[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Smearing of Jim Peron

Over on RoR, Joe Rowlands just made a post that contains incorrect information. Since I cannot post on that thread, I will make the correction here. The pertinent part of his post is given below:

Rowlands said:

A few years ago, a prominent libertarian (Jim Peron) in Objectivist circles was outed as a supporter of pedophilia. Some investigators in New Zealand found copies of a magazine he published on the topic, including an article in his own name.

The responses at the time were very curious. I would have expected libertarians and Objectivists to try to distance themselves from his viewpoint, or to condemn that ideas he had promoted, or to distance themselves from him. Instead, their was an outpouring of sympathy for him. He has a right to free speech, they said. This is just a witch-hunt, they said. He claims no knowledge of any of it, despite the article penned in his name, they said. That was decades ago, they offered. Age of consent laws are arbitrary(!) they began to argue...

On and on, people who had already supported him found ways to dismiss this significant information about him. They determined that there was no significant loss with having libertarian or Objectivist ideas falsely connected to child-rape.

It was shocking to me at the time for a few reasons. One, because the hatred and disgust that most people felt was for those who brought out the facts. Two, because while the issue should have been about someone promoting pedophilia, people tried to ignore that and hide behind the freedom of speech principle. And three, because when these didn't seem enough, people actually started making arguments to try to make it seem more respectable, starting with age of consent laws being arbitrary.

Here are the incorrect parts:

1. Peron was not "outed as a supporter of pedophilia." He was formally accused of being one and set up, with his reputation trashed and renewal of his visa refused by the New Zealand government as punishment.

2. I have examined most all of the documentation that has been available online (and some not so available, like the single copy—not "copies"—of the magazine Unbound), and I have concluded that Peron indeed was set up for political reasons by some really nasty people playing power games. Much of the online stuff has been taken down, but I have copies of most of what had been available . Also, The Wayback Machine still records a lot of it.

3. If anyone follows the thread Rowlands linked to (Rumors About Linz started by Jeff Riggenbach), he will see that there was not only the outpouring of hatred he mentioned against the accusers, but there was a similar outpouring of hatred by the accusers (and their sympathizers) against Peron supporting the smear that he was a pedophile. (I am ashamed to admit that I was a sympathizer in the second category. I have since apologized to Jim Peron for that. I have not done so in public out of respect for his wishes, but since Rowlands has made this a public issue again, I want it on record that I deeply regret supporting the disgusting lynching that took place.)

Just as it is shocking that Objectivists would seemingly tolerate "child-rape" under the guise of "age of consent," so it is equally shocking that a person can be so easily smeared on such flimsy evidence in the name of Objectivism. Those who practice this pervert Objectivism and all it stands for.

4. Briefly, what happened was that over 20 years ago, Peron owned a libertarian bookstore in San Francisco that was a hotbed of radical ideas. Lots of people flowed through there and he supported anything subversive that smelled like pro-freedom. Back then, he allowed a pedophilic organization to hold some meetings on the premises. Age of consent was a hot topic at the time and they, obviously, did not advertise themselves as a group of pedophiles. They talked the talk of the times in their negotiations. Peron's printing press published at least one issue of that organization's magazine. He was asked to contribute an article and he did, relating his personal problems growing up with beatings from his father and kindness from strangers. It had nothing at all to do with pedophilia per se. But this article was touted as the smoking gun because it appeared in that magazine. The fact that, shortly after that time, he asked the group to move on, etc., was not taken into account.

5. Nothing at all of substance from recent times was presented about Peron. It was all old stuff from two decades ago and totally inconclusive, even taken at face value.

6. The so-called "investigators" were a group of Christian conservatives who formed an ad hoc organization at the time called the Locke Foundation. Its sole purpose was to dig up dirt on Peron and present it to the New Zealand government, although it purported to have some kind of intellectual mission. Shortly after the splash and the ensuing government action, the foundation was disbanded. It only existed actively for a very short time.

7. For the record, I do not adhere to a low age of consent threshold, and I don't know hardly anyone who does (including Jim Peron himself, who emphatically does not adhere). I agree with Rowlands only on the following point: Objectivist ideas should not be used to endorse child-rape. But then, that is a no-brainer.

