish on May 20, 2011 at 16:11

        “Not true. I am on the edge — Charlie Sheen is one step over it.”

        This first comment invalidates all of the rest of your comments. It’s an implicit admission that I’m right about everything I said, and the rest of your response is just “game” to make yourself look like an honest debater without having to actually discuss my point directly. Nevertheless, I’ll respond to the rest of your point for the sake of other readers.

        “God are you kidding? I am widely known to have the worst “marketing” around. I build events the way they were meant to be built — I only have the bare minimum skill necessary for promoting them. I find it pretty amusing that you take me as a good salesman.”

        If you built a “men’s conference” the way it was supposed to be built you would, as I said, drop the PUA element all together. Attracting women would just be implicit in such a conference, not explicit. The fact that you let it remain so is because you’re trying to get more than what you deserve from your personal interests.

        “No, that’s just how I write. Weird huh?”

        Why is that how you write?

        “No, wrong again. I have the need to find great ideas and spread them — the ideas of other great men. The grand spectacle and social event part is also, bizarre, and very telling that you’ve never actually been to the convention.”

        Again, why do you have that need? Not very “Roarkian” if you ask me. As for the second point, while the empericist argument isn’t valid, even if it were you would be wrong. I do know about your conventions, and they are exactly as grand of a spectacle as a guy in his twenties who is still forming himself into a full-grown adult can produce.

        “I’m running the first and only true men’s conference in the world. This has never been done before. In what way is that not original?”

        So, basically, the only “true” men’s conference is a conference where the qualification that to attend you must be male is actually completely unnecessary? I guess you’re right: that is original.

        “Not only have you never been to one of the events, but from the sound of it, you’ve never watched a single video from the event, all of which are free. Your comment is by definition, fully ignorant. Socially-conscious? Bleh. Give me a barf bag.”

        That should have read less socially-conscious. My mistake.

        “A commenter on my blog asked me if I considered myself an objectivist a little while ago. My response from memory was “Fuck no, I’m Howard Roark.”

        Sorry, like it or not, Howard Roark isn’t a real person. So no, you’re not him. If, on the other hand, you mean that you’re essentially like him, then guess what: you’re an Objectivist – your preference to the contrary notwithstanding.



      • Richard Nikoley on May 20, 2011 at 18:38

        Trish, don’t know if it’s your fault or not, and certainly willing to give you benefit of the doubt, but I’m getting hammered by your email subscriptions to comments:

        A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
        recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

        trishpratt@yahoo.com
        SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
        host l.mx.mail.yahoo.com [74.6.136.244]: 554 delivery error:
        dd This user doesn’t have a yahoo.com account (trishpratt@yahoo.com) [0] – mta1238.mail.sk1.yahoo.com

        One of those for every single comment posted. I removed your subscription this am when I found my inbox full, and now they are popping up again, as I suspect you’ve resubscribed.

        Anyway, don’t now what to tell you and I’ll suffer through regardless.



      • Trish on May 20, 2011 at 23:42

        I’m sorry about that Richard. I haven’t the foggiest about why any of that is happening. If you’d like to remove my comments simply to avoid any inconvenience, feel free.



      • Richard Nikoley on May 20, 2011 at 23:48

        Trash, don’t worry about it. Apart from our debate consternation, that’s not your problem. But, let me ask, are you saying that’s a valid yahoo adress? If so, then I need to look into that on my end.



  10. Jo on May 20, 2011 at 00:37

    oh god, don’t even get me started on PUA. The very basis of PUA mentality is that women are viewed as objects to be attained for sexual purposes by any means whatsoever ( and the use of NLP or neurolinguistic programming to seduce women is just all too shady. ) What ever happened to genuinely connecting with someone by being yourself, finding a middle ground by which to relate and respecting each person’s right to be treated and respected like a human being? It cheapens the art of relating to one another, and diminishes interpersonal relations to just a quick scheme to get laid.

    Check this graph out on the method of NLP : http://www.nlpmind.com/images/ss.gif I think i’m going to throw up. That’s just predatory.

