The Smearing of Jim Peron


Recommended Posts

Talking to Jim was an eye-opener for some of the folks there. Tibor Machan had had his own falling out with Mr. Perigo, but had no idea of Mr. Perigo's role in getting Mr. Peron kicked out of New Zealand.

It certainly was for me. The only other thing I knew about him were some articles about South Africa he had written for _Liberty_.

Although I disagree with Dragonfly's assessment that Joe Rowlands is held in high esteem by the Atlas Society clientele—most of the folks at Free Minds 09 had some prior Atlas Society connection, and I doubt more than a handful would have recognized Mr. Rowlands' name—the mere fact that the author of that 2002 diatribe against vegetarians is considered any kind of Objectivist leader by anybody is a sufficient indictment.

Here are some facts about Rowlands and his board, however. Some people held in high esteem still post there. I am thinking mainly of Tibor Machan and Ed Younkins. This certainly gives Rowlands more esteem than he deserves.

A movement in which people like this are looked up to as leaders has nowhere to go but down.

That's one big problem. The other problem is Gresham's Law. Just as bad money drives out good money, bad Randists drive out the good ones.

Nobody asked me about my long absence from such events. If they had asked, I don't know what I would have told them. There's also an excellent chance that if this had been an official event of TAS, I would not have attended. The fact that Fred Stitt was the organizer, the producer, and the sponsor of the event was the main reason I did go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly,

My talk at Free Minds 09 was about the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion. I used Leonard Peikoff's statements about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem as an example. And I pointed out that by Dr. Peikoff's own criteria, he understands so little about the theorem that his assertions about it should be taken as arbitrary. I also noted in passing that some of the statements in his 1997 lecture about arbitrariness were just plain loony. I got no impassioned defenses of Peikoff in response. I think a lot of Objectivists now recognize him as a liability.

Dr. Peikoff also got dinged during the talks on physics.

Chris B,

I thought that Fred and Kate did a wonderful job organizing the event. There were very few glitches, and while both of them were very busy during the proceedings, neither gave the impression of frantic activity that we often saw at TAS Summer Seminars.

Robert C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen:

Does Perigo have any assets in his name?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris B,

Tibor Machan and Ed Younkins post on RoR while ignoring all the political crap.

Kind of like Ed Younkins (occasionally), Ed Hudgins, George Reisman, and Stephen Boydstun posting on SOLOP.

Robert C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that Fred and Kate did a wonderful job organizing the event. There were very few glitches, and while both of them were very busy during the proceedings, neither gave the impression of frantic activity that we often saw at TAS Summer Seminars.

I would say quite a few glitches. Most of those can be attributed to the fact that they were an organizing the event for the first time. If they do it next year, I'm sure they will do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My talk at Free Minds 09 was about the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion. I used Leonard Peikoff's statements about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem as an example. And I pointed out that by Dr. Peikoff's own criteria, he understands so little about the theorem that his assertions about it should be taken as arbitrary. I also noted in passing that some of the statements in his 1997 lecture about arbitrariness were just plain loony. I got no impassioned defenses of Peikoff in response. I think a lot of Objectivists now recognize him as a liability.

Dr. Peikoff also got dinged during the talks on physics.

Ok, that is at least something. But how many people did hear your talk? Where are the protests in print, in magazines and in books? Or even on the Internet? That is where people in general get their information about Objectivism. Perhaps you may find something if you look hard enough, but the fact that I haven't found it even while I follow the bigger Objectivist forums is an indication that there is hardly any open opposition to Peikoff's ramblings.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's entirely possible that the people who might have reason to criticize Piekoff have simply chosen to avoid him. Maybe they just don't think that he's worth the energy or the time. I certainly have better things to do. And if I was running a conference, I would discourage people from doing it as well. We have to tell people what we stand for, not what we are against.

I don't think that necessarily is the case. I remember when I was being smeared by some people back in 1995-6, I told several people whom I had hoped would be allies. These people simply wanted to pretend that nothing was going on. Even in 2001, I heard that people were apparently still talking about my alleged sins of five or six years ago. Since that time, I received a degree of vindication. The damage is not undone, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for bringing it up. It does prove that Rowlands is as big a piece of trash as Perigo is. "By their deeds, you shall know them."

Ah, Rowlands... that's that lunatic who wrote the following rant (emphasis added):

Vegetarianism is evil. It calls for the sacrifice of one’s actual values and happiness for an arbitrary standard. There is nothing noble or positive about sacrifice for any reason. It is just mixing a little poison in with your food. Destroying a little of your life for no reason. It’s making life harder and less satisfactory an end in itself.

