The Nature of Private Correspondence - The Sciabarra Smear

[Robert Campbell]

Getting back to Michael's point, in post #83...

Mr. Perigo is preaching the same "revolutionary morality" that Ms. Hsieh and Mr. Maurone have become known for. It's the view that all moral principles are suspended, whenever one is contending with "enemies of Objectivism."

Of course, it's up to the practitioner of such revolutionary "morality" to decide who the "enemies of Objectivism" are. The implied definition is either egocentric or factional.

Robert Campbell

PS. On the same SOLOP thread where Mr. Perigo reacts to the reversal of Ms. Hsieh's "no name" decision, there is some commentary about Ms. Hsieh's getting caught up in her graduate studies. On her blog, Ms. Hsieh offers effusive thanks to Debi Ghate of OAC for her role in this turnaround. So let me make a prediction: like all of Ms. Hsieh's past mentors, Debi Ghate will eventually be discarded, and consigned to the ranks of those lower than slime. This may take a while, though, for its timing will significantly depend on Ms. Hsieh's success at attaining a position of authority within the Ayn Rand Institute. Remember, you read it here first

[Jonathan]

PS. On the same SOLOP thread where Mr. Perigo reacts to the reversal of Ms. Hsieh's "no name" decision, there is some commentary about Ms. Hsieh's getting caught up in her graduate studies. On her blog, Ms. Hsieh offers effusive thanks to Debi Ghate of OAC for her role in this turnaround. So let me make a prediction: like all of Ms. Hsieh's past mentors, Debi Ghate will eventually be discarded, and consigned to the ranks of those lower than slime. This may take a while, though, for its timing will significantly depend on Ms. Hsieh's success at attaining a position of authority within the Ayn Rand Institute. Remember, you read it here first

That will depend on Ghate's standing with Peikoff and/or his heir. If Peikoff and heir remain happy with Ghate, there will be no reason for Hsieh to publicly denounce Ghate.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

I found your "misspelling" of Perigo as Pigero quite appropriate and clever.

J

[Chris Grieb]

Jonathan & Michael;

I brought tapes by Mr Ghate discussing Galt's speech. While I was listening I had reason to visit the TOC offices and got into a conversation with David Kelley in which I mentioned my listening to Mr Ghate's tapes. David Kelley printed out an outline he had done of Galt's speech. I must reeport that the two outlines were similar. Perhaps it is that because they were dealing with the same material they were alike.

Mr Ghate is the " fair haired boy" of ARI having been there latest speaker in their ARI lecture series. The lecture of which excerpts are reprinted in Impact is titled "Atlas Shrugged: America's Second Declaration on Independence. I must say the parts of the lecture I read were quite good.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[emb021]

Not sure if this adds to the conversation, but this is a link to the 'Linzisms' and their definitions over on SOLOP http://www.solopassion.com/node/1389

[Chris Grieb]

I think there is a case for keeping Lindsay away from all sharp objects.

Michael; Thanks for the link. Some pathologies have to be seen.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Nothing like talent, is there?

When I grow up, maybe I can be like that and do great things in life...

Michael

[BAMF]

Wow...

Can somebody further explain this, please: "Namblaphile = adult/child-sex advocate of the kind defended by Barbara Branden."

*goes off to participate in musical maggotry*

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kori,

This has to do with Jim Peron, a friend of Barbara Branden. He is a famous libertarian. When he was younger (several decades ago), he owned a bookshop in San Francisco that was used for a few meetings of Nambla, an organization devoted to adult-child sex, and he wrote an article that was included in a publication for the same purpose (which was printed at his premises). Back then and until recently, adult-child sex was not so hot-button as it is today and it was an issue debated fairly commonly in libertarian circles from the standpoint of individual rights.

Peron migrated to New Zealand and set up shop. During an international meeting of libertarians in Europe, his visa was revoked as an undesirable person based on those decades-old activities and he was not allowed back in the country. On the old SoloHQ forum, where Perigo and Barbara were both members, Perigo called for everyone to demonize Peron as a pedophile in support for the NZ government's actions. I am ashamed to say that I fell for it back then and I have since retracted. Barbara refused to abandon her friend based on such ancient evidence, initially not even looking at it.

Perigo now calls her a supporter of pedophilia, but he knows she isn't. He is just baiting her, hoping for some attention some day since she now ignores him. Below is a post that explains his real hatred of Peron.