    • Gary on May 20, 2011 at 02:17

      You’re referring specifically to Speed Seduction, an application of NLP to pickup from 20 years ago or so which among the community is generally regarded as outdated, manipulative, ineffective, and downright weird, and so it’s hardly representative of “PUA” in general. Most pickup “technique” these days comes down to learning how to act, behave, and express yourself in a way that’s more attractive to women and so helps you connect with them. Hardly manipulative; in fact a lot less so than the typical “nice guy” method of becoming a girl’s friend in the hope of sleeping with her or getting into a relationship with her. The goal may be to find a girlfriend/wife, to get laid a lot, to improve social skills, or all of these, and let’s be honest, they’re all reasonable goals.

      • Jo on May 20, 2011 at 02:55

        I would have to disagree with you.

        Explain to me just how something ( which is a cornerstone of the PUA community ) such as a “neg hit” or “negging” as one would call it is not manipulative. You are in essence, targeting (lowering) a woman’s self-esteem in order for her to feel she has to justify herself to gain your approval. It is manipulation at it’s core, no matter which angle you come from. You are in essence, creating a vulnerability which you would thus seek to exploit for your own gain. Once you view someone as a target to “game” you no longer are viewing them as an individual.



      • Anthony Dream Johnson on May 20, 2011 at 03:33

        “Negging” women is not a cornerstone of the PUA community, it is a cornerstone of the original “Mystery Method”, created by Erik Von Markovick, aka Mystery, who is certifiably bat shit crazy on all days that end in Y. Hence his former TV show that turned something already a little weird into something freaky.



      • Anthony Dream Johnson on May 20, 2011 at 03:35

        +1



      • Anthony Dream Johnson on May 20, 2011 at 03:35

        (+1 to Gary’s comment)



      • Jo on May 20, 2011 at 12:52

        “Most pickup “technique” these days comes down to learning how to act, behave, and express yourself in a way that’s more attractive to women”

        So basically acting like/selling yourself as someone you’re not in order to appeal to someone you’re hoping to “connect with”.



      • Richard Nikoley on May 20, 2011 at 12:53

        Now who’s being “anti-social?”



      • Jo on May 20, 2011 at 13:11

        As I stated in a previous comment, I did not use the term “anti-social” in the way that you inferred from my post ( not “asocial” or “unsocial”). These terms seem to be commonly confused, “anti-social” is the antonym of “pro-social”.



      • Richard Nikoley on May 20, 2011 at 13:33

        So explain to me the difference between your notion of prosocial and “learning how to act, behave, and express yourself in a way that’s more attractive to women.”

        Isn’t that kind of the point for social animals? Without necessarily compromising one’s values, to participate on various socials levels from work, to friends, to romantic relationships and more, one is well advised to learn how “the game” so to speak, is played, or risk being out-competed by those who do.



      • Jo on May 20, 2011 at 14:08

        I think you’re stretching the terminology a bit here. Prosocial behavior is defined as “voluntary actions that are intended to help or benefit another individual or group of individuals”. Honing a technique in order to manipulate towards your own gain is not prosocial behavior. The reason I used the term anti-social in respect to my other comment was that the mentality of the PUA community reinforces the notion of women being viewed as objects to “game” for one’s personal gain ( if one familiarizes oneself with some of the tenants and lingo of the PUA community it’d be easier to understand this )…not to mention that there is an underlying misogynistic mentality and a spirit of entitlement being reinforced( use of terms like “bitch shield” which illustrates when a woman is purposely making herself less approachable, categorizing women on a scale of 1-10 based on her appearance, making the assumption that most women collectively would respond to preconceived “formulas”, “techniques” or the archetype of an alpha male)

        I also don’t agree with teaching men to “sell themselves” as someone who they aren’t to attract women. How will this hold up in the long term ( of course, given we’re even considering “long term” and not just a quick lay ) if the guy has personal confidence/self-worth issues. Confidence isn’t something that can be faked, it involves personal growth. If anything, faking one’s way into the dating arena might only cultivate more of a negative attitude towards women, and when coupled with any negative reinforcement ( or what most people call “real life” ) it only contributes to frustration at the technique and no motivation for actually improving one’s self personally.



