Michael Stuart Kelly

The Smearing of Jim Peron

Recommended Posts

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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael; Thanks! I had heard a little about the issue and wanted to know more.

Sometimes Objectivists disgust me.

I suspect I'll be accused of child rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yucko.

This has been going on for way too long, not like it wasn't just wrong in the first place.

Black Comedy Relief Moment<tm>: Q: What's the best thing about being a pedophile?

A: They think you're HUGE!

OK, sorry for that.

This is just the normal rat-like wiener move that oh-so-tires me. I love how these guys talk themselves into feeling some kind of supposed moral imperative, enough so to trigger a public flogging. All the while, never, but ever, questioning the true motivations they hold. Pedophila sickens me: half-cocked accusations of pedophilia sicken me almost as much.

rde

Off to peruse Target for good deals in the kiddie dept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

I have to object to bringing this up for two reasons: I'm not aware of Jim Peron trying to defend himself publicly, so why you? If it's your intention to hit Lindsay over the head with this, you're in his ballpark. What does a pederasty sanctioning libertarian have to do with Objectivist Living?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant,

I am correcting a wrong I did. I regret it deeply and I am trying to set what little right that can be set right.

Rowlands brought it up on another forum. I merely ran with it.

Do I understand correctly? Are you defending Peron against me defending him? Did he ask you to do that? If not, then why object on those grounds? Do you have special privileges that I don't have?

And yes, I believe smearing someone falsely with the charge of being a pedophile the lowest of the low. This is one of the reasons (not the only one) I completely lost respect for Perigo. It's a hot-topic that is very difficult to defend against. People always think "Where there's smoke, there's fire, so there must be something to the charge." In New Zealand Perigo can manipulate stuff. When he was the man on SoloHQ, he could manipulate stuff. But I am not in NZ, SoloHQ shut down to get rid of him and I have copies of everything.

So bring it on. Why not say I am defending adult-child sex? Let them try to make that one stick. That one won't be so easy, will it?

It's a dirty job fighting dirty people. If I had the slightest doubt that Peron was what he was accused of, I would stay silent, but I have seen what the others have seen and I say he was framed big time. Let me repeat that.

JIM PERON WAS FRAMED BIG TIME.

That's the long and short of it.

Is that OK with you? It isn't with me and I have been silent for far too long.

Here in Objectivism-land, we let jerks like Perigo damage others without challenging them in objective terms. What is it? Do we like the show that much? Let's talk about rational passion and how much we love Ayn Rand and need to protect her reputation from immoral people...

(I want to spit...)

In Brazil, they say that pepper causing diarrhea in another is refreshing to watch. Enjoy the show.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with MSK wholeheartedly, having seen the better part of that whole campaign (and there was oh-so-much of it for oh-so-long).

You know, I can pretty much tolerate a bullshit artist: at least you know that's what they're up to.

The worst kinds, though, are the ones that actually manage themselves to a point where they vehemently believe in their own bullshit. And that's exactly how that looked.

It's a very pragmatic and powerful psychological approach towards getting yourself in the champion-of-rights position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant,

I am correcting a wrong I did. I regret it deeply and I am trying to set what little right that can be set right.

Rowlands brought it up on another forum. I merely ran with it.

Do I understand correctly? Are you defending Peron against me defending him? Did he ask you to do that? If not, then why object on those grounds? Do you have special privileges that I don't have?

And yes, I believe smearing someone falsely with the charge of being a pedophile the lowest of the low. This is one of the reasons (not the only one) I completely lost respect for Perigo. It's a hot-topic that is very difficult to defend against. People always think "Where there's smoke, there's fire, so there must be something to the charge." In New Zealand Perigo can manipulate stuff. When he was the man on SoloHQ, he could manipulate stuff. But I am not in NZ, SoloHQ shut down to get rid of him and I have copies of everything.

So bring it on. Why not say I am defending adult-child sex? Let them try to make that one stick. That one won't be so easy, will it?

