The Smearing of Jim Peron

Recommended Posts

I suppose I am going to have to address a little mess that got created by a person with her heart in the right place, but her tracking in the wrong. I refer to a poster on Solo Passion called Sharon Bonner. I do not know Ms. Bonner and I certainly disagree with some of her political views I have read. But in her posts I sense a sincere person who is very bitter at the hypocrisy she sees all around her.

Ms. Bonner is now going to witness up close and personal what true distortion means in the hands of very malicious, but very crafty people. I don't envy her this education since I had to go through the same. I predict that more bitterness is in her future.

Here is the con game that is going down right now. If you want to put over a fraud in public—like scapegoating somebody with a smear—and pretend in public that you are being factual, objective, etc., you have to have some legitimate reason—some legitimate issue—to create the aura of being a well-reasoned person.

One of the easiest ways on earth to get this legitimate issue is the following:

1. Ignore at all costs issues of substance regarding serious objections from intelligent knowledgeable people.

2. Find a well-meaning, but totally befuddled critic who misquotes a bunch of stuff from those intelligent knowledgeable people.

3. Correct that hapless critic loudly and trumpet victory of truth, yada yada yada.

4. Most of all, pretend that the critic's errors correctly represent errors by the people she was quoting.

5. Treat this as proof that the smear is fact and the critics of the smear are lying, and blast this message to the four winds with all due spin, whether stated or insinuated.

This is a dirty vicious game with dirty vicious people playing it.

Here is the link of Ms. Bonner's post: There is much I have learned.

Solo Passion's buggy search function will make it not linkable after it goes into the ether of older pages, so if you are reading this after a few days, you will have to find the post by clicking on older pages on that thread and scrolling to the post dated: Mon, June 22, 2009 at 2:40, called (once again) "There is much I have learned."

The factual errors are many and, if my posts are compared to the things Ms. Bonner copy-pasted, it will be easy to see that her effort was botched big-time.

A member of the Locke Foundation (Madeleine) did a pretty good job of correcting some of Ms. Bonner's errors (not all). She also did a very good thing for interested parties by providing a link to Jim Peron Unbound, where copies of the actual documents can be found (although there is some spin to wade through).

But, of course, Ms. Madeleine couched this in the intimidation people use when framing someone with the charge of pedophilia: "Which side of the paedophile apologist movement you want to stand on Sharon? Peron was a paedophile apologist."

How's that for intimidation? Who in their right mind would want to be a pedophilia apologist? The problem is that The Locke Foundation's Report did not prove that Jim Peron was a pedophilia apologist, although it alleged it over and over and over and over and over.

They did prove (by Peron's own admission) that he allowed NAMBLA to meet once a month in his bookshop in the second half of the 1980's (and there is no documentation presented in the Locke Foundation Report on how many meetings were held altogether, only hearsay, and even then there is no consensus among the people quoted—but the Locke Foundation greatly favored the one that talked about 4 years of meetings). They did not prove that Peron participated in those meetings, nor did they prove he was fully aware of NAMBLA's agenda (which at that time did not have the same reputation as now), nor did they prove that he endorsed pedophilia.

Peron's printing press published one issue of a magazine called (Unbound) that carried a story he wrote. His story does not present pedophilia nor advocate pedophilia, although the magazine does. And there is a documented police raid on Peron's bookstore in 1987. Anything further in that report is really nothing but hearsay.

The fact that there is nothing but hearsay after a single volume of a magazine published in 1987 and a police raid in 1987 (duly protested in print by Peron as abuse of authority) tells me a clear story that he asked NAMBLA to leave as he himself has declared. He was becoming aware of the true nature of NAMBLA and distanced himself, even though he greatly disliked the police.