      • Richard Nikoley on May 20, 2011 at 14:24

        You like to toss around the mushy, undefined word “manipulate” a lot, I see. I never use that word. Either someone is lying or a fraud. “Manipulate” always implies victimhood to me. But again, you seem to imply that if a guy doesn’t give an exhaustive accounting of his life up front, the female is somehow a manipulated victim, especially if in a specific case the deal never went beyond a single melding of genitals and bodily fluids.

        Hey, new flash, some people just fuck sometimes and now and then what began as pure animal turns into babies and going to church, though I don’t advise the latter.

        Whether you like it or not, everyone to some degree has to sell themselves. That’s what social is, and you seem to be a fan, so you might want to wise up on that. Even being an asshole like me is a sale proposition. It only looks like I never have to give an inch.



      • Jo on May 20, 2011 at 14:57

        Manipulation is a neutral word. If we were talking about a car salesman manipulating a potential customer you would likely not have qualms with my using that word- given that the car salesman has an agenda to attain ( selling the most expensive car, let’s say ) .. the PUA agenda is no different, it is calculating towards attaining a goal ( in this case “HB” or “Hot Babe” insert number from 1-10 here ). It is calculating and manipulating behavioural controls towards an expected response.

        “Hey, new flash, some people just fuck sometimes and now and then what began as pure animal turns into babies and going to church, though I don’t advise the latter”

        This has nothing to do with my argument. I am not arguing for abstinence, I’m not even criticizing sex ( I’m puzzled as to why people keep inferring this from my statements, as I in no way implied this. ) I’m criticizing the method and the mentality that is inherent in PUA and the PUA community. I don’t have a religious agenda behind my reasoning. Having sex with someone and employing methods in trying to “get sex” from someone are two completely different things.

        “Everyone to some degree has to sell themselves”

        Sure, everyone attempts to make the best impression of themselves to any potential suitors. That doesn’t necessarily have to involve calculated manipulation ( yes, PUA method is manipulation, whether the word instills a fuzzy feeling inside or not) deception ( acting like someone you’re not ) and emotional tricks (NLP ).

        “you seem to imply that if a guy doesn’t give an exhaustive accounting of his life up front, the female is somehow a manipulated victim”

        Natural non-calculated human interaction is diverse. It doesn’t always have to involve giving an exhaustive accounting of one’s life upfront ( and I’d be hard pressed to find anyone who does in meeting new people. ) I never used the word “victim” to describe a PUA’s target. That said, I don’t think the methodology is contributing any “prosocial” behavior towards society, especially with the mentality and teachings encouraged.



      • Richard Nikoley on May 20, 2011 at 16:19

        “If we were talking about a car salesman manipulating a potential customer you would likely not have qualms with my using that word”

        Absolute fucking BULLSHIT. Don’t ever put words in my mouth. Now, define explicitly what you mean. Is he lying and fraudulent? There’s better words for that.

        What you want is merely to create an illusion of impropriety based on YOUR values.

        Which is, kinda….manipulative.



      • Richard Nikoley on May 20, 2011 at 16:28

        “That doesn’t necessarily have to involve calculated manipulation”

        Jesus I can’t believe how much this stuff lafs me.

        As opposed to what, bumbling and stumbling into a good deal? Granted, that’s how a lot of guys and gals “get wet” the first time. But what’s wrong with a little reasoned, calculated determination?

        Huh?



      • Richard Nikoley on May 20, 2011 at 16:32

        “It doesn’t always have to involve giving an exhaustive accounting of one’s life upfront”

        Oh, not _always_. Well, that’s a relief.



      • Richard Nikoley on May 20, 2011 at 17:25

        “I never used the word “victim” to describe a PUA’s target.”

        Laf.

        No, of course not, which a technical examination of your writing will reveal. This is what I have for 20 years referred to as truth vs honesty. You’re being truthful while being dishonest.

        You get of the hook on truth and manipulatively get to score your point, but you’re dishonest, because anyone and everyone with a brain knows your thrust and implication: victim.