It's a dirty job fighting dirty people. If I had the slightest doubt that Peron was what he was accused of, I would stay silent, but I have seen what the others have seen and I say he was framed big time. Let me repeat that.

JIM PERON WAS FRAMED BIG TIME.

That's the long and short of it.

Is that OK with you? It isn't with me and I have been silent for far too long.

Here in Objectivism-land, we let jerks like Perigo damage others without challenging them in objective terms. What is it? Do we like the show that much? Let's talk about rational passion and how much we love Ayn Rand and need to protect her reputation from immoral people...

(I want to spit...)

In Brazil, they say that pepper causing diarrhea in another is refreshing to watch. Enjoy the show.

Michael

I just reviewed the "Rumors About Linz" thread. I can see why you feel as you do if you think Jim Peron was "framed big time" and why you thus feel compelled to reply to Rowlands here since you can't there. But considering the contretemps then you're going to have to do a lot of heavy lifting on this one. That Locke Foundation looks suspicious enough to stink.

Since you apologized to him privately and kept quiet about all this at his request--at least about the apology--until Rowlands brought the matter back up, I have some curiosity about his silence, but not enough to justify private correspondence.

I really wasn't involved in that SOLOHQ business nearly three years ago and hardly followed it. Distasteful then, distasteful now. I had a pretty clear outline about the situation in my mind, but I didn't crack my brain with analyses and over details.

Defend him all you want, if that's your passion; learning more, I may share that with you. Objectivist Living is your site, afterall.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant,

Thank you very much. The only thing I request of anyone is to look at the facts if they are interested and resist the "ick" urge when the charge "pedophile" is levied long enough to see if it is a smear or real.

And if it is a smear, it might not be a bad idea to look at the character of the smearer. Today's false witness claimed the pedophile was Peron. He even claimed Barbara Branden was a Nambla supporter. He claimed this often.

Tomorrow who will it be? You? Me? Some poor schmuck on SOLOP who gets heady and blurts out the wrong thing?

As far as the actual conclusions go, that is for each one to decide for himself. But what is more important? Fact? What someone said? "Where there is smoke, there must be fire?" The ickiness of it all? Maybe it's best not to say anything so I won't be splattered with the filth?

Each one knows his own heart.

But I have studied this issue in more depth than I wanted to, I have seen most of the documentation and I have personally interacted with both accusers and the accused. I have come to my conclusion.

Peron was framed. It was a professional job and it even smells like it was well-funded. He was crucified over nothing but local New Zealand power issues and the vanity of a few petty souls.

So little value for so much damage...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really wasn't involved in that SOLOHQ business nearly three years ago and hardly followed it. Distasteful then, distasteful now. I had a pretty clear outline about the situation in my mind, but I didn't crack my brain with analyses and over details.

Were you on Atlantis when it all started there, Brant? (Old Atlantis is where it started and then spilled over to the new list.) Or was that when you were on hiatus from listland for a time?

Since you apologized to him privately and kept quiet about all this at his request--at least about the apology--until Rowlands brought the matter back up, I have some curiosity about his silence, but not enough to justify private correspondence.

What worries me, Michael, about what you're doing isn't anything pertaining to the justice of it. (I am sure Peron was railroaded.) But have you asked him how he feels about starting a listland duel again over the subject?

Ellen

___

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ellen,

I believe Jim Peron is hurt and, when queried, says he's tired of the hurt. So just leave it alone. But I am not starting a listland dual. Rowlands brought this issue up (in order to bash Ron Paul supporters, of all things).

I have nobody but public opinion that interests me and the stake is justice. Those who orchestrated the lynching certainly do not interest me as dueling partners. They already lynched the man and I do not expect to convince any of them.

I am simply going on record and it is high time I did so, knowing what I know.

I am an independent party in the controversy—first acting on the periphery, then more actively by requesting and receiving, researching and downloading, and sending to Barbara Branden copies of the documentation to try to mediate a peace back then. Perigo wanted her to condemn Peron at all costs and she would not do so. That actually was (and is) one of the biggest issues in Perigo's hatred of her.

