This article was updated +23 hours ago.

--Brant

If you were any more "out in the open" you'd be stark naked.

--Brant

I have just read the letter entitled: The standard Brandroid fallacy ... sent to Ed Hudgins by Barbara Branden to have Lindsay removed from the TOC conference. It's absolutely disgusting, smearing, and vicious precisely because it's totally false!!!
She accuses Lindsay of being an alcoholic, deranged and possessing demons, and that he will "convert" people behind doors after his speech, recruiting more people against the Brandens. It's absolutely disgusting.

I wish to have my stance, pro-Perigo anti-Branden, on this issue out in the open. This kind of behavior is contemptible beyond words.

I put my fortune on the line for the cause of liberty years ago, Prof.

You ought to be big enough to support me in that.

Showing his unerring instinct for the underhanded, Mr. Perigo insinuates:

I note the Safe School Czar is a self-confessed Namblaphile. Prof. Campbell and his pal Peron must be thrilled.

When I heard about Mr. Safe School Czar's advice to the 15-year-old boy, I concluded that he should be fired.

And then ... duh ... that his position should be abolished.

I'll bet Mr. Peron's judgments are similar to mine.

Robert Campbell

PS. I don't see Lindsay Perigo putting his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor on the line to overthrow a tyrant. I see him issuing stupid and reckless denunciations from a safe location a whole ocean away.

Besides, it doesn't matter what Mr. Perigo was reacting to at the time.

Ah yes. The hell with context.

It doesn't change the nature of what he was advocating. He was anticipating, with relish, that some person or group of people would shoot Barack Obama and hang his corpse upside down in a public place.

You bet. Still do. But I wasn't advocating it.

No doubt the Prof. would have declined to take part in the War of Independence.

I note the Safe School Czar is a self-confessed Namblaphile. Prof. Campbell and his pal Peron must be thrilled.

No, it's Mr. Perigo who sees facts as obstacles, and the normal meanings of English words and constructions as standing in the way of his subjective preferences.

Mr. Perigo would like his words to carry only those implications that are presently advantageous to Lindsay Perigo.

And, dammit, they obstinately refuse to bow before his will.

Barack Obama's schemes to change the Constitution of the United States are obnoxious, and speak ill of his political views, but they are far from the most pressing of the threats posed by his administration.

Besides, it doesn't matter what Mr. Perigo was reacting to at the time.

It doesn't change the nature of what he was advocating. He was anticipating, with relish, that some person or group of people would shoot Barack Obama and hang his corpse upside down in a public place.

Robert Campbell

To the Prof. there is no distinction between rating Obama thus:

Disastrous and Evil: A Mussolini Who'll Get the Same Fate (Linz Option)

... and actively calling for his assassination. That's about as sloppy as the rest of the Prof.'s argumentation. Never let facts or the English language get in the way of Linz Derangement Syndrome.

As I recall, this assassination furore first blew up when Obama was outed calling for changes to the Constitution to accommodate "positive rights"—meaning to overturn the very essence of the Constitution.

Mr. Kulak claims a distinction between wishing that Barack Obama would end up like Benito Mussolini and wishing that someone would assassinate Barack Obama.

That's a distinction without a difference.

Lindsay Perigo called, twice, for someone to assassinate Barack Obama.

I'm no fan of Obama. I didn't vote for him, and he's turned out to be worse than I (not very optimistically) predicted he would be. He has arrogated powers to himself and his policies are really bad, pretty much across the board.

However, he was democratically elected, and there is now a decent chance that he will not get reelected.

He has yet to declare himself President for Life, shut down Congress, rig an election, send troops to round up his opponents, or declare legal elections null and void.

Americans tend to get a little sensitive about calls for assassination, even when these are directed at Presidents they dislike. Maybe it's because 4 Presidents were assassinated (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy), one got hit and was damn lucky it didn't kill him (Reagan), and two others were the beneficiaries of bad marksmanship (FDR and Truman).

Robert Campbell

You have mis-interpreted the poll.
"who'll get the same fate" or "deserves what Mussolini got" are a world apart from a call for somebody to actually go and kill Obama. There's nothing wrong with wishing the eradication of evil scum nor of praising an incidence of their removal. You can't equate that with advocating or campaigning for the assasination of Obama.

Obama is evil. He has *forced* his collectivist ideology on others. He's robbed the nations wealth, nationalized businesses and banks and sympathetically meddled with totalitarian dictators in the name of diplomacy, naivley exposing his weakness as an American president. He is the antithesis of the American constitution.

If the guy gets nailed then good riddance.

What is your problem?

I charged Mr. Perigo with:

— Publicly calling for the assassination of Barack Obama (and retaining assassination as an option in one of his polls after he officially retracted his initial statement)

He denied both the public call, and its retention as a poll option:

Wrong. I said he might meet, and deserved, the fate of Mussolini. The poll option claim is an outright lie that takes its place among the Prof's most brazen. What is the option in question, Prof?

As we all know, the ultimate fate of Benito Mussolini was to be shot to death, after which his body was hung upside down in a public place.

And the poll, which was opened on April 30, 2009, retains as an option (helpfully identified as Mr. Perigo's) that Obama will meet the fate of Mussolini.

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Robert Campbell

The comment is doubly appreciated coming from you because of how many years you and I have been reading each other's posts -- almost as long (10 years and a few months) as I've been a denizen of the cyberworld.

Ellen

Unfortunately, Mr. Perigo's past accomplishments, in promoting libertarianism in New Zealand, have been overshadowed by a series of major screwups and disreputable actions:
— Driving off or alienating many of those who wrote articles for The Free Radical

News to me.

— Either working behind the scenes to get Jim Peron kicked out of New Zealand (Jim Peron's version) or loudly applauding those who actually worked behind the scenes to get Jim Peron kicked out of New Zealand (Mr. Perigo's version)

Neither.

— Losing the support of Barbara Branden, who decided that he wasn't Objectivist leader material, and conducting a loud, nasty public feud against her for four years without stopping

Au contraire, it is she who has conducted a nasty and lie-ridden campaign against me, aided and abetted by her partner-in-libel, Nambla-Campbla.

— Joining forces with a master of smarm, sleaze, self-undermining self-promotion, and poorly researched writing on a contentious topic, Jim Valliant, in order to get back at Barbara Branden

Wrong. I joined forces with Valliant after I read his book.