      • Jo on May 20, 2011 at 18:01

        It’s funny how you accuse me of putting words into your mouth, when throughout this entire discussion, you’ve done nothing but do just that ( though I have not been up in arms about it as you have ). Your implication ( putting words into my mouth ) that I’m illustrating the target of PUA tactics as a victim is irrelevant; I am criticizing bringing manipulation into the arena of human relationships, which should carry a far higher code of ethics. I’m sorry that you find the word manipulation to be so off-putting, but that’s the bones of what PUA is : manipulation.
        An illusion of impropriety based on my values? If you read my comments carefully, I have argued that the PUA mentality objectifies the target, by relying on pop psychology and all sorts of biased theories on what women should be attracted to ( the Alpha Male archetype ). I’ve not only criticized the language and the atmosphere of the PUA community and their attitude towards obtaining what they want from their target, but also the practical implications for the typical subject who would utilize such means to attract women. PUA teaches the subject to act like someone they’re not. I am really at a loss to see how this sort of methodology would aid someone who already suffers from low self esteem in the dating arena, without unnecessarily imbuing them with a false sense of superiority and increasing the likelihood of viewing the opposite sex as objects, or conquests rather than someone of equal status, a human being. In addition, are you not promoting your values into this as well by stating your opinion? I have the right to an opinion and I’ve made clear I have no qualms with the sexual aspect of human nature ( though I am repeatedly accused of having such attitudes ). It is a whole nother beast to bring the element of patriarchy, power plays/imbalances and deception into courting a potential suitor ( or as in most cases with PUA, another notch on the bedstand ).



      • Matthew on May 21, 2011 at 15:04

        Imagine this, Jo, if you will, your in a bar and an average American male approaches you to say hello and ask how its going. He’s ok looking, slightly overweight, not that well groomed, but a generally nice “guy”. If your like the majority of attractive females in this country you snicker at him, turn your back, and laugh about it with your girlfriends. If you don’t act like that, it doesn’t matter, because as I said the majority does.

        PUA and the “manosphere” teach men the behavior they need if they hope to survive in today’s dating scene. A scene which has been permeated by the ideals of feminism. Women never seem to understand how vitally important sex is to a man. If a man is not having sex it can be hard for him to do anything else in his life to correct that problem. For all of eternity the man had a chance, via social contract. A man would find a women, vow to protect and care for her, and in return earn sex. Today, this is impossible, and women have the ultimate power when it comes to determining who will have sex.

        The pickup scene gives men skills necessary to deal with modern women. And if the women has sex with a person who she thinks is all that, even if he isn’t, who cares… in her head he is the man. And if he never calls her again, I’m sure part of her attraction to him was that “oh he seems like a guy who does what he wants when he wants, I wonder if he’ll call me” anyway.

        A final point, on negs. People like you (usually women and white knights) always get in a fit over “the neg.” As if its some concept invented explicitly to fuck women over. I’ve been “negging” people since I was 12 years old, and learned how to talk to my peers. Its a part of life. You make fun of others, they make fun of you, you all have fun. Men negging men, men negging women, and vice versa. “Man those are crazy shoes.” That in effect is a neg… pretty harmless. Just a statement designed to evoke an answer, infinitely more interesting and conversation provoking than “I like your shoes.” Like you said, its about knowing how to socialize, stop learning new terms and trying to demonize them.



      • Sonagi on May 21, 2011 at 16:07

        “Imagine this, Jo, if you will, your in a bar and an average American male approaches you to say hello and ask how its going. He’s ok looking, slightly overweight, not that well groomed, but a generally nice “guy”. If your like the majority of attractive females in this country you snicker at him, turn your back, and laugh about it with your girlfriends. If you don’t act like that, it doesn’t matter, because as I said the majority does.

        PUA and the “manosphere” teach men the behavior they need if they hope to survive in today’s dating scene. A scene which has been permeated by the ideals of feminism….

        The pickup scene gives men skills necessary to deal with modern women.”