What took place in New Zealand and reiterated on SoloHQ was an orchestrated smear job. It worked, too, especially with people who do not look at facts, but prefer to repeat what they are told (like what just occurred in Rowlands's recent post). Well I have seen the facts up close and in detail. What they did to Jim Peron stinks.

I stake my name on it.

To keep this issue to a low public noise level so the smear cannot grow further qua smear, I will be glad to present the information I have by email to anyone asking for it (in good faith, meaning so they can look at the facts and see for themselves, too).

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve Gagne, on 09 July 2009 - 02:14 PM, said:

But somehow, I feel this is old territory you're covering. When I joined OL 2 years ago, wasn't there a similar discussion that put all of this to bed? Or was that a smear of someone else (like C.Sciabarra or some such)?

Steve,

I, too, feel your sadness, but I have had enough. You are correct that this is old and there are many such wrongs.

I won't wallow in this topic, but I will speak out from time to time. It's like taking out the garbage. If you don't do it, it piles up. That's what happens in our little subcommunity. And, believe me, when someone is being accused of being a pedophile, whether fairly or unfairly, nobody—and that means nobody—wants to take out that particular garbage.

I am pleased to see that this thread is becoming a reference point for righting an injustice. And I am pleased to see good people endorsing Jim Peron, despite the malicious and morally challenged stone-throwers who make a public career out of bearing false witness.

Jim Peron deserves good people endorsing him.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Chris Baker, on 10 July 2009 - 08:08 AM, said:

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):

Rowlands said:

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?

[Selene]

Yes, Dragonfly because I could pick and chose loonies from any group to illustrate, incorrectly, that the group they allegedly represent is a lunatic group.

Al Gore whose Professor at his Ivy league school Dr. Revel, completely recanted "global warming" which is a concept that he originated and taught to Al.

I can find crazed Christians, Muslim maniacs and Jesus Jews to attack the larger group.

To what end. All philosophies, rhetorical movements, religions and social crusades attract marginal folks.

The trick is to police your own philosophy and maintain as open mindedness for all criticism.

Adam

[Dragonfly]

Rowlands is of course not just an arbitrary loony I picked up, he's one of the leading voices of Objectivism on the Internet, esteemed by the TOC people. How many Objectivists have openly disagreed with that nonsense? Nearly all reactions on that forum were highly positive. Perigo even wrote

Perigo said:

So, SOLOists, savour this guy. He is a KASS-NEM par excellence. He will have a place of honour in Objectivist history. He is living proof that the heroes in Ayn Rand’s novels not only can exist, but do exist.

Joe Rowlands, I salute you!

Another example is Peikoff (mr. Objectivism himself), with his idiotic rants against modern science. How many Objectivists have openly lambasted him for that nonsense? The silence has been deafening.

[Chris Baker]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on 10 July 2009 - 08:37 AM, said:

I am pleased to see that this thread is becoming a reference point for righting an injustice. And I am pleased to see good people endorsing Jim Peron, despite the malicious and morally challenged stone-throwers who make a public career out of bearing false witness.

The injustice can never be righted. Jim Peron obviously wanted to spend the rest of his life in New Zealand. He does not have that choice. And much of his property was stolen from him. Monetary compensation would certainly help him. However, it is impossible to put a price on what Jim Peron has lost.

Ultimately, I felt a great deal of sympathy as well because I have been on the wrong side of many false accusations. I told Jim about some of my experiences and about some of the people that I will likely NEVER forgive--people who have also not suffered any consequences whatsoever for what they did.

I take this stuff very seriously. I like a metaphor I once heard for gossip. Take a feathered pillow to the top of a skyscraper. Open it up and let the feathers fall where they may. Then try to pick up all the feathers. That is gossip.

[Chris Baker]

Dragonfly, on 10 July 2009 - 09:22 AM, said:

Rowlands is of course not just an arbitrary loony I picked up, he's one of the leading voices of Objectivism on the Internet, esteemed by the TOC people.

I probably call more of these people loonies than most people would. You have just hit on the major problem though. Many of the loonies are still "esteemed" in the community, and this includes some of the people who recently attended Free Minds.