There is one small addition I want to make to your analysis about Peron and how it impacted events. Perigo was one of the founders of the NZ libertarian party. Under his guidance, it floundered and flopped around, but basically stayed tiny and did nothing but yap to a minuscule public. When Peron arrived to help it along, the whole libertarian movement in NZ started becoming organized and actually started bothering the powers that be in very concrete terms, like people getting elected and laws being passed. What used to be a cocktail party joke slowly started becoming an inconvenient force to be reckoned with. Peron did not bow to The Ineffectual One, but instead became The Driving Force. The Ineffectual One, cast aside, became hate-filled and envious of The Driving Force.

Peron needed to be stopped by the powers that be and an ineffectual dude instated once again to lead the libertarian movement (any old dude would do). The Ineffectual One's hatred and envy of Peron was what the doctor ordered. Since the whole ideological foundation of The Ineffectual One's platform was Objectivism and he was being used as a pawn by the powers that be to make their move (but he perceived it as making his own move just as he was supposed to think—and all this was done through an independent agency called The Locke Foundation to ensure deniability for all), it was causing The Ineffectual One acute grief at home to have Barbara Branden (a living icon from the founding days of Objectivism) stand up against the smearing of The Driving Force on The Ineffectual One's own website. That's where the initial underlying tension came from (in addition to the personality disorder you mentioned).

All the rest was window dressing, including the pedophilia thing (although The Driving Force actually was embarrassingly arrogant and inconsistent in his public interviews and tripped all over his own ego).

Just tockin' to myself out loud...

Jim Peron did brilliant work in NZ. Apparently he is still affiliated with the Institute for Liberal Values of New Zealand.

Michael

[Jonathan]

This has to do with Jim Peron, a friend of Barbara Branden. He is a famous libertarian. When he was younger (several decades ago), he owned a bookshop in San Francisco that was used for a few meetings of Nambla, an organization devoted to adult-child sex,

If I recall correctly, Peron claimed that NAMBLA had been using meeting space and/or selling publications in his bookstore prior to his owning it, and that their continuing to do so was a condition of the sale of the bookstore to Peron.

and he wrote an article that was included in a publication for the same purpose (which was printed at his premises).

Peron claimed (again, if I recall correctly) to have provided mailbox rental services at the bookstore, and that someone renting a box from him must have printed the publication and used his article without his permission or knowledge.

Back then and until recently, adult-child sex was not so hot-button as it is today and it was an issue debated fairly commonly in libertarian circles from the standpoint of individual rights.

Many of Peron's Objectivist accusers have avoided debating the issue of age of consent. A couple of them have suggested that the age of consent should be as young as puberty, but, oddly, they haven't faced the same rage and accusations that Peron faced. If I recall, one of Peron's accusers at one point appeared to advocate an age of consent lower than what Peron appears to advocate. I'd have to search old files to see if that's true.

J

Edited May 17, 2007 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

I have lots of old links and specific information. The problem with Peron's public declarations is that one day he would say one thing (he was never involved at all), then another he would contradict himself (he allowed such and such). I think the straw that broke the camel's back was his denial of any knowledge of Unbound (the magazine in question), then a copy surfaced with an article written by him in it.

He didn't need to do all that lying and contradicting himself in public, but he got arrogant on success and did. I have copies of most everything essential (including the magazine). A factual report should be made public, so I will prepare one. Let people read facts, not opinions.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

I have lots of old links and specific information. The problem with Peron's public declarations is that one day he would say one thing (he was never involved at all), then another he would contradict himself (he allowed such and such). I think the straw that broke the camel's back was his denial of any knowledge of Unbound (the magazine in question), then a copy surfaced with an article written by him in it.

He didn't need to do all that lying and contradicting himself in public, but he got arrogant on success and did. I have copies of most everything essential (including the magazine). A factual report should be made public, so I will prepare one. Let people read facts, not opinions.

Michael

It would be intersting to read a very condensed synopsis of both sides of the whole Peron ordeal (with links to more info for those interested). At the time that it was happening, there were way too many long-winded posts. Too much to wade through.

J

Edited May 17, 2007 by Jonathan

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

There are two separate issues here. First of all, I would have nothing to do with someone who at any time publicly advocated having sex with kids. This does not mean making a few posts on a website debating the age of consent. This means being an advocate for the cause. I am unlikely to ever have anything to do with Jim Peron.