        Ding, ding, ding. The first paragraph is telling. A slightly overweight average guy wants sex with an attractive woman. Nothing wrong with that, but gee, not surprisingly, attractive women prefer sex with attractive men. As you correctly noted, the casual sex market favors women. This has been true for ages. Feminism is not to blame, and in fact, most modern women are sexually active with many partners over a lifetime, so an average modern man has a better chance than his dad or granddad at having at least one sexual experience with an attractive woman.



      • Matthew on May 21, 2011 at 16:41

        False… I never said the women was “attractive”. Only that the man was attracted to her.

        The majority of women behave this way, and the majority of women, by definition, are not above average in looks.

        The problem is that in the past a man could get consistent sex through a monogamous relationship. Today a condition exists (hypergamy) where women have sex with as many “alpha” males as possibly, whilst keeping there “beta” male friends in the “friend” zone. Again by definition most men are beta males, so they need some sort of equalizer.



      • Sonagi on May 21, 2011 at 16:47

        “A man would find a women, vow to protect and care for her, and in return earn sex. Today, this is impossible, and women have the ultimate power when it comes to determining who will have sex.”

        Let me reword that idea to make more accurate. A man would find a woman, marry her, and together they would work to provide for any children they had together. Today, men don’t need to make a lifetime commitment to one woman to get sex. They can have sex with different women before settling down with one if they wish. Oh yeah, and feminism’s promotion of women’s sexual liberation plus its strong continued advocacy of reproductive rights helped break the bond between marriage and regular sexual activity.



      • Sonagi on May 21, 2011 at 16:52

        “False… I never said the women was “attractive”. Only that the man was attracted to her. ”

        Wrong. Reread your exact words below:

        “If your like the majority of ATTRACTIVE females in this country …”

        Be careful about this hypergamy stuff. It applies somewhat to casual sex but not to committed long-term relationships in countries like ours which do not recognize polygamous marriages. You can get regular sex from a woman if you’re willing to invest in a committed relationship with her. Every single woman I know who is in a committed relationship, including me, is sexually active with our partner or spouse.



      • Tracy on May 26, 2011 at 17:17

        >>Today a condition exists (hypergamy) where women have sex with as many “alpha” males as possibly, whilst keeping there “beta” male friends in the “friend” zone.

        If by ‘alpha’ males you mean guys who are self-confident and comfortable with themselves and make their intentions known, and by ‘beta’ males you mean guys who… well, aren’t and don’t, then I completely agree. Well except with perhaps the ‘as many as possible’ bit. (And if PUA helps guys feel more self-confident and comfortable with themselves and with making their intentions known, then I’m all for that too.)

        In my single days, I had sex (casual and otherwise) with both really attractive guys and average-looking guys who were attractive (to me) because they were confident, funny, down to earth, secure in themselves, and fun to be around.



      • NM on May 29, 2011 at 19:27

        Holy cow, this new definition of “hypergamy” blows my mind. Women are allegedly going around collecting alpha men? Seriously? Who has the time?

        I also love how it always comes down to blaming feminism and modern women; no one ever looks at how the system as a whole squeezes men and women alike. Any given couple might expect to be every bit as “traditional” as apple pie, but economic trends certainly don’t support it; it’s unlikely for most individuals’ income to be adequate (and reliable) enough to provide those guarantees. Meanwhile the larger community context that supported families back in the day (and also, yes, helped enforce and maintain the marriage “contract” if individual commitment might start to flag) is absent for so many families.



  11. Cath on May 20, 2011 at 01:35

    I had to read that several times to make sure that you aren’t insulting me and my vagina. Point proven? 😉
    I’ve never heard of PUA before, I will need to read up on that later, out of time now… I did follow your link about the robbery though and have to say I’m glad I live in a country where people don’t feel the need to carry concealed weapons and have shotguns lieing around in their rooms.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson on May 20, 2011 at 03:28

      And I’m glad I live in a country where the right to defend my life with any and all force necessary is still protected by government.

      • Cath on May 20, 2011 at 06:54

        We’ll just have to agree to disagree.