Since that time there has been nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Ms. Bonner, on saying, "digging up papers from decades ago," received an incorrect correction from the former member of the Locke Foundation: "'Decades?' The singular 'decade' is more accurate. "Decades" implies at least two. (If you took your dates from the primary sources you'd be more accurate)"

The primary source (The Locke Foundation Report) says very clearly 1987. For the math-challenged:

2009 - 1987 = 22.

That's over two decades.

I hope Ms. Bonner is preparing her BS meter because it is getting ready to rain BS in abundance. Cunning malicious BS, but BS nonetheless.

There is something I wrote that Ms. Bonner quoted and was duly corrected where the correction is valid. It concerns Peron's political influence in New Zealand. I had incorrectly presumed during one of my criticisms of Perigo that Peron's influence was with Libertairanz. Peron actually was influential in ACT, a major political party in NZ where the electable Libertairanz politicians usually migrated to (and still do as far as I can ascertain). And he was Executive Director of the New Zealand Institute for Liberal Values. My comment still stands about Jim Peron vastly overshadowing Perigo in the pro-freedom world back then and this causing resentment.

I probably should go through the things wrongly quoted by Ms. Bonner and put them side by side with what I wrote, but I just don't have the time or energy. This should blow over soon, anyway.

In fact, I am not posting this as a rebuttal to any ongoing debate, but merely as reference for people like Ms. Bonner who become curious enough to start digging outside of Solo Passion and other channels that framed Jim Peron. Let them see someone serious saying something different.

At any rate, I am not angry with Ms. Bonner for the misquoting. I merely hope that the crap she is witnessing—and is going to witness—both online and off—will not make her more bitter than her posts show her to be. My urge is to tell her that life is good and worth living and that there are good people in this world and she is one of them. I sense she is a good person. Very careless with facts, but a good person.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, I'm stunned. I knew absolutely nothing about this Peron guy. Now I learn that he was the head of NZ's Libertarian party and Perigo the head of some group riding his coattail (as he would later ride BB's coattail). So the whole argument between Peron and Perigo was common prosaic jealousy. Perigo turns resentment against Peron into a philosophic difference.

Oh wow. That so fits my opinion of Perigo. His actions are so mundane, it hurts.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Jim Peron, as far as I know, was not the leader of the NZ Libertarian party (called Libertarianz). Perigo actually founded that party, but it was never anything other than a very, very minor fringe group in NZ during those early years. It still is so small that it has no political influence to speak of.

ACT, from what I gather, is similar to the Republican Party here. That's where Peron exercised his influence. Libertarian candidates who were more electable gravitated to ACT, sort of like Ron Paul being a Republican.

Peron's pro-freedom efforts in New Zealand completely overshadowed Perigo's while he was there. In fact, the nasty folks timed the dirty work of canceling Peron's visa to when he was out of the country and in Europe heading an ISIL (International Society for Individual Liberty) conference. That greatly simplified the legal work, since he couldn't get back into the country.

Perigo's rift with Barbara is that he trashed Peron and demanded that Barbara do the same. She refused. Since being near to her was his ace-in-the-hole to prove that he really was a somebody in the libertarian world outside of New Zealand, this stung.

He also had this chip on his shoulder about drinking and daring anyone to say anything when he did his drunken escapades in public, and she said something. She told him to stop. Her friend, James Kilbourne even posted an article calling him an alcoholic. That stung even more. (He even wrote to me back then something to the effect of "How credible do you think it looks for an 'Objectivist leader' to be called an alcoholic"? I have that email on file.)

Then PARC came along with Peikoff's sanction, since it had original Rand material in it, so he saw that as a way to save face and still be in the running for "Founding Father of NZ Liberty" or whatever goes on in his delusions.

The price? Sacrifice all the good he had ever had with Barbara and attack her mercilessly to try to discredit her as much as humanly possible, whether the facts aligned or not.

In other words, to sustain his vanity, "Price, no object."

Not even his own integrity.

