The Smearing of Jim Peron

[dan_edge]

Uh...what? Your rude sniping has gone over my head. I have no idea what you're talking about, but I presume you're trying to make some personal issue (probably from years ago) a public issue in the interest of dishonestly attacking my character.

Were you always this much of a punk, Jef? If so, I forgot. Maybe you've just gotten older and grumpier. In any case, I wouldn't recommend speaking to me in such a way in person. Feel free not to respond to any more of my pontifications; and certainly make no attempt rationally to dissect what I'm trying to say. I'll return the favor.

Wow, I'm never this sarcastic, you really know how to bring out the best/worst in a man, Jef. Bravo!

--Dan Edge

[Brant Gaede]

Robert Campbell and Lindsay Perigo have been using Peron as a club to bash each other with over on SOLOP. Campbell hates Perigo and Perigo loves to be hated. I think that's how he calculates his self worth. He blasted me too, for pointing out that he gave Michael Jackson a free ride while bringing down fire and brimstone on Peron, whom no one has ever accused of touching an underage boy. He loves to blast people. It's the most significant thing about his insignificance. I don't know Peron and have only talked to him on the phone once not knowing who he was. The bottom line is he should be left alone and not vilified for +20 years-ago things such as they have been publicly delineated. I see no reason to continue to make him the locus of any discussion and I'm shutting up now. I hope for good.

--Brant

Edited September 24, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[jriggenbach]

I wouldn't recommend speaking to me in such a way in person.

You can put your recommendations where you put your likes and dislikes, Dan. I'm sure there's lots of room in there where the sun don't shine.

JR

[Dragonfly]

Perron was abused as a child in some capacity. While still a child (exact age unspecified) some men taking care of him -- counselors, baby sitters, I don't remember -- would reach inside his clothes and caress his private parts. This made him feel good, emotionally safe, happy, etc. He argues that these "boy lovers" were a great benefit to his psychological health. "Boy lovers" should be honored, not hated. The end.

Except for the last statement (but how accurate is that?) this is no reason to condemn Peron. This may be an honest evaluation of his feelings as a child. This may not be so rare as you perhaps think, as I've heard similar positive descriptions by two other people who as a child were treated that way by an adult person, and those people were as adults (at least as far as I know) no pedophiles (they were both homosexual, but I've no idea whether that is relevant or just a coincidence).

I know nothing about Peron, so I have no opinion about him, but the account give here is no reason to condemn him. Only the last statement is at least dubious, but I'd like to see an exact quote first before I can judge that.

[Selene]

Dragonfly:

I also do not know anything about the "war" either. Therefore, I leave it alone.

However, there was a big to do this week by the daughter of Papa John from the Momas and the Popas who I believe addresses children's consensual sex with family members.

She claims that her father and her were "lovers" as far as the media reports.'

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

Dan,

I've read the piece in Unbound, and I don't think Jim Peron was well advised to publish it in that kind of venue, or to associate for any length of time with the other men who published there.

I found the piece really sad—an account of some horrible life experiences. Remember that Mr. Peron was comparing these men to his father, and saying that they treated him better than his father did. What are the implications about his father?

MSK linked, upthread somewhere, to a site that has much of the material that was used against Mr. Peron in New Zealand. It could well be maintained by an associate of Mr. Perigo's, but under NZ law you can get 10 years in the slammer for possessing a copy of the magazine, so there's an obvious reason for the site owner not to identify himself or herself.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Mr. Peron was kicked out of New Zealand, by the sole decision of a bureaucrat, who merely had to say he was of "unfit character" to justify the decision. As I understand it, "unfit character" means whatever some person in power wants it to mean. Objective law, it isn't...

What's more, no one has stepped forward with allegations that Mr. Peron committed any crimes while in New Zealand, or engaged in advocacy for pedophiles, or for organizations like NAMBLA.

Yet Mr. Perigo and his closest allies hate Mr. Peron with incredible ferocity, hated him before they knew that Unbound or his article existed, and have no compunctions about the propriety of booting him out of the country—even though none of them wants to take personal responsibility for getting him booted. Whoever got him booted worked through a right-wing wowser named Winston Peters, whose splinter party, New Zealand First, was being courted to join a coalition government with the supposed archenemy of all of these folks, the Labour Party.

Meanwhile, as Brant pointed out, Mr. Perigo has made excuses for Michael Jackson.

Like a great many things Mr. Perigo has been involved in, his advocacy against Jim Peron doesn't pass the smell test.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

I gotta give you props for "it's the most significant thing about his insignificance."

Mr. Perigo does love to be hated (hey, it brings him attention...).

I think he also loves to hate.

What a guy...

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

I believe that this is a truism...

negative attention is better than no attention at all.

Indifference is the coldest cut of all. Roark's comment to Touhy is perfect for this fellow Perigo.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't know enough about the issue to pass judgment, but...