— Alienating Joe Rowlands, who withdrew his support of SOLOHQ, then publicly accusing Mr. Rowlands of fraud

Well Prof, even your friend Sewer said at the time that Rowlands had "royally screwed" me.

— Alienating Michael Stuart Kelly, who started another rival forum, and has been a target of Perigonian invective ever since

Wrong. I never speak of the cane-toad unless someone reports something he's said on P-Lying here.

— Teaming up with Jim Valliant, Diana Hsieh, and Joe Maurone in an attempt to destroy the reputation of Chris Sciabarra

Wrong, as canvassed to the point of tedium elsewhere.

— Reneging on an invitation to speak at the 2006 TAS Summer Seminar

Wrong. I withdrew after Will Thomas told me to shut up or pull out.

— Giving a loony oration in praise of Objectivist rage to a teeming crowd of 12 at a bookstore

Wrong. Giving a speech that only a Brandroid would consider "loony."

— Publicly calling for the assassination of Barack Obama (and retaining assassination as an option in one of his polls after he officially retracted his initial statement)

Wrong. I said he might meet, and deserved, the fate of Mussolini. The poll option claim is an outright lie that takes its place among the Prof's most brazen. What is the option in question, Prof?

— Repeatedly referring to those who do not share his musical likes and dislikes as "poo eaters"

Wrong. I said, and say, that of devotees of headbanging caterwauling.

— Unrepentantly chortling over the early death of Frank Zappa

Wrong. I didn't merely chortle, I cheered.

— And keeping up an interminable fusillade of gross, crude, obnoxious, childish invective, launched at anyone who has ever displeased him at any time in any respect

Make that: "occasionally taking time out to direct well-deserved denunciations of the enemy within. The rest of the time attends to the positive side of promoting reason, freedom, capitalism and Romantic music."

Prof, I think you should take note that La Stuttle, scarcely a fan of mine, has chided you for your being obsessed with the internecine stuff and with me. You should accept that as a friendly tap on the shoulder from one who has no beef with you and doesn't want to see you self-destruct in a frenzy of Linz Derangement Syndrome:

"I agree with Linz that you take any civility toward or agreement with him as kissing up or being a toady. I've been surprised and dismayed to discover the extent to which you are focused on the politics of internecine O'world issues, to the point at which you don't seem to be able to understand that others might not share your preoccupation."

Kasper,

You have described Lindsay Perigo as he would most like to be described—as an Objectivist leader.

(Although calling him "convicting" instead of "convincing" might give some people the wrong impression.)

Unfortunately, Mr. Perigo's past accomplishments, in promoting libertarianism in New Zealand, have been overshadowed by a series of major screwups and disreputable actions:

— Driving off or alienating many of those who wrote articles for The Free Radical
— Either working behind the scenes to get Jim Peron kicked out of New Zealand (Jim Peron's version) or loudly applauding those who actually worked behind the scenes to get Jim Peron kicked out of New Zealand (Mr. Perigo's version)
— Losing the support of Barbara Branden, who decided that he wasn't Objectivist leader material, and conducting a loud, nasty public feud against her for four years without stopping
— Joining forces with a master of smarm, sleaze, self-undermining self-promotion, and poorly researched writing on a contentious topic, Jim Valliant, in order to get back at Barbara Branden
— Alienating Joe Rowlands, who withdrew his support of SOLOHQ, then publicly accusing Mr. Rowlands of fraud
— Alienating Michael Stuart Kelly, who started another rival forum, and has been a target of Perigonian invective ever since
— Teaming up with Jim Valliant, Diana Hsieh, and Joe Maurone in an attempt to destroy the reputation of Chris Sciabarra
— Reneging on an invitation to speak at the 2006 TAS Summer Seminar
— Giving a loony oration in praise of Objectivist rage to a teeming crowd of 12 at a bookstore
— Publicly calling for the assassination of Barack Obama (and retaining assassination as an option in one of his polls after he officially retracted his initial statement)
— Repeatedly referring to those who do not share his musical likes and dislikes as "poo eaters"
— Unrepentantly chortling over the early death of Frank Zappa
— And keeping up an interminable fusillade of gross, crude, obnoxious, childish invective, launched at anyone who has ever displeased him at any time in any respect

May Galt spare Objectivism from such leaders.

Robert Campbell

After reading Ellen for years I know that she either sucks up to everybody or she sucks up to nobody and that one of these propositions makes no sense whatsoever. She has an objective frame of mind which simply ignores Linz when his mouth runs away from his brain.

--Brant

Robert:

"Even Ellen Stuttle, who now finds it useful to kiss up to Mr. Perigo occasionally, was publicly opposed to inviting him to speak on the topics that he had chosen."

How tiresome this gets. At least you do have correctly that I was opposed to the talks being ~invited~, though I don't suppose to this day you've registered my reasons.

I was not opposed to Linz or anyone else giving either talk as contributed. Also, I thought that, since the invitation had been offered, TAS should either have gone through with it or acknowledged outright having made a mistake instead of the method which was used of trying unjustifiably to put the blame on Linz for their rescinding.

I agree with Linz that you take any civility toward or agreement with him as kissing up or being a toady. I've been surprised and dismayed to discover the extent to which you are focused on the politics of internecine O'world issues, to the point at which you don't seem to be able to understand that others might not share your preoccupation.

Ellen

Both my wife and I are sick with what might be the H1N1 virus. High fever. I'm going to take a couple weeks off from this.

Jim

Yes it was the censoring and multi-thread bitching(at the time) of Perigo that stopped me from posting there. Two reasons were that I didn't want to partake in a bitchfest and secondly I didn't see any selfish value of my being present there.

The two speech topics would have been fantastic ones to listen to. Perigo hasn't raised the ultimatum agree with me about such and such music, Rach for example, or else. He laid an affirmative case for the superiority of Romantic music over, say, nihilistic music, and it's the best one I've seen yet. It's still debatable but a fantastic case never the less.

