The Smearing of Jim Peron

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; A small correction: You referred to CSI SVU. There is no show with that name. There is Law & Order: SVU.

Chris,

Dayaamm!

How on earth did I get that wrong? I only watch 3 or 4 episodes a week minimum—unless there is a marathon. In that case I tend to watch several in a row. I have seen many episodes from previous seasons more than once and I am always delighted when I find one that I haven't seen yet. I even see Detective Elliot Stabler in a Hank Rearden kind of light. He's always caught between his own values and the ones in the social structure he works in, and he is strongly impacted by his work.

(I also watch CSI, CSI Miami, CSI NY, and the other Law & Order series. A new favorite is emerging, though: Criminal Minds.)

Interestingly, these shows have become a lot more entertaining to me lately than the mess the boneheads create in the Objectivist subculture.

Michael

I like them all too. I haven't been able to get into Criminal Minds.

We are in complete agreement on the Objectivist subculture. The Objectivist subculture is becoming submerged.

This year has seen huge sales of Atlas Shrugged, two new biographies of Rand, people talking about going "Galt". We have long posts about charges by a nut, Perigo. Don't people have better things to do.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Chris Grieb

[Selene]

Chris:

Well said. It sickens me to see that we have banalized her brilliant insights and writings into a petty discussion of whether or not the age of consent should be x or y.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

Interestingly, these shows have become a lot more entertaining to me lately than the mess the boneheads create in the Objectivist subculture.

Michael

Perhaps because you can see people actually thinking on those shows?

On the general question of age of consent: it's important to bear in mind that the relative age of both individuals has an immense bearing on the question. In general, a 16 year old getting it on with a 14 year old has a vastly different social and emotional context from a 24 year old (or any adult) getting it on with a 16 year old, especially if that adult has some position of authority or trust relative to the minor.

That's why at least some states(probably most, possibly all, but I don't know enough relevant details to be sure) have a statutory rape scheme that makes exceptions when it's a case of two young people (so, for instance, a 19 year old will probably not get into trouble because of having sex with a 17 year old girlfriend, but a 20 year old might, and a 24 year old probably will.)

Jeffrey

(who generally watches nothing on TV)

[9thdoctor]

Chris Grieb: “We have long posts about charges by a nut, Perigo. Don't people have better things to do.”

Some thoughts on why this issue doesn’t go away:

A fair evaluation of Jim Peron is not self evident. The time factor (20+ years) and the fact that he didn’t have a long running pattern of involvement with NAMBLA is critical. If you credit the innuendo that his involvement was more ongoing, or evaluate his single contribution to Unbound as worthy of a life sentence of moral condemnation, you’ll be on the other side. Actual pedophiles do get a kind of life sentence, having to register their whereabouts for decades after their prison sentences are complete.

No one claims Peron himself is a pedophile, but this case rests on a couple of fault lines among Objectivists, the first being the issue of sanctioning the sanctioners, the other being the credibility of the Brandens. It relates to nearly everything Objectivists fight about, tied into an emotionally charged issue (pedophilia); the combination is about as explosive as witchcraft in Salem. Fireworks draw eyes.

Its ironic that Peron is involved with Laissez Faire Books, which was the flashpoint for the Kelley/Peikoff split. Sad to say, but Barbara Branden’s support for Peron invigorated his enemies, coming as it did right when PARC was coming out. Everyone with an axe to grind has found a lively battlefield.

I’m wondering how to help extinguish this fire, so many man hours have gone into it, and it seems there’s no way to settle it. I’m still new to it, I hope I’m not making it worse. If only Chris Sciabarra and JARS would get involved, we’d have the battle of 5 armies from The Hobbit.

News flash: Roman Polanski was just arrested by the Swiss for what he did in 1977. His long term flouting of the law nearly puts him in the O.J. class, I don’t know yet if I’m rooting for him to get nailed or not. He paid off the girl a long time ago, and has been in a kind of professional exile for over 30 years.

[Robert Campbell]

Jeff R,

I met Gene Berkman when he and I lived in Austin, Texas. Never knew him well, and both of us moved out of Armadilloville a long time ago.