That's why he hates Barbara.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thee is another really disgusting way this kind of smear campaign plays out. I am surprised to see it mentioned in public, but there it is. The post is here by Ms. Madeleine. Once it goes into a back page on that thread, you will have to find the page it is on and scroll to the date marked Wed, June 24, 2009 at 00:27. It is entitled "I agree that Objectivist."

Further, through this episode I came to know Linz. I had only ever heard of him previously but we ended up spending many hours on the phone and emailing each other through the research phase. I found him to be a very principled person who shared my deep concerns about not making this allegation lightly either. He has a strong personality and a forthright style and it is no secret he did not like Peron - he openly admitted this - but one thing I am certain of, because it came through clearly in my dealings with him, is that there is no way Linz is the sort of person who would make up an allegation of paedophilia or twist the facts into something they were not. You are simply not correct when you describe Perigo as someone not concerned with morals or as a "temperamental opportunist," he was very concerned with the morals of this situation and the greater good, we spent a lot of time discussing these and agonising about whether to go public with the information or not given its ramifications. Perigo's focus in our conversations was often more on the children harmed and innocent people being publicly tarred than on the impact on Peron and his own issues with him. Perigo is not the nasty person he is accused of being.

That sounds like a resounding endorsement of a good man until you look at it a little closer. Since I have lived a similar situation with this dude (involving charges against another person who was discussed at length backstage, but through emails with me—and fortunately that person did not get trashed in public), I know exactly how this plays out.

Many hours on the telephone and emailing?

You betcha.

This is a great opportunity to prance about and pretend to yourself what a moral upstanding person you are.

Think about it. The hours on the telephone were spent agonizing over whether to destroy another person or not.

Not whether to allow the already condemned person (to them) ample defense in an unbiased venue. Not trying to find a means of allowing the person into their conversation to show him what they found and see what he had to say. Not anything of that sort. That's what truly moral people do when the destruction of a person is at stake. Their issue—in other correct but less self-serving terms—was whether spring a surprise attack on him in public or not.

Ramifications and greater good? The only ones they were concerned about were what if this backfired? Those are the real ramifications and greater good for people like this.

The hours on the telephone and email were spent savoring the taste of power, blubbering about the safety of unknown kids and congratulating each other on what principled folks they were for not destroying Peron that very moment.

This kind of hypocrisy is the kind that most turns my stomach. Let it see the light of day so people can decide for themselves.

I agree with the opinon above that "Perigo is not the nasty person he is accused of being." He is much worse. And deluded and really, really petty.

I honestly think he lies to himself on a deep level. That, I believe, is why he has such a chip on his shoulder all the time about being accused of lying. To hide it from himself. The day he sees his own soul for what it really is (if that ever happens, which I seriously doubt), I predict there will be a James Taggart-like meltdown.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Jim Peron was at the Free Minds event in Las Vegas. He's in Phoenix now. He was there running some tables for Laissez Faire Books.

I had known nothing of this smearing. But we talked about many different things while I was there. This naturally came up when I made the mistake of mentioning Lindsay Perigo's name. I could tell that I had mistakenly struck a nerve very deeply.

Jim admitted to me that he had been worried that Perigo might have attended Free Minds. This was especially due to the likes of people like Will Thomas kissing Perigo's ass in the recent past. Ultimately, he was happy that he had shown up.

I have never met Perigo. His behavior and some of his stuff on-line seems to speak for itself, though.

It's funny how I found this thread almost immediately today.

There's a very important question to ask regarding people like Lindsay Perigo: What is it about Ayn Rand and Objectivism that attracts this kind of garbage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Thankfully, I was not involved with the movement when this occurred. However, as Chris mused in his post, is there "something" about Rand and objectivism that brings this type of "garbage" out.

I do not think that it is at all unique to Rand or objectivism. Any intense devotion to a philosophy, rhetorical movement or political cause, by its very nature, attracts minds and emotional "personalities" that are extremely passionate.

This aspect of the attraction of the "brilliant light" has its great successes and its eternal failures.