Also, Perigo is very qualified to discuss the merits, both philosophical and technical, of music. He has done a qualification in music and has keenly studied it further indepth along with getting right upclose with some of the worlds best opera singers. His most intelligent, inquisitive and hardline journalistic experience let's little go by. He was central to introducing objectivism here, along with Bill Widdel, and he founded the libertarianz party which under his leadership had the most votes, a record yet to be contested. His grasp of philosophy and politics and his journalistic ability to reduce an opponent to an either or position makes him an invaluable member of the objectivist community. Quite frankly a speech such as: "What's wrong with Objectivism: Objectivists" would have been a great revitalizer, a kick up the back side and a challenge to integrate passion with reason. Nothing wrong with that!

As far as free speech goes this would be one of the most liberating sites there are for objectivism on the internet. Everyone here is asked to oblige the guidelines and credo however clearly many do not and sure enough, people like yourself, become exposed.

Mr Campbell you're meant to be a professor and some of your conduct here has been outright filthy. You don't even believe that reverence and worship of man is appropriate. Quite frankly a passionate, intelligent and convicting man like Perigo would probably do people like you some good.

Whilst Perigo is the founder of both this site and the libertarianz party, he's extremely intelligent, speaks with conviction and wishes to tackle and convict people who fall into the trap of repairing to intrinsic and concrete bound epistemologies in the face egoism, value-swooning and spiritual values, he never the less, is not infallible. Some of the knee jerk reactions from you lot such as Lindsay being crazy or bat shit insane are rather peculiar.

Robert,

I don't like pressure campaigns from any side. I don't believe in Hindu contamination. If I don't like a presentation I don't go, but I don't presume to proscribe for others what they should see and not see.

Jim

Does Lindsay Perigo give a hoot about free and open inquiry?

If he doesn't, why does he allow you here?

Stick to banning speakers, inventing conspiracies and defending pedo-publishers, Prof.

Jim,

Does Lindsay Perigo give a hoot about free and open inquiry?

And why, in your opinion, did he renege on TAS's invitation in 2006?

Robert Campbell

(1) Barbara Branden has, indeed, charged that Lindsay Perigo is an alcoholic. I've asked her why she thinks that. If I understood her correctly, it comes down to a series of occasions during 2005, when Mr. Perigo posted foul-mouthed rants on SOLOHQ, then deleted them after explaining that he'd issued the rants after having too much to drink. And to her personal interactions with Mr. Perigo at one of the SOLOCONs, where, she says, she never saw him without an alcoholic drink in his hand.

Nambla-Campbla, PhD, LDS, a man of professed rigour, should be able to do better than repeat the lies of Michael Sewer Kelly. Would he care to cite an instance of my deleting anything after explaining I'd had too much to drink? The only time I deleted something was at the suggestion of Kat, who thought it would ease hostilities to do so. And I said nothing about having had too much to drink, since I hadn't. I had been pissed off with La Babs over her failure to set in motion what we had agreed to set in motion. Now, even if I had had too much to drink, that wouldn't make me an alcoholic, much less the complete train wreck La Babs portrayed me as in her campaign to remove as a speaker at TAS 2008, including her letter to Hudgins. Her campaign was libellous, lying and dirty.

As for never seeing me without a drink in my hand during SOLOC 4, that's another lie. Apart from anything else Babs didn't get up till 4 pm, and by 6 pm I'm sure we *all* had drinks in our hands. It was a very festive affair. Even La Babs, morbid misery-guts that she is, enjoyed herself.

And the pedo-publisher claims I get drunk every night? How the hell would he know? He barely knows me from Adam. Of course, he has a drinking problem himself - namely, that he doesn't drink at all. And you might have noticed he also has a bad case of LDS. And lies.

I suggest, Prof., in the interests of objectivity you lend credence to the testimony of folk like Kasper who actually know me. You have nothing to lose but your Linz Derangement Syndrome. You have a life to get.

Robert C,

The charter of TAS was free and open inquiry. They failed that charter in this instance and succumbed to blacklist pressure. Most of the debates about the movement issues they wanted to debate are occurring outside their walls.

Jim

(1) Barbara Branden has, indeed, charged that Lindsay Perigo is an alcoholic. I've asked her why she thinks that. If I understood her correctly, it comes down to a series of occasions during 2005, when Mr. Perigo posted foul-mouthed rants on SOLOHQ, then deleted them after explaining that he'd issued the rants after having too much to drink. And to her personal interactions with Mr. Perigo at one of the SOLOCONs, where, she says, she never saw him without an alcoholic drink in his hand.

Jim Peron has charged that Mr. Perigo gets drunk every night.

I don't know enough about Mr. Perigo's drinking habits to judge whether he is an alcoholic. So I haven't made the charge myself. It was a mistake only if Ms. Branden is wrong about Mr. Perigo's drinking habits.

My acquaintance with Mr. Perigo has been strictly electronic, but I've dealt with him online since 2005. My experience has led me to conclude that he is constantly demanding shows of submission from those around him; he is highly malevolent; and, from time to time, he is just plain batshit crazy.

(2) How could there be any burning need to know whether Barbara Branden opposed Mr. Perigo's invitation to speak at a TAS event in 2008. The matter is settled. She did. She hasn't pretended that she didn't.

And there's nothing special about Ms. Branden's position. Lots of people opposed that invitation.

I was the one who called the TAS office, early in January 2008, for confirmation that Mr. Perigo was on the speaker list. As soon as I had the confirmation, I posted about it on OL, and I began campaigning against the invitation as soon as I'd finished posting.

Mr. Perigo was scheduled to speak on romantic music (and how anyone who doesn't share his preferences in music is a moron).

His other scheduled talk was to be on what's wrong with Objectivism (answer: Objectivists).

I objected to Mr. Perigo's inclusion on the speaker list on the grounds that he is a person of demonstrated bad character, judging from his public campaigns to vilify Barbara Branden and Chris Sciabarra, among others, and his continual denunciatory rants on SOLO. He epitomizes all of the vices that he affects to deplore: if one wanted to blame particular Objectivists for what's wrong with the Objectivist movement, one would surely include Mr. Perigo on the short list of people who set terrible examples. He is no expert on musical aesthetics, and he obviously wants to bring aesthetic policing back to Rand-land; he condemns those who don't share his musical likes and dislikes using terminology that he would otherwise reserve for career criminals, for totalitarians, or for murderous zealots.