Where was Gene Berkman in the late 1980s? I shouldn't have taken anything in that "Locke Foundation" report at face value.

Robert C

[jriggenbach]

Jeff R,

I met Gene Berkman when he and I lived in Austin, Texas. Never knew him well, and both of us moved out of Armadilloville a long time ago.

Where was Gene Berkman in the late 1980s? I shouldn't have taken anything in that "Locke Foundation" report at face value.

Robert C

Gene was in Riverside (in Southern California) in the late '80s - where he's been since sometime in the '70s, I think; where he still is. I met him in Los Angeles in the early '70s and frequently saw him at libertarian conferences and conventions during the '80s. I haven't seen him since around 1990, but we do the occasional e-mail. I should, BTW, slightly modify my earlier post. I don't know with absolute certainty that Gene had no ownership interest in Libertarian Books and Periodicals. He might have had a financial interest in it that I didn't know about. But he was not living in San Francisco or playing any part in the management of the store.

JR

[Robert Campbell]

Its ironic that Peron is involved with Laissez Faire Books, which was the flashpoint for the Kelley/Peikoff split.

So it is, though LFB had been through a couple of ownership changes before ISIL and Jim Peron became involved.

I guess it's a reminder that the number of actors in Rand-land is still small.

Sad to say, but Barbara Branden’s support for Peron invigorated his enemies, coming as it did right when PARC was coming out. Everyone with an axe to grind has found a lively battlefield.

The foofaraw over Jim Peron broke out while Lindsay Perigo was still allied with Barbara Branden. His demands to line up behind him against Mr. Peron strained their relationship, but didn't break it. After James Kilbourne and Barbara Branden declared that Mr. Perigo was a drunk and should get help, Peron's alleged pedophilia became one of several clubs to hit "Babs" with.

I’m wondering how to help extinguish this fire, so many man hours have gone into it, and it seems there’s no way to settle it. I’m still new to it, I hope I’m not making it worse. If only Chris Sciabarra and JARS would get involved, we’d have the battle of 5 armies from The Hobbit.

No, you're not making it worse.

Chris Sciabarra never got publicly involved in the foodfight over Mr. Peron, but his refusal to condemn Barbara Branden and endorse PARC led to the tag-team denunciation (Perigo-Hsieh-Valliant-Maurone) called "Dialectical Dishonesty" (April 2006) and his permanent retirement from listland.

I'm the Associate Editor of JARS, but I get in Mr. Perigo's face strictly on my own account.

Chris is so fed up with all the crap that JARS has never reviewed Mr. Valliant's book. I doubt he will want to publish a post-mortem on it either.

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think Edge has gone over the edge. He's turning into a loon. His latest comment on his blog post is a hoot.

He's on the rampage against Chris Grieb now. Oooohhh... Scary stuff...

And here is the public threat he sends to Robert Campbell at the end:

If you ever see me in Clemson or Greenville, I would not suggest speaking to me.

Who wants to talk to this dude other than his tribe members?

He thinks Robert does?

Even in the present discussion, he came here out of nowhere acting like a child. Nobody went to where he was. If he hadn't done that, nobody would have even remembered his existence.

Dayaamm!

You can't make this stuff up.

What a lonely little soul...

(Jeff R's comment to that is another hoot, but I don't expect it to last on that blog. -- EDIT: Awww shucks... Ah couldn't control mahself... Ah went and done made a cahpy just in case sumpin happins to it... )

Michael

[Jonathan]

I think Edge has gone over the edge. He's turning into a loon. His latest comment on his blog post is a hoot.

He's on the rampage against Chris Grieb now. Oooohhh... Scary stuff...

And here is the public threat he sends to Robert Campbell at the end:

If you ever see me in Clemson or Greenville, I would not suggest speaking to me.

Who wants to talk to this dude other than his tribe members?

He thinks Robert does?

Who wants to talk to this dude other than his tribe members?