However, the second issue involves collaborating with corrupt governmental agencies to achieve your ends. I believe that people who do this are playing with fire. Having been through a 6-year immigration process with my wife, I know the kind of arbitrary power immigration agencies wield. Until and unless immigration agencies develop rules of evidence at least as strong as an American trial by jury I would have nothing to do with them. Objectively, I am also puzzled at what such an action accomplishes. If you believe someone is dangerous, they are dangerous wherever they are, not just in New Zealand.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

There is another issue—a third one—involved and one that was not discussed much: the immorality of framing a person through smear tactics in order to silence him.

After studying the material, I have come to the conclusion that Jim Peron was framed in a consciously orchestrated backstage campaign. He was an easy target. He was abrasive to those in power and he was a public supporter of low age of consent for sex (which nowadays is treated like a taboo akin to human sacrifice or cannibalism). He was a mess with the press. He walked like a lamb to the slaughter right into the traps that were set for him. He even stuck his neck on the chopping block and said, "Cut here."

But none of that matters when analyzing the terrible injustice that was done to him in the name of morality. I don't mean the visa issue. I mean the smear job. The hypocrisy I have perceived by sanctimonious moral con artists is simply sickening.

The nature of the adult-child sex issue, and the zeal with which unscrupulous people like to use it to smear others, makes it necessary for me to state the following very clearly:

I do not support a low legal age of consent for adult-child sex. I am wholly against it.

I believe in the right of adults to practice consensual sex however they wish, but, as is being more and more demonstrated through case studies, adult-child sex actually infringes the right of the child to healthy psychological development to adulthood (an extension of his right to life). Like Rand wrote, there is no such thing as one right that breaches another.

This was a popular subject once in libertarian circles and I believe that the people who advocated this publicly did not have a complete view of human nature. But I do not believe most of them were pedophiles trying to get away with evil who were simply not caught yet. I believe they were good people, but mistaken. As with anarchism (for which I hold the same criticism about incorrect view of human nature), I think their real concern was with freedom. I believe they made a mistake in overstating the case for freedom.

And I believe that their work in support of lowering the legal age of consent has been used to smear and demonize them over the years by their intellectual inferiors in order to silence them on other issues. These intellectual midgets do not have what it takes to compete with them on the market for ideas, so they play dirty to get rid of the competition. The Peron NZ case was a perfect example of this. This causes my contempt of such intellectual inferiors to grow.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael,

Thank you again. I had heard about the issue but I think now I have a better idea.

[

Jim, Your comments about the INS are enlightening and sadly not surprising. I suspect there are a host of stories like yours.

Michael, I hope there can be a rational discussion of the age of consent issue. It is impossible to do so if the accusation that the reason you are talking about the issue is so you can have sex with the young.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

Thanks for your comments. I do not think morality is like arm wrestling where you try to push people beyond means of persuasion to your view. This is one of the things I strongly dislike about ARI and why I think coordinated shunning is wrong. People have to make up their own mind. I don't like Jim Peron, but I'm not going to make it a life priority to persecute him over the issue.

Jim

[Brant Gaede]

Adult-child sex? Who is advocating that?

Is an adolescent a child?

The whole subject is an untouchable legal/moral mess. A stinking tar baby.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adult-child sex? Who is advocating that?

Brant,

Nobody I know of anymore. What I have read was yesteryear. (I probably should have said adult-adolescent, as in low age of consent.)

Michael

[Jonathan]

The nature of the adult-child sex issue, and the zeal with which unscrupulous people like to use it to smear others, makes it necessary for me to state the following very clearly:

I do not support a low legal age of consent for adult-child sex. I am wholly against it.

I agree, only I think that, psychologically, a normal, average person in our current American society doesn't become an adult until he or she is 26 (and some Objectivists never become adults). Having sex before 26 can be psychologically damaging (I've seen many people completely mess up their lives by doing so), and should be punished with long prison terms. People who advocate the right to have sex with people younger than 26 should be socially stigmatized.

I believe in the right of adults to practice consensual sex however they wish, but, as is being more and more demonstrated through case studies, adult-child sex actually infringes the right of the child to healthy psychological development to adulthood (an extension of his right to life). Like Rand wrote, there is no such thing as one right that breaches another.