I also noted his conduct in 2006, when he was invited to speak at a TAS event and later "flounced" because his appearance there would have put him on the same roster as Barbara Branden, while displeasing his Ayn Rand Institute-aligned cronies like Jim Valliant and Diana Hsieh. Instead, he and Mr. Valliant put on a bizarre counterevent in front of an audience of 12 at a bookstore three miles away. I think his behavior in 2006 should have automatically disqualified him from any future invitations to speak under TAS's auspices.

I further noted his furious nonstop public condemnation of The Atlas Society, which Mr. Perigo kept up even after TAS supporters started asking that his speaking invitation be rescinded.

Many long-time supporters of TAS complained about the invitation to Mr. Perigo. Some said they would never give the organization another nickel if he appeared as scheduled. Even Ellen Stuttle, who now finds it useful to kiss up to Mr. Perigo occasionally, was publicly opposed to inviting him to speak on the topics that he had chosen.

So there was nothing unique about Barbara Branden's opposition to that speaking invitation. She opposed it, and did so in public. A bunch of other folks opposed it, and did so in public. There was no need for her to encourage anyone else to oppose it. Lots of folks would given the top people at TAS an earful whether she had ever gotten involved or not.

In continuing to blame Barbara Branden for Ed Hudgins' decision to rescind his speaking invitation, Mr. Perigo is, once again, putting his Babsomania on display. He is also failing to recognize how repellent his public persona has become, and how many supporters of The Atlas Society want absolutely nothing to do with him under any circumstances.

Robert Campbell

Kasper,

I didn't contact Michael Stuart Kelly about his "warning" email to you.

There was no need.

He reads this site. He saw your posts himself.

In any event, the email doesn't sound to me like much of a warning. It's standard issue for MSK.

Were you really so convinced of the "oppressiveness" of ObjectivistLiving that you never made a single post over there?

Robert Campbell

Kasper,

OL is almost as loose as SOLOP with posting if one avoids name-calling.

I'd think you'd be happier here regardless. However, many of your statements about OL simply aren't true or are overwrought.

--Brant

The fact that you've even contacted MSK about this and requested evidence of his communication with me simply goes to suggest that you've missed my point entirely.

OL is an oppressive site as it stifles freedom of thought and speech in the name of what MSK considers to be civility.

One can observe, without posting there, that people's posts are being edited and are threatened to be edited on a constant basis.

Some farm animals are more entitled than other farm animals to judgement protection by virtue of their age and charms.

I had only been in contact indirectly with MSK to sort out my password August last year. So he isn't responding when he says, "as to the hostilities", to anything that I had spoken to him about. Indeed he must have got wind that I was curious at some stage as to why the hostilities existed between leaders of the objectivist world for such a prolonged time.

He sent me an email kindly sorting out my password thing and then continued to set the rules after having admitting he saw my conduct on Solo being less than desirable at times, however, noting that he appreciated my "sparks" of intellect.
Some quotes:
"As to the hostilities, I prefer you to read the information available and use your own mind to make your own judgments rather than try to sway you. I will say that I have read some of your posts on Solo Passion and I definitely see sparks of an intelligent independent mind. This is a value I hold in high regard. If you have any questions, I will be more than happy to answer them. Should you post anything requiring explanation, I will, of course, post back with my version and my understanding of events. Please read the information in this section for poster guidelines and so forth. It is not very much to read.
http://www.objectivistliving.c...

You are more than free to post questions to Barbara on OL and disagree with her all you wish should you wish. The only restriction is that I do not allow on OL character assassination—things like charges of dishonesty, vulgar name-calling, heckling and so forth—the standard litany abundantly available on SOLOP. Should you ever feel the itch to do that, there are plenty of places on the Internet available to scratch it. OL is one of Barbara's online homes and I require that visitors respect that and act just as they would act in her physical home. This means practicing good manners in general, but especially toward her."

Quite frankly I didn't even mind MSK sending me that email. It just made me frown a little and step back and watch. What I have critisized MSK for, the conclusions of my observations, is that he overly controls what can and can't be said on OL which again I say is highly oppressive.

Calling a spade a spade does not always entail that one is rude. Pressing a person to front up or else also does not entail that they're out of line.

I want to know from any of you, Mr Campbell(?) in that place:

1) Why did BB take mesures to ensure that Lindsay couldn't speak at the TAS seminar a while back? Lindsay was about to speak on several topics none of which was Vallient's book. Would he have rocked the boat somewhere somehow?
Most probably!
So what?
What was her motive?
OR, does she deny these charges?

2) Why did BB accuse Lindsay of being an alcoholic?
I have spent quite sometime with him, we frequently get on the wine in the evening when we're together as we both love food and wine... I can assure everyone that he most emphatically is NO alcoholic and to make such a giant leap is vicious, dishonest and damaging to one's reputation within objectivism.
(I don't want a long list of responses as to why you guys think Lindsay damages himself, I know how you guys think as far as that goes).
Again, does she deny that she made those charges?

3) MSK denied sending me an email. I've got it in my hands. So does that make him a liar or mistaken?

Failure to release a press statement addressing Lindsay's charges. Failure to stand up and emphatically deny that she had anything to do with his seminar cancellation. Failure to deny that she called him an alcoholic and that it was a mistake to say so. Are all things which beg the question of her character and it's little wonder judgements are made upon her. If proof existed that she actually did wrongly accuse Lindsay of things he isn't then again, what does that make of her? This is judgement that gets stopped in its tracks when one can't pronounce a verdict on a person's character in OL. When pronouncing judgement on a person's character becomes equated with character assasination then you know that freedom of speech and thought is doomed on that OBJECTIVIST site.

Mr. Kulak maintains:

No I havn't posted anything on OL. As I've said I was given a warning how to conduct myself the second I got a log in.

Under the circumstances, I think it would be appropriate to ask Mr. Kulak to quote the alleged warning.

Michael Stuart Kelly says he never sent one.

Robert Campbell

"I am quite sure he was aware of who Kaspar is when he registered on OL" I too, am "quite sure he was aware of who Kaspar (sic) is (sic) when he registered on OL"

"and his denial that he corresponded with you to provide such a warning is hard to believe." True, lies are frequent from MSK.

"Michael does, quite selectively, edit and delete material which he finds offensive." Especially that questioning the Brandens' sanctitude.

"As for his editing out dissent per se, I wish he would engage in a hell of a lot more of it." I don't care to follow OL much, but from what I've seen, his standing as any sort of writer/editor leaves a lot to be desired.