It looks as though he wants to give the impression that he's a bad ass street fighter or something. Earlier he wrote to JR, "I wouldn't recommend speaking to me in such a way in person." Statements like that make me want to meet him in person to see what he'd do. My guess is that if any of us spoke to him in person in the way that JR did here, he'd probably pee his pants and run away (then again, maybe that's what he means: if you see him in person, he would suggest that you not speak to him in a way that he finds upsetting because he doesn't want to embarrass himself by peeing his pants in public)

(Jeff R's comment to that is another hoot, but I don't expect it to last on that blog. -- EDIT: Awww shucks... Ah couldn't control mahself... Ah went and done made a cahpy just in case sumpin happins to it... )

I missed Jeff's comment. What did he write?

J

[Robert Campbell]

It looks as though Dan Edge deleted Jeff Riggenbach's first comment before I saw it.

Jeff has followed up with a second.

Mr. Edge is a belligerent fool.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Another sign that Mr. Edge didn't act on his own is his adoption of a device familiar amongst Diana Hsieh's coterie: promising to delete comments by certified Enemies of Objectivism who might post on his blog.

Meanwhile, Ms. Stuttle is cementing her alliance with Lindsay Perigo by lending her voice to another Perigonian chorus of abuse. She now pronounces me hopelessly afflicted with Linz Derangement Syndrome.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I saved the post. Here it is in context:

Dan Edge said...

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5250&view=findpost&p=79912

This is the kind of crap in Peron's defense that I find completely bizarre.

Chris Grieb on OL writes:

"I met Jim Peron at Free Minds. I found him impressive. My one meeting

with Perigo was not."

So Grieb bases his judgment of Peron on a single meeting with him? And

considering all the evidence against him? Simply unbelievable.

This one is much worse:

"A final point addressed to those who want rid purveyors of kiddie porn

out root and branch might consider that parents have been threaten with jail

for taking pictures of their children in the bath. In another case a man was

entrapped into getting kiddie porn was facing a long time in prison. The US

Supreme Court had to reverse his conviction.

I suspect the above means I will be called child porn sympathizer by Perigo but

so be it."

You absolutely *will* be called a porn sympathizer, you sick son of a bitch, or

at the very least a stalwart defender of kiddie porn lovers. Grieb has a

problem with those who "want rid purveyors of kiddie porn out root and

branch."(!!!) I find this un-f'n-believable. Remember, we're speaking in the

context of a published periodical (Unbound) filled with autobiographical erotic

stories about children, alongside nude pictures of children!

Grieb, if your comments weren't meant very clearly and strongly to defend

kiddie porn, how the hell is someone supposed to interpret that. The only other

possible interpretation I can think of is the following:

"I like OL, and they all like Peron. I met Peron and he was nice. I met

Perigo and he was not nice. Perigo said mean things about Peron and all my

friends got mad go boom. Peron is nice man no matter what they say."

OK, I can think of one other interpretation:

"I have made myself f'n retarded with poor thinking over an extended

period. I am such a blockhead, and have been living in my OL group-think

other-verse for so long, that I simply do not comprehend that what I said

implies terribly evil, nasty things."

I add Grieb and Robert Campbell to my blacklist. Actually, that especially

includes you, Campbell. I'm ashamed for my state and for my beloved local

Clemson that you disgrace its halls. If you ever see me in Clemson or Greenville, I would not

suggest speaking to me.

--Dan Edge

September 27, 2009 6:43 AM

JR said...

While Dan Edge's comment on Chris Grieb is richly

comical (the spluttering and the bulging eyes are especially effective, I

think), and while we must be grateful for humor wherever we find it, I think we

should all be concerned about Dan's reading comprehension. What he manages to

read into Grieb's (admittedly somewhat illiterate) three sentences is little

short of astounding.

I realize that Dan has a very full schedule, what with his efforts to breathe

new life into pointless smear campaigns against people whose names he can't

even spell and the veiled threats of physical violence he routinely issues to

any white-haired old man walking with a cane who declines to address him in the

respectful manner he feels it is only his right to require from all he meets. He's

a busy man, that Dan.

Nevertheless, couldn't he be persuaded to spend at least a little time working

on his clearly very defective skill at understanding what he reads?

Helpfully,

Jeff Riggenbach

September 27, 2009 12:44 PM

Dan Edge said...