    • Richard Nikoley on May 20, 2011 at 05:26

      Cath: When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

  12. Video Interview with Richard Nikoley | The 21 Convention on May 20, 2011 at 04:42

    […] where Richard and I discuss the history of The 21 Convention, and visit Richard’s site to read more thoughts on his confirming to speak at the convention this summer in Orlando Florida — the […]

  13. Paul C on May 20, 2011 at 08:18

    One of the greatest benefits of visiting this site is exposure to valuable ideas that I would otherwise pass over.

    I am free of back pain because of this.

    I’m looking forward to exploring Anthony’s ideas, which seem to compliment evolutionary nutrition really well from my brief skimming.

  14. JLB on May 20, 2011 at 08:56

    I remember seeing something about this several years ago and nodding my head in agreement with the majority of their assertions. It does seem a useful tool for unintentionally feminized men who are unaware that their conditioned behaviors are unattractive to the people they wish to attract. I’m no fan of the 20 second club scene and have no desire to be the short term generic conquest but I freely admit that I can be and want to be manipulated and seduced by my husband of 15 yrs in the random 20 second interactions we have all day long every day which keep him out of the friend/roomate headspace and into the virile growly uncompromising masculinity headspace.

    I choose whose artistry I want to deliver myself into, where, and under what circumstances rather than reject the tool as a whole. I have the right to be 100% discriminiating and uncompromising as well.

    • Skyler Tanner on May 20, 2011 at 09:31

      How dare you let your husband of 15 years perform speed pickups to manipulate and seduce you. Are you his object…have you no respect?! 😉

    • rob on May 20, 2011 at 13:26

      Why would anyone want to learn how to be more seductive towards his wife?

    • Grant on May 21, 2011 at 00:26

      This (JLB’s comment) is a sentiment that I completely support (and encourage all women to learn to acquire/embrace). It doesn’t follow, however, that the purpose of becoming a “man” (which, as the increasingly wide-ranging content of The 21 Convention implies, is actually just becoming a person – albeit with a particular style)… that the primary purpose is to attract women (and certainly not to attract them solely for the purpose of using them as disposable sex objects).

      The problem I have with every shred of PUA thought is not it’s unapologetic stance on the aggressiveness and passivity inherent in masculinity and femininity respectively, but that that stance was born from a rear-guard action on the part of it’s practicitioners and apologists because it was quickly obvious to everyone else that who these PUAs really were were nothing more than equally “unintentionally feminized” males pretending not to be (and, in often over-the-top ways, capitalizing monetarily and professionally by exploiting the envy that pretense created in others males with the same affliction).

      Don’t believe me? Want to think, instead, that these PUAs are genuine life long “alphas” who, out of the kindness of their heart – or even as a way to fight against the overall softening of Western culture through a venue just about every male would pay A LOT of attention to – decided to systematize their hitherto subconscious beliefs? If that were the case, then they never would have let their egos and self-images become so wrapped up into getting women in the first place. Getting “top shelf” women may very well have been part of their lives as life long “alphas”, but it never would have been such a big part that that was the way in which they came to discover and understand wider philosophical truths about the human condition (and the fact is that I’ve yet to meet a PUA who started as a philosopher and became a PUA. If at all, which isn’t often, it’s always been the reverse).

      The more evolved and sophisticated flavors of PUA culture (eg: Anthony Johnson’s) have a lot of good things to offer men (or any person for that matter), but the fact remains that if those things are accepted simply as a means to acquire good looking women for the sake of acquiring good looking women (regardless of these women’s personalities), those good things will not stick. Truths of the magnitude preached by the better PUAs like Anthony Johnson – be they nutritional truths, political truths, whatever – cannot be held (ie: made a part of your personality and, when appropriate, stylized to your masculinity/femininity), as Ayn Rand would say, second-handedly. They were discovered by individuals who refused to let any aspect of their being (at least in regards to the particular subject they achieved in contributing to) be guided by what it suggested about them to others, and so long as they continue to hold them they must necessarily hold them in the same way (even if, miraculously, that suggestion becomes one that makes these people hugely popular, brings them professional success and material wealth, and thus creates envy in others). This last paranthetical point perfectly describes the mentality of “pick-up artists”, and because it is an easy mistake to make I could tolerate it and still like the people who’ve made it (ie: self-appointed PUAs) if not for the fact that they are so obnoxiously aggressive in what they do to to try to avoid having to correct it.