Dan,

Actually you don't know enough about the subject. And you passed judgment all over the place.

I am thinking of deleting this current mess you are making. You have the rest of the Internet for that.

While still a child (exact age unspecified) some men taking care of him -- counselors, baby sitters, I don't remember -- would reach inside his clothes and caress his private parts.

Really?

You should reread the article. I just did.

What you said is untrue, thus a blatant smear.

For the record, Peron mentioned one guy in the military school where he was sent after his father died who passed his hand on his butt, using the excuse that he was checking to see if he was using underwear in bed (hygiene, not sex). Peron said he knew the guy was using it as an excuse to basically cop a feel, but in light of the severe beatings and constant torture he had had from his father, he actually liked the affection, so he didn't mind. There was no mention of "caressing his private parts."

Do you think lying is a good way to argue?

Please smear Jim Peron elsewhere.

The theme to his point is not the glories of pedophilia, but instead finding human decency in a horrible circumstance. Here is a direct quote, discussing the types of teachers who gravitated to the military school: "After the physical torture I endured from my father they showed me what sympathy, affection, and love was like. I knew what they were, so did the other boys but we didn't care."

The love he mentions here is not sexual, even though he "knew what they were." He essentially overlooked their nature because they provided him with the emotional nurturing that his parents should have instead of torturing him.

Dragonfly is correct in that this is the perspective of what a child when through.

Michael

[dan_edge]

MSK,

Why not delete my mess, and post Unbound? Let everyone judge for himself.

Since when is the buttocks not a "private part?" When next we meet, can I cop a feel on you down there? Can I touch your wife down there? I mean, c'mon, splitting hairs. And accusing your dissenter of lying, as usual. Lord, MSK, have you gotten older and grumpier too? Seems to be going around.

I don't think I've ever seen you respond to the whole "boy lover" defense Peron puts in the article. Isn't that there, or am I remembering it wrongly? Isn't it important? In any case, I don't need to know all the detail's of the man's private life, nor pass judgment on him personally, to decide that there's good reason to scrutinize a *public figure* who wrote this kind of thing.

Note: I never said that Peron's a bad man, ought to be railroaded, kicked out of country, nothing like that. Maybe so, but I don't know enough about the situation. I said he deserved to be *seriously scrutinized*. He was.

--Dan Edge

[Brant Gaede]

Dan, you must really be thick not to understand you went too far. If you aren't, you went too far by far. You are way beyond an apology. The edit function here expires after one hour. I strongly suggest you take advantaqge of the opportunity.

--Brant

Edited September 25, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

I'm going to reply to his post by quoting the whole thing if he doesn't come back by the top of the hour and clean up.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Never mind, Dan. Too late.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, I hope you delete everything since Dan's last post including Dan's last post.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

You used to be better than that. Now you compound one lie with another? You know exactly what "private parts" means. And you knew it when you wrote it. Come on. Knock it off.

The kind of logic you are using reminds me of liberals who bash Rand because they say she preaches resolving conflicts by rape and blowing up buildings.

Let's look at it. Well, Roark did rape Dominique. He did blow up a building. Dagny did shoot a man in cold blood. Ragnar did attack peaceful cargo ships as a pirate. And on and on and on.

Does this mean Rand was a proponent of rape, terrorism, murder and piracy? Why not justify that if you're so wound up to right wrongs?

From another angle, Henry Cameron was an alcoholic. So was a person who lived in one of Roark's houses. Rand wrote about both with tenderness. Does this mean Rand was a proponent (or appeaser) of alcoholism? Why not justify that?

There actually is no need to justify anything since she was not advocating these things as the way humans should live. These things happened within a context, usually of villains.

The villain of Jim's story is his father and the rest is a reaction to that abuse. Jim was not saying pedophilia is a good way to be. He was saying that he stumbled across decency and love in a military academy as a severely abused child. And he refused to condemn as evil those who provided that decency. The fact that these were pedophiles is almost incidental, just as the unsavory parts with Rand.

As to printing that story here on OL, I don't want to. Not because I am hiding anything, but (in addition to not having the rights to it) because it would provide a show for hate mongers (like you are being at this moment) and all the misrepresentations, dropping context, and lies that go with it. You want a circus. You're not going to get it.

I will give a statistic, though. Jim's story runs 29 paragraphs. The issue you misrepresented and lied about is dealt with in 2 of them. There are 18 paragraphs before those 2 devoted to discussing his father and the beatings, etc. The following nine are devoted to editorial-like comments on the hypocrisy of a society that tolerates the physical abuse of a child through beatings just because it looks respectable and villifies kindness just because the one providing it is a really screwed up individual.

The story is about that, just like Rand's stories are about the conflicts her heroes and heroines endured and her comments on the meaning of the events.