My refusal to associate with OL extends to its most

notorious members posting on my blog. Comments posted here are subject to

deletion, though they will be saved.

Jef Riggenbacher just made a comment here accusing me of threatening violence

against Robert Campbell and others, which I deleted. I assume he's referring to

my suggestion that Campbell

not speak to me if he sees me in public.

The implied threat was for a tongue lashing, not a physical beating. I do not

initiate force. But I must admit that part of me would be pleased if a pansy

ass like Jef R. picked a fight with me.

--Dan Edge

September 27, 2009 4:07 PM

JR said...

Read this message quickly! It's about to be

deleted!

JR

September 27, 2009 6:04 PM

No rewriting history this time.

Don't expect me to continue this, though.

It's a pain the ass to keep up with a heckler who acts like he's on a drunken macho trip half the time. (And who knows? He might be...) His deliberate misrepresentations and attempts at bullying are silly. Morally, he has descended to the level of the behavior of Victor Pross (i.e., intentional dishonesty to promote a manipulative agenda and attack folks), who he denounced, so I don't think he merits much more attention.

Michael

EDIT: Jeff's second post is now deleted in the blog.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think I understand some of Edge's looniness these days. I just came across a post on another forum dated Sept. 15 saying that his marriage recently fell apart. Apparently it was a rather brief marriage.

That doesn't explain all the bad faith, but it does explain some of it.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

It's so much fun to mentioned by name even by a nut. I however will not reply to Edge's ravings about me and others. As I have said before I have better things to do.

[Dragonfly]

You still missed another post by JR that has been deleted:

Gee, Dan, between the pointless vendettas, the empty threats, and now the deletions, you'll have quite a lot on your plate! I hope you'll be able to get enough sleep!

Concernedly,

JR

September 27, 2009 4:45 PM

[Brendan Hutching]

Did you guys not find the Abuse: One Boy's Story article by Jim Perron (published in Unbound) just a little bit disturbing?

Dan Edge: “Did you guys not find the Abuse: One Boy's Story article by Jim Perron (published in Unbound) just a little bit disturbing?”

It’s a while since I read this story, but the excerpts on Dan Edge’s site reminded me why I, too, find this story disturbing.

The story contrasts a violent, abusive father with kindly, gentle “boylovers”. By framing the narrative in this way, the story attempts to persuade the reader that the boylovers occupy the high moral ground.

But this presents a false alternative, akin to comparing a violent, brutal Mafia enforcer to a gentle, placid embezzler, and claiming that the embezzler is therefore morally OK. However mild and non-coercive the embezzler may be, he can still cause immense harm.

The reality is that both protagonists are abusers. The only issue is which one is worse: the violent father who drives his son into the arms of deviants, or the “boylovers” who prey on the damaged son.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But this presents a false alternative, akin to comparing a violent, brutal Mafia enforcer to a gentle, placid embezzler, and claiming that the embezzler is therefore morally OK. However mild and non-coercive the embezzler may be, he can still cause immense harm.

Brendan,

Do you mean like Night of January 16th, where the audience could even vote on it?

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I’m being called a patsy on SOLOP, even my very mortal existence is in question. In the midst of a typical rant, Perigo notes: "Funny how the cockroaches say this stuff on Lying, but not here."

I don’t post there, it’s “Linz’s house”, no thanks. Character assassination? No, identification.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

ND,

The idea of Perigo whining about any kind of "character assassination" is comical, being that this is his career.

The problem that rankled him is that there is a game that should be played first and you didn't play it. You are supposed to be charmed by him at the start and interact with him. Then he can lie to himself in good conscious that you are evil scum when you disagree with him.

I sense that he's miffed and perplexed because he's starting to see evidence of the true reputation he has earned—how the general public (someone new like you) sees him from looking over his site and reading about him. He's not used to seeing that ugly reflection in the bubble he lives in.

It's a bitch when you blank out reality for most of your life, then suddenly see it.

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

Did you guys not find the Abuse: One Boy's Story article by Jim Perron (published in Unbound) just a little bit disturbing?

Dan Edge: “Did you guys not find the Abuse: One Boy's Story article by Jim Perron (published in Unbound) just a little bit disturbing?”