However, this type of accusation is one that must only be based on absolutely certain information.

I have, because of my occupation, dealt personally with both men and women who have been falsely accused o child sexual molestation of their own child.

It destroyed each and every one of them at a deep level. Some were not able to come back from the devastation.

We had a gentleman who owned an excellent pharmacy with his father. Quality family, wealthy and very bright. The accusation devastated the father.

He never fully recovered. They lost the business and almost $500,000 in legal fees. Once that red dot is placed in the public eye, the damage is permanent.

I can remember one night when I let my son drive with the individual. My son was 8. We were all going to meet at my house and leave for a weekend in the country. My son wanted to ride with the father in question.

That was the longest 35 minutes of my life. Even though I trusted the "falsely accused" person fully, all that went through my mind was what if I was wrong, and he was a predator?

The type of person who would falsely accuse someone of what I consider an executionable offense is not human.

I am sorry any of you had to deal with it.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


It's terribly, terribly sad that you found it necessary to start this thread. Of course I understand your motivation, and can only look forward to the day I outlive the slime you've had to report on.

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


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankfully, I was not involved with the movement when this occurred. However, as Chris mused in his post, is there "something" about Rand and objectivism that brings this type of "garbage" out.

I hope that these people are in the minority. At the same time, I am hoping that we can find a way to weed out these people so that they will leave the rest of us alone. Perigo isn't the first one who comes to my mind.

Sad but true, David Kelley actually embraced Perigo at one point. Perigo is not the only person I consider "garbage" that he has embraced either. By "embraced," I mean that this woman spoke at David Kelley's seminars and was once considered a valued member of his community.

I do not think that it is at all unique to Rand or objectivism. Any intense devotion to a philosophy, rhetorical movement or political cause, by its very nature, attracts minds and emotional "personalities" that are extremely passionate.

Does this mean that the situation is hopeless? I would like to believe that it is not.

Jim Peron also told me some stories about other people that he considered to be liars. He was quite critical of Murray Rothbard, for example, and told me that most of Rothbard's stories regarding Rand's collective were false.

I've been a target of many false accusations over the years. The false accusation works well becuase there are often no consequences whatsoever for the person who makes them. In fact, the accused often never has a chance to face the accuser. People will work to protect the false accuser from the falsely accused.

I deeply hope that perhaps the vindication of the young men in the Duke LaCrosse fiasco will be a turning point. The fact is, however, that nothing has happened to Crystal Magnum. Duke University's behavior in the case was especially disgusting.

I can remember one night when I let my son drive with the individual. My son was 8.

You let your son drive a car at eight years old?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Lol. No we were not in Kansas, we were in Nassau County, NY. My son was 8 and the falsely accused father was the driver. As I said, could I have ever forgiven myself if I was wrong?

Rationally, I would say yes, but sometimes you just cannot see when you are blinded by rage.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, can we get back to the topic?

What is attracting people like Perigo to Objectivism? What can we do to discourage them? How do we set up a community which discourages these people from joining?

I would like to think that the entire foreign policy issue could be a good way to divide the sane and the insane Randists. I don't know if it's any guarantee, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant: "I'm not aware of Jim Peron trying to defend himself publicly."

He did defend himself at the time of the attacks -- loud, long, and publicly,


I put this up 18 mos ago so I'm a little confused since it rips out the context of the immediately folowing posts.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am responsible for resurrecting a dead topic here. I only did so because I met Jim at Free Minds. He certainly seemed like a good man to me. More importantly, he seemed like someone who would be an outstanding ambassador for free market ideas.

I have been rethinking a lot of my positions based on my discussions with him. I mean my position on people like Murray Rothbard and Justin Raimondo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


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

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

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

Jim Peron deserves good people endorsing him.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Joe Rowlands, I salute you!

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Edited by Chris Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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

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

Pretty simple. A is A.

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


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

A couple of details have stuck in my mind.

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now