Many voices who spoke up for Peron back then have also defended low age of consent and/or were his friends or professional buddies, so it was easy for independent, normal, decent people to dismiss their arguments and accept the charges of the disgusting smearers. (I don't mean to imply that Peron supporters are not decent. I am using that word to establish an image of the normal spectator on the outside looking in.) In their minds, it was easy to see the defenders as libertarian crackpots or personal friends. I know this was the case because this was mine.

After all, what was being presented bore some kind of resemblance (and resemblance ONLY) to what we see everyday on TV broadcast news and portrayed in fictional Movies and TV shows (not to mention Dateline's "To Catch a Predator," and who hasn't seen that at one time or another?).

The really disgusting part about the accusers is that they know all this and count on it.

Well, my reality is the following:

1. I am not a personal friend of Jim Peron. We have communicated recently when I approached him to apologize and I would consider it an honor for our communications to develop into a friendship, but no one can say that I am interested in protecting a friend by my gesture.

2. My public persona is one of disclosure of my underbelly and dissection of it. I was an alcoholic, drug addict, very confused person and so on. I think it is evident that had I any inclination toward sexual deviation of any kind, I would have discussed this far sooner than the controversy. On the contrary, out in plain sight, I fell in love with the most wonderful woman ever born and am living a perfectly happy relationship that people sometimes get to glimpse on OL. So it will be impossible for anyone to find any deep dark secrets in my past. I have written about most all of them, trying to understand why I had them in the first place.

3. I have never defended low age of consent. On the contrary, Kat's family has suffered serious injury more than once through child abuse and, I can tell you, she is not emotionally comfortable with what I am doing (although she sees the correctness and agrees with the principles). Thus it is impossible to claim (with seriousness) that I am somehow advancing some kind of pro-pedophilic agenda.

4. I have actually examined the documentation and had communications with many people involved in this. So I am not offering an opinion only. I have seen what the general public has not seen.

I don't know of anybody with those qualifications who spoke up for Peron. But I do know that this kind of profile is practically the only thing normal people will trust to override their "ick" urge.

Jim Peron needs something tangible to point to when he crosses paths with people who do not know about what happened, but are suspicious because of the noise (and this pertains to many, many good people). He needs to be able to say, "You don't have to believe me. Look at that guy over there. He has almost nothing to gain and everything to lose by defending me. I hardly know him and look what he says."

The same thing holds true for his friends and normal defenders. And, actually, I have an enormous amount to gain. It is called upholding my own integrity. There are few gains greater than that.

I submit that having something like this to point to will be a very effective resource medium-to-long term in cracking open and destroying the lie that was implanted in the public mind about Jim Peron. I do not expect much short-term effect because the damage was great. The smearers did a good, professional job of it.

I cannot in good conscious let that lie pass into history without bearing witness to the public travesty that was comitted and condeming it as such. I realize that comes with a price and I extend my apologies to Peron for any hard feelings this might cause him. I simply cannot stand by and watch him roll over and die in unjust public disgrace out of hurt.

That hurts me too much. The world is a better place than that.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many voices who spoke up for Peron back then have also defended low age of consent and/or were his friends or professional buddies, so it was easy for independent, normal, decent people to dismiss their arguments and accept the charges of the disgusting smearers. (I don't mean to imply that Peron supporters are not decent. I am using that word to establish an image of the normal spectator on the outside looking in.) In their minds, it was easy to see the defenders as libertarian crackpots or personal friends. I know this was the case because this was mine.

It wasn't just Peron's friends who were willing to consider or discuss lower age of consent laws. As best as I've been able to discover, there was virtually no difference between Peron and some of his most vocal Objectivist attackers when it came to their views on the issue of age of consent, including Bill Dwyer, who made the initial false accusations (which he later retracted) which stirred up the issue in the first place. My understanding is that Peron thought that the age of 12 was too low, and Dwyer thought that the age should be above puberty, probably at least 14, but he didn't have a firm opinion about what it should be. So it seems that there might have been, at most, a difference of year between their views. Both seemed to hold the view that age of consent is a complex issue with no easy answers.