It’s a while since I read this story, but the excerpts on Dan Edge’s site reminded me why I, too, find this story disturbing.

The story contrasts a violent, abusive father with kindly, gentle “boylovers”. By framing the narrative in this way, the story attempts to persuade the reader that the boylovers occupy the high moral ground.

But this presents a false alternative, akin to comparing a violent, brutal Mafia enforcer to a gentle, placid embezzler, and claiming that the embezzler is therefore morally OK. However mild and non-coercive the embezzler may be, he can still cause immense harm.

The reality is that both protagonists are abusers. The only issue is which one is worse: the violent father who drives his son into the arms of deviants, or the “boylovers” who prey on the damaged son.

The story is disturbing, and there is some evidence--not a lot, and fairly circumstantial--that Mr. Peron's statements about his connection to Unbound and NAMBLA--were, to put it mildly, inaccurate.

On the other side of the balance, are considerations of this sort:

1) that Mr. Peron has given a version of his connection to Unbound and NAMBLA that is internally consistent and probable, and contradicted only by the evidence mentioned above. Further, according to Mr. Peron's version, the article was heavily rewritten and published without his prior knowledge, much less permission, and that the rewritten parts apparently included the most disturbing portions of the article. (Of course, this raises the question why Mr. Peron did not take any action against Unbound as a result of the article.)

2) that there is no evidence (the assertions of the Locke Foundation report having no real evidence to back them up on this point) that he was editor or publisher of Unbound, and not even any allegations that he was himself a member of NAMBLA.

3) similarly, there is no evidence that Mr. Peron was in contact with any pedophiles during his residence in New Zealand (the Locke Foundation report having to resort to asserting a rather trivial and circumstantial piece of evidence on that point)

4) there are no allegations, even from the Locke Foundation, that Mr. Peron himself has ever engaged in acts of pedophilia.

5) The fact that Mr. Peron allowed NAMBLA to hold meetings on his premises should be judged in the light of the fact that NAMBLA afterwards was allowed to hold meetings in a branch of the San Francisco public library, where presumably there are many more children on the premises than were ever on the premises of Mr. Peron's store.

6) He had as employees one man who was later convicted of child molestation, and one unidentified man who may have been a member of NAMBLA. Extremely circumstantial evidence of what? That Mr. Peron felt that membership in NAMBLA did not automatically disqualify a person from being a gainfully employed member of society?

7) The actual evidence against Mr. Peron contained in the Locke Foundation report could actually be confined to no more than three pages, and is limited to contradicting his statements about why and when he allowed Unbound to be sold in his store, and why and when he allowed NAMBLA to meet there. The rest of the "31 of 29" pages (as the PDF somehow gives for the page count) contains only repetitions of the evidence, unsupported allegations which mostly refer to matters that are irrelevant, and long stretches of innuendo, most importantly a long string of news articles on the prosecution of a pedophile ring in Hawyard--although on close inspection there is no evidence that the ring had any connection to Mr. Peron. (The only connection being that the articles also mention as contemporaneous the sentencing of the employee referred to be above as being convicted of child molestation.)

The very fact that ninety percent of the report should be thrown away should indicate how much value might be placed on the report.)

Based on all that, the treatment given to Mr. Peron by the New Zealand government and certain Objectivists, Lindsay Perigo among them, seems to be unreasonable and unbalanced, even if you judge all questions of fact against Mr. Peron.

Edited September 29, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Brendan Hutching]

But this presents a false alternative, akin to comparing a violent, brutal Mafia enforcer to a gentle, placid embezzler, and claiming that the embezzler is therefore morally OK. However mild and non-coercive the embezzler may be, he can still cause immense harm.

Brendan,

Do you mean like Night of January 16th, where the audience could even vote on it?

Michael

Sorry, Michael. I don't get the allusion.

[Brendan Hutching]

Further, according to Mr. Peron's version, the article was heavily rewritten and published without his prior knowledge, much less permission, and that the rewritten parts apparently included the most disturbing portions of the article.

That’s always possible, although it doesn’t explain the framing, which doesn’t depend on any particular details. But if the author rejects the message that I was getting from the story, all well and good.