"this site and OL resemble two tar babies of opposite charge locked in an orbit of mutually reenforcing (sic) hostility," It has to be that way, though tar baby singular would suffice.

"this unending internecine bitchfest is the public face of internet Objectivism" Quite the opposite. O-lying will serve as an ugly testament to the irrational behaviour of certain individuals who are not Objectivists by any stretch.

"The value of his site is severely compromised by the trolls he permits there and their nonsense." Wrong, it's fatally compromised by its owner.

"In fora such as Wikipedia" The Wiki heights of philosophical erudition?

"In fora such as Wikipedia Objectivism is treated as little different from Scientology" This thread is of the inherent Wiki deficiencies, in case you forgot.

"the obsession with matters of cult" Ted, You're usually more worthy than this ejaculation. "Matters of cult?" If I call a guy a liar, and his site a shrine to Brandroid hypocrisy, and pedo-apologia, that's not cultism, but a belief in honest identifications.

Given Michael's obsessive monitoring of this site, I am quite sure he was aware of who Kaspar is when he registered on OL and his denial that he corresponded with you to provide such a warning is hard to believe.

Michael does, quite selectively, edit and delete material which he finds offensive. I don't think he can claim that he is strictly principled in his criteria for this. As for his editing out dissent per se, I wish he would engage in a hell of a lot more of it. The value of his site is severely compromised by the trolls he permits there and their nonsense.

It would be funny how much this site and OL resemble two tar babies of opposite charge locked in an orbit of mutually reenforcing hostility, if it weren't for the fact that this unending internecine bitchfest is the public face of internet Objectivism. In fora such as Wikipedia Objectivism is treated as little different from Scientology and the obsession with matters of cult does little to show that it shouldn't be.

Are you saying to me that because I havn't posted anything on OL I can't make a judgement from observing others being oppressed by MSK? That would be like saying don't diss suicide bombing till you've tried it. No I havn't posted anything on OL. As I've said I was given a warning how to conduct myself the second I got a log in. Observation shows that dissenting opinions that rattle MSK's bubble are met with threats for a delete.

Mr. Kulak,

Have you actually posted anything at OL?

If so, I haven't run across it.

Robert Campbell

was making a joke.

--Brant

It's odd that in light of what MSK believes his site stands for, Campbell's and Peril's life diminishing behaviour is so accepted.

MSK wrote: 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[Dan] 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.

On another note, the lynch mob at OL appear to really have it in for Lindsay and I would love to know what Brant meant when he said:

"I've been anonymously bankrolling him[Lindsay] for years for the entertainment and educational value-all subjective, of course."

It's funny how dissent is so intolerated by the OL folk. The moment I signed up I had a Warning email from MSK informing me that I'd better conduct myself in a friendly manner or else. Dan Edge's dissenting opinions that merely challenged MSK's origional post endorsing Peron's innocence point by point were met with threats to be edited out.

Anyone who goes to OL will see that MSK guards that site like a guard dog pretending that in the name of integrity, truth and benevolent happiness he's doing a great job. The moment someone makes him unhappy they're painted as a dissenting smearer. MSK and his ilk are guarding that site because they want it to be an agreeable sanctuary for intelligent discussion. They're guard is merely a narrow and conservative view on how discussions should take place and if it's unpallatable then you're kicked off. I find that highly oppressive.

Dan Edge is no friend of Lindsay's either: "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".

He should have been able to outlaw chewing gum. If he had I'd have moved there.

--Brant
gum smuggler

I got my mitts on the levers of power and had Peron thrown out. I just didn't want anyone to know since they would ask me why I didn't also slash taxes, repeal the RMA, restore the Air Force, legalize drugs and criminalize chewing gum. Naturally I could have answered that I had to do the important stuff first, but I didn't want to be put in the position of having to justify myself.

One might have enough of a grip on enough levers of power to arrange for one foreign national to be kicked out of New Zealand (basically an administrative action, yes?) but not enough to get taxes slashed (requires a majority in Parliament, no?).

As for what is the "important stuff" and what is not, it's up to Mr. Perigo to identify his priorities.

Judging, however, from his public behavior on this board, I get the impression that making trouble for persons who have wounded his ego ranks pretty high up on the Perigonian value scale.

Robert Campbell

One correction to my response to Ms. Flannagan, downthread.

I misspelled the locally infamous Mr. Moonen's name when I tried to google him.

Now I see that one Gerald Moonen is involved with an organization called IPCE that I will certainly not be recommending to anybody, and has had a run-in or two with the legal system in New Zealand, at least one concerning photos of underage boys.

As for anything that might link Mr. Moonen with Jim Peron, up comes this. Interesting source, interesting date:

http://dagnystaggart.bravejour...

our off the record sources who tell us Jim is pals with AMBLA's Gerald Moonen in New Zealand

Any of those "off the record sources" willing to step forward, now that Jim Peron has been booted out of New Zealand?

Also of interest in this particular item is the last sentence:

Yep, Lindsay "wormtongue" Perigo has really got an amazing conspiracy going simply because Jim wouldn't let him speak at his conference.

Robert Campbell

PS. Is it my overactive imagination, or does "Dagny S. Taggart" have a writing style remarkably similar to Madeleine Flannagan's?

Conspiracy-Campbla says:

But, at a minimum, Mr. Perigo knows some Members of Parliament, and is in occasional contact with others. In a country the size of the United States (at present, there are 75 Americans for every New Zealander) an individual like Mr. Perigo would be lucky (if that is the right word...) to be personally acquainted with a single Congressman. In the USA, Mr. Perigo probably would not be able to get his mitts on the levers of power. In New Zealand, they lie much closer to hand.

Yup, it was me. I got my mitts on the levers of power and had Peron thrown out. I just didn't want anyone to know since they would ask me why I didn't also slash taxes, repeal the RMA, restore the Air Force, legalize drugs and criminalize chewing gum. Naturally I could have answered that I had to do the important stuff first, but I didn't want to be put in the position of having to justify myself.

(Someone please check on P-Lying to make sure they take this seriously. )

In New Zealand you'd be a mud shark as opposed to the guppy.

Mr. Elliot claims that Jim Peron was expelled from New Zealand, and has been the target of endless verbal abuse ever since, on account of "the damage done to children."