I have wondered what I would do if I ever started my own Objectivist organization. Sad but true, I can think of a lot of people that I would not want to be involved with, a lot of people that I would never invite to be speakers. I can also think of a lot of people I would invite to be speakers, many who have never spoken at any recent Objectivist event.

This post has been edited by Chris Baker: 10 July 2009 - 11:16 AM

[Selene]

Chris/Dragonfly:

Hopefully, as this movement/philosophy matures, we will have a better mix of folks who are more grounded.

If not, the movement/philosophy will die or atrophy.

Pretty simple. A is A.

An open system has the potential to survive, a closed system will die of its own weight, poisons or age.

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

When I arrived at Free Minds 09, I noticed Jim Peron sitting at one end of the book table (he was there during nearly the entire conference). He wasn't wearing a name tag, so it took me a little time to realize who he was. He told me he'd had misgivings about attending an Objectivist event. I reassured him that none of the people who had sided with Lindsay Perigo were on the speaker list, and I doubted that any of them would be there in any capacity. It turns out I was right.

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.

A couple of details have stuck in my mind.

The immigration bureaucrat who denied Jim Peron re-entry into New Zealand gave as her sole reason that he was "not of good character." When I wrote to Will Thomas and Ed Hudgins, recommending that they should withdraw their speaking invitation to Lindsay Perigo, because he was a man of proven bad character, I was hitting closer to home than I realized.

After Mr. Peron had been denied re-entry, and he had pursued his appeal as far as he thought it was worth going, he had the books from his store boxed up for shipment to him in the United States. Shortly before the boxes were shipped, someone claiming to represent the building's landlord obtained copies of the keys. Some boxes then vanished, and others were opened and partly emptied. All of the libertarian books that had been in the store stock ended up being sold off by Peter Cresswell and his cronies.

That's a long way from the whole story, but these two details are so puke-inducing that I see no need to go further.

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.

Objectivism attracts some people with narcissistic or borderline personalities. It is easy enough to see what they grab onto, though it is equally easy to see what they have had to ignore or overlook while doing the grabbing. The problem is far from unique to Rand-land, but it is genuine and everyone needs to get real about it. A movement in which people like this are looked up to as leaders has nowhere to go but down.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly, on 10 July 2009 - 09:22 AM, said:

Rowlands is of course not just an arbitrary loony I picked up, he's one of the leading voices of Objectivism on the Internet, esteemed by the TOC people.

I have mixed feelings about Rowlands. He's not dumb, but he certainly can be a dumbass at times. My own experiences with him are not happy ones, usually due to him posturing as an Objectivist guru telling folks that "Objectivism says this..." or "Objectivism teaches that..." or "Objectivism sanctions whatever..." and me saying, "No it doesn't. You're wrong."

I can't think of anything that gets him more pissed than that. But I never did it for that reason. I always did it because he was wrong at the times I said he was.

To me, he is just another socially-impaired vanity-instead-of-ego problem within the subculture. Sometimes he gets stuff right. Sometimes he doesn't. When he doesn't, he usually has a chip on his shoulder that should have been eschewed in kindergarten.

I do not respect his views on Jim Peron. I find them petty and disgusting.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

It's amazing how our posts cross at times.

Thank you for that report (and the earlier ones).

Michael

[Chris Baker]

Robert Campbell, on 10 July 2009 - 12:31 PM, said:

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_.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

[Robert Campbell]

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

[Selene]

Gentlemen:

Does Perigo have any assets in his name?

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

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

[Robert Campbell]

Selene, on 10 July 2009 - 02:08 PM, said:

Gentlemen:

Does Perigo have any assets in his name?

Adam

Adam,

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

Robert Campbell

[Chris Baker]

Robert Campbell, on 10 July 2009 - 02:05 PM, said:

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.

[Dragonfly]

Robert Campbell, on 10 July 2009 - 02:05 PM, said:

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.

[Chris Baker]

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.

[Xray]

Dragonfly, on 10 July 2009 - 08:46 AM, said:

Chris Baker, on 10 July 2009 - 08:08 AM, said:

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):

Rowlands said:

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.

This post has been edited by Xray: 11 July 2009 - 04:13 AM

[ginny]

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.

Ginny