As for Peron’s treatment by the New Zealand Government, all governments stipulate conditions for potential migrants. Peron probably failed to meet one or more conditions. I can’t say whether he’s a victim of injustice because I don’t know enough about the case. My comments were directed only at the story.

[Robert Campbell]

Brendan,

Jim Peron was kicked out of New Zealand for being "of unfit character." As I understand it, no explanation is required and none was given; all it takes is the right person in the Immigration ministry to say the words. Such a judgment is appealable—to the same official who made it in the first place.

Kind of what Ayn Rand had in mind when she talked about non-ojbjective law.

Meanwhile, Lindsay Perigo has helpfully volunteered that Jim Peron talked to him too long on the phone, and was a major kvetch in person. Do people get deported for kvetching?

In Night of January 16th, the audience is being probed for its sympathy toward Bjorn Faulkner, who was a crook—but a crook with pizzazz and flair. There is some evidence against each of the suspects in his murder, and each is shady in a different way.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brendan,

You wrote, "By framing the narrative in this way, the story attempts to persuade the reader that the boylovers occupy the high moral ground."

In Night of January 16th, there is Bjorn Falukner (swindler) and Guts Regan (thug) as opposed to John Graham Whitfield (lying banker) and other allegedly respectable people.

Let me paraphrase your words. "By framing the narrative in this way, Rand's story attempts to persuade the reader that the thugs and swindlers occupy the high moral ground."

This is what happens when you eliminate the standard and use blanket evaluations.

In relation to physical violence and "seeing" some of the emotional needs of an problematic boy (the standard), the "boylovers" in Jim's story actually do "occupy the high moral ground." They gave a severaly abused child protection and emotional nurturing. Do you find that evil or a "low moral ground"?

This does not mean that they "occupy the high moral ground" according to other standards, though. I believe the contrast was part of Jim's point, which is exactly what Rand did. Obviously, performing sex with underaged children is evil, just like swindling and murder and so forth are evil.

A blanket evaluation without citing the standard tends to blank-out huge chunks of reality and promote bias. The next step for an emotionally charged issue using this manner of rhetoric goes straight to bigotry. And when a person starts using bigotry as his epistemology on one issue, he will use it on others. That's my real beef.

Clarity of thinking demands keeping the standards present and using them. Otherwise you get fuzzy thinking and the door for emotioanally manipulating others bangs wide open.

btw - On another point, the idea that parts of Jim's story were rewritten by another persopn is plausible to me, although I cannot claim this as fact. I do sense a definite stylistic difference when "boylovers" are focused on in his story.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Some people seem to be of the opinion that if a person reveals that he was sexually attracted to adults when he was a child, or that he was not traumatized by being caressed by them, why, then he must be "promoting" or "sanctioning" adult-child relationships. Well, if, as a child, a person had a sexual relationship with an adult, and he reports that it was not traumatic, but that it was an enjoyable, loving experience, it doesn't follow that he's "sanctioning" such relationships and trying to encourage more of them. Although as a child I would have loved to have engaged in sexual activity with certain beautiful adult women, as an adult I find the idea of adults being sexually attracted to children disturbing.

If a person had an enjoyable, loving experience, then it was an enjoyable, loving experience to him, and identifying it at such is simply identifying his experience of reality. I mean, what's a person to do? Should he lie and try to convince others, as well as himself, that the experience was traumatic because that's what others want to hear? If someone like Barbara Eden had made my dreams come true when I was 6 or 10 or 14, should I have made myself feel shame and victimhood? Should I have made myself believe that she was a vicious monster who made me do things against my will and that she severely damaged me, because if I believe otherwise, then frantic Objectivists are going to try to shame me and make me a victim of their public smear campaigns?

Btw, another thing that I find to be disturbing (in addition to adults who are attracted to children) is alleged Objectivists who fantasize about finding themselves in situations where they'd have an excuse to get physically violent with people who have disagreed with them online, or teased them about their emotionalism and their lack of reading, writing and thinking skills. It's very disturbing to me that a person would proudly admit that he would be "pleased" if he had technical justification to physically beat someone else.

J