And the damage done to children by Jim Peron has been ... what, exactly?

New Zealand is a small country. It has about the same population as South Carolina.

Brant Gaede suggested that in a small country where very few spectacular crimes have been committed, notoriety may attach to figures whose offenses have been considerably less than spectacular. Mr. Gaede may have a point: has New Zealand ever had a counterpart to Charles Manson, or Ted Bundy, or Ted Kaczynski, or even O. J. Simpson?

The smallness of New Zealand may be relevant in an entirely different way, however.

Ms. Flannagan protested, downthread, that Lindsay Perigo has been affiliated with a tiny, unpopular political party, and therefore couldn't have exerted any real political influence.

But, at a minimum, Mr. Perigo knows some Members of Parliament, and is in occasional contact with others.

In a country the size of the United States (at present, there are 75 Americans for every New Zealander) an individual like Mr. Perigo would be lucky (if that is the right word...) to be personally acquainted with a single Congressman.

In the USA, Mr. Perigo probably would not be able to get his mitts on the levers of power.

In New Zealand, they lie much closer to hand.

Robert Campbell

...is inconsequential.

I'd have thought the damage done to children was the context, in case it's been forgotten.

Ms. Flannagan says:

Ask yourself how plausible it is that Peron was being set up as the fall guy by whoever really wrote it - why does Peron seem to attract such misfortune?

It's pretty clear, is it not, that Jim Peron actually did write that article? I'm assuming that he wrote it, and that he should have admitted his authorship when the matter was brought up.

He gets chased out of two countries completely innocent - just a victim.

Which other country was Mr. Peron expelled from?

And what were the stated grounds for his expulsion?

He gets accused of paedophile associations wherever he goes including by politicians in New Zealand.

Is Mr. Peron being accused of associating with pedophiles by politicians—or by anyone else—in Arizona, where he now resides?

At Free Minds 09 he was working the book display with Joe Cobb, a retired economist who is moderately known in American free-market circles.

Do you mean to imply, for instance, that Joe Cobb is a pedophile?

90% of his staff turn out to be active paedophiles.

Who? Where? When? Aren't some numbers needed here?

From the "Locke Foundation" report I see that one guy who worked in Mr. Peron's store in San Francisco, and was the apparent target of the police raid on that store, was later convicted of molesting boys. The newspaper clipping that mentioned his conviction and sentencing, for acts committed in Hayward, California, did not refer to Mr. Peron or his bookstore.

The paedophilic community in the Netherlands know his name - do they know yours?

Is Dr. Frits Bernard the only apologist for pedophiles in the Netherlands?

If he isn't (it seems likely he isn't, in a country with 4 times the population of New Zealand's), did you communicate with any of the others, or do anything to assess their knowledge or ignorance of Jim Peron?

The community group who wants to use his shop for meetings are all paedophiles.

I.e., he allowed a NAMBLA chapter to meet in his store.

The San Francisco Public Library subsequently allowed the same NAMBLA chapter to meet at one of its branches. Should anyone in the employ of the SF Public Library be barred from entering New Zealand on that account?

He has naked pictures of boys in his Auckland shop.

I asked Mr. Perigo to identify the person or persons who found the pictures. He refused to. Do you care to elaborate where he wouldn't?

Have you ever seen the pictures? If you haven't, on whose report are you relying?

New Zealand's most famous paedophile apologist, Moonen, is seen in his Auckland shop - Moonen doesn't shop at my local bookstore, how random.

My distance from New Zealand is, once again, an impediment. It may be that Mr. Moonen sets off Geiger counters in Auckland, and no one will approach within 4 cubits of him on the street, but my Google search on his (not terribly common) name has produced zilch-zip-nada.

So it might be helpful to explain who he is, what he's done, and anything else that has made him notorious. Including his stated political leanings, if these are known to you.

And, assuming that the guy is seriously bad news as you've claimed, who saw Mr. Moonen in Mr. Peron's store? How often was he seen there? What did he buy? Was he observed in any interactions with Mr. Peron besides those involved in handing NZ dollars across the counter and getting books handed back across the counter?

I doubt, after all, that you would direct suspicion on the manager of a supermarket because Mr. Moonen buys his frozen Brussels sprouts there.

Jim Peron has the worst luck of anyone I know - everyone is out to get him.

Well, Ms. Flannagan was out to get him.

Isn't the question whether he deserved to have a bunch of people out to get him?

After all, lots of people could presently be described as being "out to get" Roman Polanski. The way I see it, Mr. Polanski did the crime, he admitted the crime, and he ought to do the time. So if you want to put it that way, I'm out to get him, too.

Meanwhile, Mr. Perigo, who stoutly maintains that Mr. Peron deserved to be run out of the country, has yet to accuse Mr. Peron of molesting boys while in New Zealand, of condoning the molestation of boys while in New Zealand, or of engaging in advocacy on behalf of molesters of boys while in New Zealand.

Robert Campbell

Of her decision to compile the "Locke Foundation" Report, Ms. Flannagan says:

I did it because Deborah Coddington mentioned her concerns with Peron's close association with the ACT party to me in a private meeting. She said there were serious rumours about his connections to paedophilia floating around, media sniffing and being a small political party with more than one political enemy if the rumours were true it was juicy fodder for them. I offered the Locke Foundation's services to her. When we found evidence she said it was too late as Winston Peters was going to announce what he had in parliament that same day.

Perhaps Ms. Flannagan can explain, for the benefit of the non-New Zealanders on this thread, who Deborah Coddington is, and why she would be particularly concerned about this issue.

Around then Deborah asked if she give my number to Lindsay Perigo as she told me he'd had all sorts of rumours said about him regarding this and he was taking a lot of heat, which was really surprising as until she mentioned his name I had found nothing associating Lindsay with the Peron/Unbound thing and I couldn't imagine how he was involved. Lindsay rang me or I rang him, I forget which, and that was how I 'met' him not that I have ever met him met him. I still do not get why it periodically comes up that he instigated the whole thing.

Even I, as a total outsider to New Zealand politics, am aware that Deborah Coddington once wrote an admiring biography of Lindsay Perigo. Now maybe Ms. Coddington and Mr. Perigo were not on good terms by 2004-2005; maybe they didn't communicate much at all. But Ms. Coddington's request to Ms. Flannagan suggests that Ms. Coddington was in contact with Mr. Perigo.