What’s even worse is the non-vegetarians who see nothing wrong with it, or even respect it. Caught up in the idea of respecting people for acting on their beliefs, these people never question those beliefs. It is noble to stand up for your values when they are rational, positive values. There is nothing noble at all about standing up for corruption, slavery, or murder.

Nor does it matter that vegetarianism only hurts those who practice it. Of course it is their right to believe what they want. They must be allowed the freedom to use their own minds, even if they do it poorly. But this does not mean that what they believe in should be held up as normal or good. It is evil, and it should be proclaimed as such by all.

Vegetarians should feel shame for their beliefs, not pride. They should be embarrassed to tell anyone that they refuse to eat meat, because it shows how foolish and irrational they are. They should be mocked and ridiculed, disdained and despised. People should see the evil for what it is, and affirm their own lives as their moral standard. There should be no sympathy for those who destroy their most precious value - their own lives.

Anyone still amazed that Objectivists are seen by many as a bunch of loonies?

I'm not amazed at all. Just another example of personal preferences being presented as alleged "objective values" while judging opposing preferences as "evil", concluding that those who happen to share it "should feel shame", "should be despised", are "foolish", and "irrational".

No surprise there. For ideologists of every provenience almost always resort to "anathema sit", banning attitudes not in alignement with their doctrine.

The author also claims to know what one's "actual values" and "happiness" are. (Translate: "ought to" be according to his personal idea of it). Here we have it again: the usual "life proper to man" fallacy which can be observed in all ideologies, transcendent or not.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it that we should put someone trying to eat healthily and Hitler side by side and treat them the same. Works for me. (end quote)

Ginny,

The issue is about looking at what IS, and not about any "should" or "ought to".

Edited by Xray
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen:

Does Perigo have any assets in his name?

Adam

Adam,

So far as anyone knows, Mr. Perigo is close to broke.

Robert Campbell

I've been anonymously bankrolling him for years for the entertainment and educational value-all subjective, of course.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your point, Xray?

Ginny

My point is that I did not use (and neither implied) any personal "should" and "ought to" recommendations when analyzing Rowland's statemtents.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where are the protests in print, in magazines and in books? Or even on the Internet? That is where people in general get their information about Objectivism. Perhaps you may find something if you look hard enough, but the fact that I haven't found it even while I follow the bigger Objectivist forums is an indication that there is hardly any open opposition to Peikoff's ramblings.

Dragonfly,

My Journal of Ayn Rand Studies article on "The Peikovian Doctrine of the Arbitrary Assertion" does not end up making Dr. Peikoff look good. But of course the readership for such a piece is not large.

The deeper problem with challenges to Dr. Peikoff is who the intended audience might be.

Outside of Rand-land, he has hardly any name recognition. A few remember him from the Bill O'Reilly show, and those people already think he is a looney-tune. Who else cares?

Inside Rand-land, any sort of campaign against Leonard Peikoff will be most readily seen as more schismology.

One of the many benefits of a book that netted out Objectivism is a fairly neutral fashion would be that Dr. Peikoff's interpretations could be presented as just that—interpretations. And not necessarily the interpretations that have the most going for them.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The deeper problem with challenges to Dr. Peikoff is who the intended audience might be.

Outside of Rand-land, he has hardly any name recognition. A few remember him from the Bill O'Reilly show, and those people already think he is a looney-tune. Who else cares?

This is also a big problem, however. When people in the media want someone to present the case for Ayn Rand and Objectivism, they call the Ayn Rand Institute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Did you guys not find the Abuse: One Boy's Story article by Jim Perron (published in Unbound) just a little bit disturbing? He was promoting the beauty of "boy love" for Chrissake! I don't know enough about the issue to pass judgment, but clearly Perron was begging for punishment. He wrote a pro-"boy love" article, along side other writers with long pro-NAMBLA affiliations, all of which he published in a NAMBLA-sympathetic journal, published under his own printing company, with at least one meeting held on his own property. Those facts do not a pedophile make, but aside from getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar (so to speak), what else could he do to deserve good helping of hell? I feel bad for the guy if he's got psychological damage resulting from childhood abuse, including sexual abuse, but he was clearly taking that in a dangerous public direction, and should have been called on it. And he was. What's the problem? That Perigo did the calling, and exaggerated everything as he always does? Sure he did, but it doesn't change the fact that Perron had it coming from someone in some capacity.

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dan,

I'd be interested in hearing your views on age of consent. Objectively speaking, should there be age of consent laws, and, if so, what should the age be, and why? I've seen some Objectivists suggesting setting the age of consent at or around puberty -- about 13 or 14 years old. Do you agree with them? Why or why not?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I don't have many strong opinions about age of consent laws except that they should exist in some form. A 4-year-old, for instance, cannot rationally consent to sex. And this consent can't be delegated to parents. The law's got to draw the line somewhere. Where? That's more of a technical legal question which I am not qualified to answer. Age 16 makes sense, maybe younger, maybe as high as 18, though that would be pushing it.