If you want to devote the precious hours of your life to hatred and spite through bigoted-like thinking, go for it. I can't repsect that. Not out of you. Not out of blind Rand-bashers. I abhor that kind of epistemology.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

I wondered why this came up again. I just went over to SLOP and there it is, on and on and on... I suppose I will have to read through that crap, but I may just pass this time. (I am really really busy these days.)

The only reason I have been giving you lengthy answers instead of throwing this stuff in the Garbage Pile or deleting it is, oddly enough, I am quite grateful for the exposure of Pross you did here. I think of this with affection. You did that without spite and stayed on facts.

The people on SLOP who hate Peron have hatred as major part of their world-view. They use Objectivism to advance that negative world-view. I am diametrically opposed to it, too. I don't ever recall you being that way.

My intent is to promote a world of prosperity, freedom, abundance, achievement, reason, happiness, etc. The ideas I get from Objectivism go toward that end, not to taking people down.

Condemning and combating evil is needed at times. But when it becomes the sole reason for living, something gets so seriously out of balance that the person doing that starts preaching evil. Just because the ideas are Objectivist, this does not make the person immune from it.

From that point to becoming a full-fledged bully is but a heartbeat.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I suggest you ask Ted Keer...

Jeff,

Mercy. Please!

Ted doesn't have anything to do with this. (Believe it or not, he's a really good dude. Productive. You should look at his beautiful blog devoted to the popular culture of yesteryear.)

Michael

[dan_edge]

MSK,

I don't have the energy for a marathon debate here. Nor do I care much about the issue, I just saw something I thought unusual and commented on it. Suffice to say that your style of defending Peron does more to incriminate than exonerate. My advice: either present all relevant evidence or delete everything. All this referencing to secret information, which is no longer available publicly, but which you have, and which you may share, but which you don't want to post too much about here so the "hate-mongers" can't sink their teeth in. It all seems so damned conspiratorial.

And your style of argumentation has grown more and more the splitting image of Perigo's. Presumptuous psychologizing and constant character attacks on presumed (imagined) motives -- this in place of polite and reasoned argument. Maybe take a break from all this? It's getting to you...

--Dan Edge

[dan_edge]

MSK,

I don't follow SOLO any more. Maybe you shouldn't either; maybe that's what's driving you up the wall!

--Dan Edge

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

There is nothing at all secret. I gave plenty of links. Go read them if you wish. Let me know if one or more is broken.

Michael

[dan_edge]

Last post on this comment: I just checked SOLO for the first time in a while to see what you were talking about. Pergio hasn't changed at all! If anything, he's gotten more poetically malevolent than ever before. You'll have to work hard to match that degree of vitriol, MSK.

--Dan Edge

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

I just went to one of the earlier links I gave and I see that the Locke Foundation stuff is off the air again. In the place of that is "Peron is a pedophile this" and "Peron is a pedophile that." I was happy before because, although there was an anti-Peron bias on that site, the correct information was there. People could judge for themselves. Now it's gone. (Precisely, just the report is now listed, but the link to it is broken.)

I used to think those folks were interested in facts. I was mistaken.

Someday, when I get the time, I will produce an online place where people who are interested can properly research this topic. I don't have the time right now, but it does deserve the effort, if for no other reason than justice. The hate-mongers keep this crap alive out of their spiteful dark negative world-view.

Michael

EDIT: I stand corrected on one point. Here is a link where the Locke Foundation report and Unbound can be obtained.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually I did skim through the posts on SLOP and, amid the name-calling and hate-mongering, Perigo laid another of his lies out as if it were a fact. Nobody says anything when he does this, either. Most readers kinda take him at his word. I believe they find the prospect of lying about this stuff to be so petty it's implausible. Still, the lie is there and I am convinced that Perigo knows it is a lie and he knows others will imagine it to be the truth. It occurs too much to be accident. See here:

Mr. Peron didn't merely contribute an article to Unbound, he was the editor and publisher of the damned thing. That's why he got booted out after the rag was unearthed.

I happen to have a printout of Unbound in front of me. And anyone can get a copy at the link in the previous post. So anyone can see that Peron is not the editor (hell, he was not even the publisher, merely the owner of the printing office). The editor is not named. Instead, Jim Peron is interviewed as owner of the book store by this anonymous editor in the first article, "Police Attack Unbound Headquarters." Does Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo imagine that Peron would interview himself?

Nah...

He's just lying, as usual.

Feeding his hatred and spreading it with lies.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

For cover on this claim that Jim Peron edited and published Unbound, Lindsay got Madeleine Flannagan to pop up again on SOLOP.

One of Mr. Perigo's tactics is to accuse his critics of reliance on innuendo. Her posts are a study in innuendo, but, of course, Mr. Perigo will never say a word about that.

Robert Campbell

[dan_edge]

The PDF link for unbound at "http://jimperonunbound.bravehost.com/" doesn't seem to be working...

*Correction @ 1:55pm: the Locke Report Link Works, the Unbound link seems not to.

--Dan Edge

Edited September 25, 2009 by dan_edge