Also, where did the "all sorts of rumors" come from? From Jim Peron himself?

Robert Campbell

Oh, there's a lot to do with you using the guy as a rag doll dog-plaything for over four years for self-justification of avoiding small nation New Zealand contamination with a pedophile/libertarian. Everybody's got the message. If it had all happened in the States and you a US citizen there would have hardly ever been anything made of the whole thing by you or anybody else save its congruence with Peter Schwartz's denunciation of libertarianism, which I understand is much different than NZ libertarianism. This issue in the States evaporated 15-20 years ago along with libertarianism shrinking and NAMBLA imploding from video exposure just like the Nazis at Skokie went zip. But--very small-time New Zealand politics: much ado about little at all. Here we give similar attention to serial killers like Ted Bundy.

--Brant
original post 9-25--very sightly modified for typo/spelling only

The issue is not whether I had anything to do with his being banned from NZ. That's a sidebar, a red herring. The issue is Sewer Kelly's, Babs's, Nambla-Campbla's et al's defense of said reptile in the face of all the evidence. Which part of that don't you get?

I wrote here I found no evidence you had anything to do with Jim Peron being excluded from New Zealand. But since I am an "O'Liar" we all know what that means.

--Brant
not a fan or friend of Jim Peron's

Thx for the Google link. Reuben it is. It is also possible it is still his actual death notice I mentioned. It's interesting that in 1960 he protected a guest from egg throwers in the balcony, he was described as President of the FHF, and that in 1963 for first time in 20 years there were no questions from the audience by his decision as it was a last minute eulogy for Eleanor Roosevelt--interesting because in the early 1970s Rand took no questions too on one occasion because she had an "urgent telephone." That must have been the time when Frank didn't go to Boston with her and she was concerned about him.

--Brant

Dan Edge is a former SOLOist who flounced over the fatwa, roundly denouncing me on SOLO as he departed. I don't believe I've had any contact with him since, certainly not on the Peron matter. I gather he has posted on O-Lying from time to time, for reasons I can't begin to imagine. No more, though. Seems he's had a close look at the Peron issue and decided my judgment of those who champion Peron (foremost among whom, of course, is Babs Branden) is vindicated. Full article here:

http://danedgeofreason.blogspo...

Having gone through the unsavoury details of this affair, Edge concludes:

With their wildly irrational defense of Peron, MSK and friends have completely annihilated any credibility they might have (a credibility many argue was non-existent in the first place). Only a fool could look at the overwhelming evidence against Peron and conclude that he was “set up.” Set up by whom? The Locke Foundation + the San Francisco Police Department + the FBI + the New Zealand Government + some of Peron’s NAMBLA associates + Lindsay Perigo and his harem of “hate-mongers” + at least 10-15 other people noted in the Locke report? It must have been the same group who framed OJ! This conspiracy theory nonsense is so ridiculous, it warrants no further discussion.

One purpose of this blog post is to (re)expose Peron, who I believe is currently living in the U.S. But there is another purpose, one more important to me personally. I wanted to explain why I will never, ever again have anything to with Michael Stuart Kelly. This includes participating in his website, private correspondence, even casual polite conversation at a random academic conference. MSK, you are truly a disgusting human being. You have used your website to defend a proponent of pedophilia; you have distorted the facts about Peron to the members of your website (most of which are too lazy or too disinterested to look into the facts for themselves); and you have rudely assaulted any who challenge you on this issue. You are a dishonest, delusional, irrational piece of shit.

I have never cared for the culture of condemnations, dissociations, and extreme sanction conscientiousness within the Objectivist community. I have rarely, if ever, dissociated myself from a group or website, and certainly not with grandstanding fanfare and barrages of vitriol in the wake of my warpath. But MSK and OL have well-earned my ire. I’ve participated in OL sparingly over the past few years, mostly as a dissenter on a variety of issues. But I regret that now. I simply cannot be party to such a concerted defense of a clearly exposed pedophilia proponent.

It doesn’t matter whether Peron himself ever committed any crimes, or if he’s changed his mind on these issues, or whatever. I am not here passing judgment on Peron, though he has been thoroughly dishonest in his own defense since the Locke report surfaced. I don’t know Peron, and I don’t particularly care about him, though I’d be concerned if he lived next door to my family.

The point is that OL, MSK, and his close allies have shown that they are poison to the Objectivist movement. A very weak poison, to be sure, but poison nonetheless. Just as we must dissociate ourselves (in varying degrees) from anarchists, Republicans, and pedophilia supporters, so too we must distinguish ourselves from other “Objectivists” who support and promote these people. What if a young person interested in Objectivism stumbles first upon MSK’s notorious website? Good god, what if the press picked up on this crap? Objectivist Living makes us look bad.

I’ve sent a request to MSK to remove my membership from his website. He’ll likely denounce me as a “co-conspiring hate-monger,” part of the “orchestrated” effort to “smear” Peron. You are so delusional MSK, I have no words for it. For the record: This blog post represents my own judgments based on research I personally conducted and evaluated. I have no connection whatsoever with Perigo and SOLO. Though I admit I feel a little kinship with Perigo as a result of this. In this case, he delivered MSK and OL their just desserts.

--Dan Edge

I must say it has gladdened my heart to see this. Sometimes when I read what the O-Liars like Campbell and Brant write here I wonder if the universe has been turned upside down.

Ruben L. Lurie who died in Middlesex, NJ in 1985 with a Massachusetts reference in the death notice.

--Brant

Ted:

"Sounds like Lurie [d]eserves a page at wikipedia. The one reference to him that did exist in an article about some Boston gangster had his name spelled "Rueben."

I was thinking the same, that he should have a Wikipedia page.

I found the most entries about him searching on "Reuben L. Lurie" -- link to Google search screen. Apparently he was for a time Parole Commissioner.

I'm assuming past tense is operative, though I haven't found a death date. But I think he was older than Rand, which would make him very old if he's still alive.

Ellen

Well, now it's official.

Mr. Perigo takes no responsibility for his statements on any subject.