Some of those who were the most contemptuous of Peron appear to have not gone on record with their views, if they have any, on the issue of age of consent. Their only interest seemed to be to express outrage about others while avoiding defining exactly which views were deserving of their outrage and why.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I have heard a whisper about a whispering campaign because I have offered to send people the documentation I have by email.

Until now, nobody has asked for it. But my intention is not a whispering campaign and I am certianly not afraid of any kind of lawsuit. (In the USA, libel is based on publicly stating untrue facts that cause injury to a person. For instance, claiming a person is a pedophile as a fact without being able to prove it.) I am trying to find a midway between not causing Jim more hurt, but expressing my total condemnation of his unjust persecution.

To my knowledge, after reading all the documetation I have on file, Jim Peron is not a pedophile. The documentation does not even come close to proving it. The people who smeared him as a pedophile are disgusting.

There is an interesting link I just came across giving links to some of the press stories at the time. I want to keep it on file, so why not out in the public?

QNA : New Zealand : People : Jim Peron

I have not read the stories yet, but from the blurbs, they are from the mainstream press. I will probably comment on one or two as I read them in light of the information I have.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHEW!!!

This takes a load off of my mind and thanks for clearing this up, Michael. Jim Peron made a brief stop in Arizona prior to moving to Germany. I had interacted with him on numerous occasions while he was here. I was impressed with his intellect and did believe his side of the story, there was this nagging feeling I had that Peron might have been hiding something since at times (though admittedly rare) I felt he acted oddly.

I think Jim Peron may have handled the whole affair badly or tried to recall the events as best he could but his critics ended up using his statements against him.

He and I did get into a small tiff on an e-mail list a few years back and I lost contact with him. I found out that he is working for ISIL as I called Laissez Faire Books 800 number a few weeks go and he answered the phone.

Fortunately, the matter that lead to our disagreement didn't come up and our conversation was cordial and friendly.

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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody somewhere has decided to put up the information about this affair. From the looks of the site and the title, the person (who uses a third-party hosted service and does not identify himself/herself) does not care for Jim Peron. So the site is biased against him.

What is refreshing is that some of the material (like the Locke Foundation report) is presented "as is" so that this issue can be judged by each person for himself/herself without a lot of cognitive garbage to sort through. Whoever decided to take that approach has my congratulations. This is the nothing short of respecting the reader. Also, the present OL thread is quoted in full (up to this post), but with all the formatting stripped out.

Obviously the person setting up this site has issues with HTML formatting. The broken links are an indication to me that the site might not be unfinished, so here's to hopes that learning takes place enough to make the stuff easily readable by the time it is finished.

Here is the link:

Jim Peron Unbound

I maintain that Jim Peron was railroaded in NZ for political reasons. Whoever is doing this site obviously thinks otherwise.

I do hope the person setting this site up keeps to the approach of presenting the facts without distortions. I will keep an eye on it and report my findings here as time goes on.

That way, should anyone be interested, he or she can read the stuff for himself/herself and decide.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did this post on another thread, but I want it here, too.

I want this double standard on record with my comment. Perigo backpedaled a bit in a post addressed to Brant on calling Jim Peron a pedophile:
Out of deference to your sensibilities I have changed "pedophile" to "Namblaphile," which is how I used to refer to him. Winston Peters called him the former and challenged him to sue him. Nothing happened. I can't imagine anyone publishing that kind of magazine without more than an academic interest in the subject.

Now here is the double standard.

Perigo called Jim Peron a pedophile time and time again. Now he says, "Oops," and expects us to take him seriously. It's gonna be different from now on, right?

Jim Peron severed his bookstore's extremely short business relationship with Nambla in the 80's and never involved himself with them again. Yet he is judged as if he never severed his ties.

You judge people by what they say and what they do. What Jim Peron did over the last quarter of a century more than indicates where he is at.

