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:


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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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

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

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?



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

___

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

Ellen, I vaguely remember something on Atlantis; that's all.

--Brant

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

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