But that issue in completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand: Was Perron smeared? Did he deserve the scrutiny and the criticism?

I am surprised that four pages of discussion have gone on here without specific reference to Perron's article about "boy love." I know you mentioned it in passing, MSK, but the contents of that article are crucially relevant to this discussion. I assume that this article is one of the "secret documents" you have available that you don't want to publish here. If it doesn't in any way incriminate Perron, then why not publish it? But it does incriminate him, at least in spirit. I don't remember the entire contents of the article, but here are some things I remember:

Perron was abused as a child in some capacity. While still a child (exact age unspecified) some men taking care of him -- counselors, baby sitters, I don't remember -- would reach inside his clothes and caress his private parts. This made him feel good, emotionally safe, happy, etc. He argues that these "boy lovers" were a great benefit to his psychological health. "Boy lovers" should be honored, not hated. The end.

Does this not seem like relevant information in evaluating Perron? Or his involvement with pro-NAMBLA writers? This is no smear job, this is what Perron himself wrote and published. If I've got the facts wrong please let me know, but I'm pretty sure I remember this correctly. I was shocked back then, and am still shocked today, that groups of people defend Perron to the hilt without reference to these crucially relevant facts. MSK mentioned earlier in this thread that no one had emailed him privately requesting his "secret files." If you want to set the record straight, dude, just post it all here. We're not talking about personal correspondence; again, this is an article Perron wrote and published himself.

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I don't have many strong opinions about age of consent laws except that they should exist in some form. A 4-year-old, for instance, cannot rationally consent to sex. And this consent can't be delegated to parents. The law's got to draw the line somewhere. Where? That's more of a technical legal question which I am not qualified to answer. Age 16 makes sense, maybe younger, maybe as high as 18, though that would be pushing it.

But that issue in completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand: Was Perron smeared? Did he deserve the scrutiny and the criticism?

I am surprised that four pages of discussion have gone on here without specific reference to Perron's article about "boy love." I know you mentioned it in passing, MSK, but the contents of that article are crucially relevant to this discussion. I assume that this article is one of the "secret documents" you have available that you don't want to publish here. If it doesn't in any way incriminate Perron, then why not publish it? But it does incriminate him, at least in spirit. I don't remember the entire contents of the article, but here are some things I remember:

Perron was abused as a child in some capacity. While still a child (exact age unspecified) some men taking care of him -- counselors, baby sitters, I don't remember -- would reach inside his clothes and caress his private parts. This made him feel good, emotionally safe, happy, etc. He argues that these "boy lovers" were a great benefit to his psychological health. "Boy lovers" should be honored, not hated. The end.

Does this not seem like relevant information in evaluating Perron? Or his involvement with pro-NAMBLA writers? This is no smear job, this is what Perron himself wrote and published. If I've got the facts wrong please let me know, but I'm pretty sure I remember this correctly. I was shocked back then, and am still shocked today, that groups of people defend Perron to the hilt without reference to these crucially relevant facts. MSK mentioned earlier in this thread that no one had emailed him privately requesting his "secret files." If you want to set the record straight, dude, just post it all here. We're not talking about personal correspondence; again, this is an article Perron wrote and published himself.

--Dan Edge

I realize this is a minor point, but it is intensely irritating to read someone who pontificates about someone else as though he is oh so knowledgeable about that someone else - and yet is apparently unable even to spell that someone else's name correctly.

It's Peron, NOT "Perron."

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Jef, was I pontificating (def. expressing opinions in a pompous and dogmatic way)? Am I positioning myself as oh so knowledgeable about Perron's trials and tribulations? I don't think so, Jef, but you're welcome to your own opinion. A simple, polite correction would have sufficed. Misspelling of names may be intensely irritating to you, but unnecessarily rude behavior is intensely irritating to me. I do not abide by it. I suggest you go hang out with Perriggo, where you will find your malevolent attitude more in tune with the company.

--Dann Edgee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Jef, was I pontificating (def. expressing opinions in a pompous and dogmatic way)? Am I positioning myself as oh so knowledgeable about Perron's trials and tribulations? I don't think so, Jef, but you're welcome to your own opinion. A simple, polite correction would have sufficed. Misspelling of names may be intensely irritating to you, but unnecessarily rude behavior is intensely irritating to me. I do not abide by it. I suggest you go hang out with Perriggo, where you will find your malevolent attitude more in tune with the company.

--Dann Edgee

If you don't like my "rude behavior," Dan, I suggest you ask Ted Keer what you can do with your likes and dislikes. Or does your abject illiteracy prevent you from dropping him a note?

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now