On the other hand, I expect Perigo's new change of heart on what he calls Jim Peron to last until the next time he gets drunk. (I base this on his history. I hope I am proved wrong, but I don't think I will be.)

As to the standard of presuming someone is guilty because they do not sue a person who slandered him, I use a different standard. In the USA, I learned you presume someone is innocent until proven guilty. Maybe they use a different standard in New Zealand.

That idiot NZ politician Peters (and Perigo and his toadies) called Jim Peron a pedophile. Nobody ever proved it. All they did was shout it.

So I prefer to call the lot of them disgusting liars. The size of my contempt for them is one of the largest I have ever felt in my entire life. They knew exactly what they were doing. They chose evil and practiced it with full knowledge of the false witness they bore. And they did it for politics.

Shame on them, all of them, Christians and Objectivists. They dishonor their souls.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got into that shit and watched every inch of it; that's what people do when things of this nature come up. I know the man only from reading him off and on over the years, but it was serious enough that I stayed on it and did my homework dilligently. There's a ton of stuff out there if one would care to go back and do the research. Even, worse case scenario, if one had so much doubt left (I didn't) that it was "as advertised," that wasn't even the point: one could see, easily, the actions that are always there when a bunch of creeps run a guy up the flagpole. It was a lynchmob, just done a bit more high-handedly, if there is such a thing (I think not). THAT betrayed of its own accord, and it was business as usual as far as I was concerned; I had already watched that main group of political/social metaphysicists tiringly conduct such operations before. It was obvious.

Any time that you see a running, shrieking lynch mob, you can be pretty sure there are underlying agendas.

I agree with everything MSK has said here. It was always that way for those of us who were there, at least the sane ones.

This one sticks out to me only because I notice that I am torn between the vehemnence that makes me want to keep writing about it, versus the sheer disgust of subjecting myself to do so in the first place, and I will do no more because it poisons me so.

It sickens me to have to go back to even that level of detail; I would farther, but better for others to do so if they wish: I have to pick my battles more carefully, for my own immediate sake. Still, it was no more than a mob thing. Weak, underhanded, agenda-laden. Very weak, especially over such a small crowd. To lay such a charge to such an effect.

They know not what they do, indeed.

Nauseating, repulsive.

r

Edited by Rich Engle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, from the little I have gathered as an uninterested witness not involved at the time in any of the fora where this issue was discussed (I didn't even see the Jan 2008 RoR mention til I read of it here much last month) I simply want to ask you, no matter what you think of Perigo, and even with you parenthetical caveat, is the phrase I bolded below worthy of a Christian or an AA member? I am in favor of charity.

"On the other hand, I expect Perigo's new change of heart on what he calls Jim Peron to last until the next time he gets drunk. (I base this on his history. I hope I am proved wrong, but I don't think I will be.)"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted:

Looks to me like MSK is simply being pragmatic. Perigo is fickle. Yeah, after a few glasses of wine he might go sooner, but that is not the matter. Experience shows he doesn't wear retractions or hard changes of position well, what few times he even has done so. I'd go with the odds on that one too. Christian charity is one thing, and I'm all about it, but deeper in, this is about reverence, reason, tolerance, and Perigo fails regularly at at least two of those three, one of which he doesn't even do that well as a traditionally-trained Rand person. His reverence is selective, his reason is often highly lacking in due diligence, and, well, do I have to talk about the practice of tolerance? Those are three cylinders that don't fire too often and even in him, and that's enough for me. How many years should that be watched before one, well, maybe doesn't flat out spend time making judgment, but, more wisely, just knows what the score is? It's what he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted,

You have no idea of the contempt I have for that individual.

Even standing back from my disgust and taking into account my own past (as you rightly mentioned as a standard of extending the principle of charity), after several years of observing the same pattern over and over with that creep, watching as he has tried to damage one good person after another over irrational nonsense and backstage manipulations, I stand by my words.