What was Rand's official Objectivist position on the age of consent, and what were the arguments she used to support it? Actually, I think a more relevant question is "what is the age of stigma?" According to Objectivism, what age of consent can a person publicly advocate without being labeled a pervert? I say 26. What does Objectivism say?

J

[Chris Grieb]

Jonathan;

I hope your tongue is firmly in your cheek with no sex with any one under 26.

I never heard Miss Rand address the question of age of consent. I also never heard any discussion by other Objectivists. Has anyone else?

Does anyone know Dagny's age when she goes to bed with Francisco?

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan;

I hope your tongue is firmly in your cheek with no sex with any one under 26.

I never heard Miss Rand address the question of age of consent. I also never heard any discussion by other Objectivists. Has anyone else?

Does anyone know Dagny's age when she goes to bed with Francisco?

I think they were 16--in the forest. Of course Francisco was as expert the first time as he was at anything the first time. Now how could such a man be born tabula rasa?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

You are right to lampoon the hysteria that was unleashed under the banner of Objectivism, but some of the stuff I read was talking about 11 and 12 years old. Usually it was around 14 for age of consent. That's just too early for independent consent for sex with adults. These are still minors. I have no strong restrictions if something happens within the same general age group (say within a 3 year age difference or so), but I don't think it is a very good idea to encourage it that young. I am definitely not in agreement with the religious approach promoted by Bush of complete abstinence because God commands it.

As for case studies of the negative effect of sex with adults on the healthy psychological development of the young (especially with respect to sexual predators), the ones I have read have nothing to do with Objectivism.

There is a theory out there that a pedophile is incurable and will suffer urges for children all his life. While I am not an expert on this subject (especially therapy and prescription drugs), as an ex-drug addict, I find this "freak of nature" approach lacking.

But that is not the issue so much in my case. My point is that I bore false witness against a man I did not know because I allowed myself to get caught up in strong emotional inducement from Perigo & Co., when the real issue was political manipulation. I am ashamed of that and I wish to correct the moral lapse.

Michael

[BAMF]

Michael, thanks for the explanation. How wild.

Also, would you mind posting those case studies you mentioned? This is an interesting issue.

*goes and watches the South Park "NAMBLA" episode*

[Dodger]

The nature of the adult-child sex issue, and the zeal with which unscrupulous people like to use it to smear others, makes it necessary for me to state the following very clearly:

I do not support a low legal age of consent for adult-child sex. I am wholly against it.

I agree, only I think that, psychologically, a normal, average person in our current American society doesn't become an adult until he or she is 26 (and some Objectivists never become adults). Having sex before 26 can be psychologically damaging (I've seen many people completely mess up their lives by doing so), and should be punished with long prison terms. People who advocate the right to have sex with people younger than 26 should be socially stigmatized.

I believe in the right of adults to practice consensual sex however they wish, but, as is being more and more demonstrated through case studies, adult-child sex actually infringes the right of the child to healthy psychological development to adulthood (an extension of his right to life). Like Rand wrote, there is no such thing as one right that breaches another.

What was Rand's official Objectivist position on the age of consent, and what were the arguments she used to support it? Actually, I think a more relevant question is "what is the age of stigma?" According to Objectivism, what age of consent can a person publicly advocate without being labeled a pervert? I say 26. What does Objectivism say?

J

Are you serious?

[Jonathan]

But that is not the issue so much in my case. My point is that I bore false witness against a man I did not know because I allowed myself to get caught up in strong emotional inducement from Perigo & Co., when the real issue was political manipulation. I am ashamed of that and I wish to correct the moral lapse.

When I first began visiting the old SOLOYahoo group I got the sense that there was probably a lot of behind the scenes manipulation going on. It just felt like the group expressions of rage were sometimes orchestrated. It seemed that image was very important, and that there was a general belief that several people expressing disgust in unison was more powerful than rational discussion. And I really began to suspect that my gut instinct about it was right when Perigo began occasionally asking his fellow SOLOYahoo members to write letters to the editor to the Free Radical because he was short for the upcoming issue (I've worked for a magazine in the past and did a little freelance work for a newspaper, and their publishers and editors would have considered it very unethical to try to drum up last-minute letters to the editor from friends).

Anyway, MSK, I think you've mentioned in the past some of the e-mail campaigns that you've seen while you were still on friendly terms with others in the O'world. If you could share some of your experiences, without violating confidentiality, I'd be interested in reading about them. It's always interesting to discover what was real and what was a hyped up lie.

J