      PUA culture is, and always will be – by nature – of, by, and for second handers. Precisely the type of person Anthony Johnson claims not to be, and claims to not want to create through his efforts. If that’s the case, he needs to step up to the plate and just come right out and disavow the PUA paradigm in it’s entirety.

      • Monte Diaz on July 13, 2011 at 17:07

        Ta Da! Amen.



  15. JLB on May 20, 2011 at 10:47

    Nope none at all.

  16. JLB on May 20, 2011 at 13:41

    Poking around the site a bit it does seem a little aquarian philosophy heavy and unfortunately the philosophy doesn’t quite stand up to scrutiny without starting to contradict itself.

    Which is too bad. In general I whole heartedly endorse men learning how to dust off the alpha and stop settling for being the useful fool nice guy.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 20, 2011 at 13:50

      I’m not going to engage in nit picking Anthony’s Randian-ish philosophy. He’s 22 and I’m certain he would confirm that learning is a lifelong process. I’m very familiar with Rand and have read not only the fiction but seriously studied the non fiction — about 20 years ago. I had a stage where that was what I knew, talked about, argued, and I was in my early 30s. But as with many things, one simply integrates, moves on, and if smart, tries to develop their own ideas.

      I don’t see Anthony as anyone who’s going to stagnate into an Objectivist mode.

      That said, you’re not really making an argument against anything specific. Miss Rand would have called that hand waving.

      • Anthony Dream Johnson on May 20, 2011 at 15:58

        I view life as a developmental process (learning). Confirmed!



  17. MC on May 22, 2011 at 21:10

    You learn to act, behave, engage in social interactions from some source. Whether it’s parents, teachers, television, religion, music, gangs, etc…

    Why is it suddenly wrong/evil when you CHOOSE a source to help you improve an area of your life. Most of the other sources are not really an individual choice, just something you’ll likely get into cause you were born into it, or peer pressured into it.

    Hell if you let society decide how you should act/behave, you likely wouldn’t be eating primal and wouldn’t be on Richard’s blog.

    It’s not really an act either. The seduction community really only hacks away at the bad behaviors you’ve been taught your entire life. You likely weren’t born anti-social, lacking confidence, or whatever issue you might have when talking to women. The seduction community makes you MORE yourself, not less. Just like eating paleo makes you more yourself then eating SAD.

    News flash, women like sex, just as much as men do. Men aren’t “taking advantage” of them by having sex with them. There might be men out there who lie to get into a girl’s pants, but those kinds of men will exist whether they call themselves pick up artists, players, nice guys, whatever. Just like women trying to get men to commit will exist whether cosmo decides to write an article on it or not.

  18. Sonya on May 26, 2011 at 12:54

    We are constantly “selling” something or “manipulating” people to see things our way. The best at it probably always got out of doing chores around the house, always got the keys to the car and make a killing in sales. It’s important to also learn discernment and the ability to spot the shysters. This is a skill vegans and vegetarians are obviously lacking. 😉

    Richard, we have a very new, small paleo meetup group in the Orlando area and would love to meetup with you some time while you’re in O-Town if your schedule allows.

  19. […] for the first time in a month, not for a 2-3 day stopover…not until the next gig. No deal until The21Convention. That should be fun and I've been preparing. How? By getting my 20 sumthin' on. Why? How would you […]

  20. […] July 18th, 2011 · No Comments · Evolutionary Thinking, Myth of Authority, Principles TweetNext Friday morning I'll be hitting the road; first driving up to San Francisco Airport, then getting groped & fondled by TSA pervert scum, onto being herded like cattle and packed in like sardines, and finally to arrive in Orlando and this year's 21 Convention where I'll be speaking Saturday afternoon. […]

  21. […] posts about the 21 event here […]

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780