(I won't even go into the bigotry. Let's just stay within the Objectivist subculture. Here's an exercise for you. Go to the online archives of The Free Radical and make a list of the authors of the past editions. Then try to find out how many he did not later attack and drive off with his irrational vulgar tirades and temper tantrums. The vast majority cannot stand him, and they all published for him for free.)

Perigo either gets drunk or has bouts of insanity to explains his surges of malicious behavior. (These surges occur in between periods of fairly rational behavior.) Since he talks about his drinking a lot, I say he gets drunk and is not insane.

Let me be clear. I am not against drinking—not even against drinking and posting. But I am against people who display certain patterns, like wife-beaters who drink before they beat their wives (to give you a similar concrete so you know what I am talking about).

There comes a point when you observe so much vicious abuse that a person loses all benefit of the doubt. I have no charity left for that person. He used it all up.

You, of course, have the right to extend all the charity you wish to him.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've known Jim Peron for nearly 30 years (though we've been out of touch recently), and have never encountered anyone who's more principled in defense of genuine liberty — nor more dismissive of any activity that would even indirectly suggest abuse or force.

That doesn't mean Jim's tactical sense is finely honed, to put it mildly. To note a pertinent example from MSK's valuable and needed corrective post above:

[...] 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.

Jim wasn't keeping context in mind, which many generous spirits are often inclined to do. He didn't realize that many see participation in the content of a magazine or newspaper as an endorsement of that publication's aims and scope.

That has always made little sense, but unreflective journalists (and political demagogues) have overridden common sense. Today's 24-hour news cycle makes that phenomenon more prevalent, and dangerous, than ever.

What also is implicit here is the value of having many sources of services in even a semi-free economy. Peron was trying to get business for his press. He didn't realize that many such small printers keep a strict distance from the content of what they print, mainly to avoid the "presumed endorsement" suggestion.

The age-of-consent organization probably had a hard time finding a printer. That's where the technological revolutions of, yes, the past two decades come in: Anyone can now put up a Website, and the real press has thus become much freer and more diverse in practice. To modify A.J. Liebling's famous aphorism, the press is free — for he who can code one.

Jim Peron has, on occasion, mixed his sympathies with his business judgments, and I daresay many of us have shared this tactical failing. I know I have. Nonetheless, that doesn't warrant what Perigo and Rowlands (among others) have done to either smear him or keep such smears circulating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

Thank you for speaking out for Jim Peron.

That slick spineless sniveller Perigo, who needs a drink to get his courage up and come out from backstaqe to do any real fighting (but loves to give a macho impression on his own turf), knows that pedophile stuff is so nauseating for most people that they will not speak up. He also knows that people are deathly afraid of getting tainted by that word. But he is not bothered by disgusting stuff if he can use it to slander someone for political convenience. Disgusting is part of his day-to-day life as he makes a mockery of Objectivism by example.

It is a damn shame that an innocent highly-productive person like Jim Peron got crucified by such a petty contemptible little has-been over nothing.

I don't know Jim all that well, so it is not out of friendship that I protest this iniquity publicly (although friendship with him would be high honor for me). It is out of a desire for justice and for restoring a reputation maliciously damaged by false witness.

The man who helped manipulate this political backstage frame-up (using Christians, of all things!) dreams of being an Objectivist leader. I'll let this sham and shame speak for itself.

I do hope others speak out. Jim deserves it. Justice deserves it.

But if they don't, I understand. I personally could not remain silent any longer for my own good sober conscious. I am grateful there is another like you who chose to break silence, also.

You have my most earnest and beholden compliments.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you might wonder why Perigo was -- and is -- so determined to destroy Jim Peron. He denounced him interminably on Solo; my defense of Jim -- who has been a valued friend for many years -- was one of the reasons Perigo turned against me, calling me "a promoter of pedophilia." It will interest you to know that when Jim moved to New Zealand, he formed a libertarian organization, and that that organization began attracting to it people who belonged to the organization to which Perigo belonged and which he endorsed. Not surprisingly, this was more than enough to engender Perigo's bitter hostility; he knew he was outmatched, and he is not a man who believes in fighting fair.

Barbara

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...