I can't be bothered looking it up. That constitutes time spent at your behest, and you are garbage. We know from the "unfortunate and suboptimal" episode and countless others how you misquote or misrepresent folk about whom you are deranged, and this may well be another such occasion. Rather than track the thing down I simply say if I said what you claim the way you claim I said it I was wrong. Or at least had no way of knowing I was right. Wot's so "bad faith" about that? If you're so attached to this matter, go find the thing yourself.

I naïvely thought that objectivity was central to Objectivism.

Mr. Perigo is busily replacing it with his personal subjectivity.

Robert Campbell

Deserves a page at wikipedia. The one reference to him that did exist in an article about some Boston gangster had his name spelled "Rueben."

I'm truly laughing out loud counseling patience to SOLO Principal Lindsay Perigo. Yeah, sure. When the last dog is hung.

I've been sitting at a computer too much the last few days, and reading too much, and I want to read more of the Burns book before my eyes won't focus any longer -- and I do have other things to do, and the weekend cometh.

So, later.

Keep in mind, you will not like everything I think and remember about Rand. Recall, I've been considered, although I wouldn't say validly, one of the big Rand-bashers since I started posting re PARC in February 2006.

Ellen

Ellen:

I was never at a social event where she was present, and I only a few times had any direct conversation with her (I didn't attempt to initiate conversations with her, since I could predict what would have happened: it wouldn't have gone well); but I did attend three lecture courses at which she was present -- one of them Allan's music course where I deliberately always sat in the row in front of where she was sitting so I could eavesdrop on her comments to Edith Packer (Edith always sat next to her at those lectures).

More please!

I can't be bothered looking it up. That constitutes time spent at your behest, and you are garbage. We know from the "unfortunate and suboptimal" episode and countless others how you misquote or misrepresent folk about whom you are deranged, and this may well be another such occasion. Rather than track the thing down I simply say if I said what you claim the way you claim I said it I was wrong. Or at least had no way of knowing I was right. Wot's so "bad faith" about that? If you're so attached to this matter, go find the thing yourself.

As I said, just a diversionary tactic from your cheerleading for a champion of pedophilia, coupled with your all-round bad-faith humanity-diminishing predilections and your rotten Sun Ra sense of anti-life, you squalid little Brandroid. Your ignoring of Ms Flannagan's testimony has been noted, btw.

I can't imagine what you are doing on the back of Stephen Hicks' book on Postmodernism. You are the quintessential Sophist pomowanker.

1971 or 1972, then. I was in the audience in 1973. Between the two, it was most likely 1972.

--Brant

I think the 1969 lecture was in December and the 1971 in the spring. If so there was about 16 months between them. I don't remember, but I think all subsequent ones were in the spring. I was so surprised to learn she typically went to Boston by bus. It's not easy to imagine her in the Port Authority bus terminal on 8th Ave.

About that bus terminal--not apropos to any of this discussion: Once I was going home from work and was accosted by a young man who needed fare home to New Jersey. I gave him a buck or two, which was quite a bit more than you needed in those days. Some months later The New York Times had a story about Port Authority panhandlers and they interviewed one. "What got you into this?" "I was short of money to get home and this guy gave me two dollars!"

--Brant

Brant:

"Wasn't 'Of Living Death' the title of her 1968 talk? If so, no one from the audience was on the stage with her then."

You're right, both about the year and about no one from the audience being on stage with her at that talk.

Now I'm realizing that I must have gone the first time in 1968. I was thinking in terms of her talk being in the spring, but "Of Living Death" was delivered on December 8, 1968. I had indeed met Larry by then, though only a few weeks before, around Thanksgiving.

We drove there in my little Mercedes sports car, a hand-me-down from my father. There was construction and a detour and muddy roads, slow driving. Then we got lost in Boston. In Boston you can have to go round and round and round trying to get from one street to the next block over, with all the one-way streets and "no turn here" signs, etc. Larry and I joke that every week they change all the signs in Boston to ensure that out-of-towners always get lost.

We arrived with hardly seconds to spare. We had to sit in the aisle at the back of the top balcony. Just as we walked through the door, the applause erupted with her walking onto the stage.

No nuns or other overflow audience on the stage.

So which lecture was it where there were the nuns sitting to the left of the podium (from an audience perspective facing the podium)? I recall their fixed smiles as she made some negative remarks about Catholicism -- I think remarks including a reference to the Papal Encyclical, which would be why I confused the occasions; I don't remember specifically what she was saying.

Here's the list of her Ford Hall Forum lectures from the ARI site:

Ayn Rand - The Ford Hall Forum Lectures - Complete Set (CD)

by Ayn Rand
Lectures given 1961–1981

by Ayn Rand

Lectures include:
The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age, with Q & A (1961)
America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business, with Q & A (1961)
Is Atlas Shrugging? (1964)
The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus (1965)
Our Cultural Value-Deprivation (1966)
What Is Capitalism? (1967)
The Wreckage of Consensus (1967)
Of living Death with Q & A (1968) Apollo and Dionysus (1969)
The Moratorium on Brains (1971)
A Nation's Unity (1972)
Censorship: Local and Express (1973)
Egalitarianism and Inflation (1974)
The Moral Factor (1976)
Global Balkanization (1977)
Cultural Update (1978)
The Age of Mediocrity (1981)

(Audio CD; 28-CD set; 22 hrs., 52 min., with Q & A)

What happened in 1970 that there's no lecture? 1975 I suppose she missed because of the operation; Frank was very ill in '79 and died that November; she probably wasn't up to appearing again in 1980.

Ellen

Wasn't "Of Living Death" the title of her 1968 talk? If so, no one from the audience was on the stage with her then.

I saw Frank O'Connor a few times but only briefy back then. At NBI just before the break he had his arm in a sling making casual conversation. A few years latter at the FHF after Rand's talk walking vigorously with a few others in the main auditorium-bordering hallway obviously on his way to meet back up with AR. He was also seated with Leonard Peikoff et al. in the left-middle of the audience in the spring of 1973.

All the times I went there the talks were at what I believe was called the Jordan Hall, quite spacious. The last time I went in 1974 I didn't have my usual season ticket and decided not to stand in line and listened to her on my station wagon's AM radio missing the Q and A to my disgust. One other reason might have been a switch in venues to another location I couldn't find. Today the talks are given in a much smaller place than the one they needed for AR. She always drew a very, very large audience and as far as I could tell an overflow audience. It was like a small opera house. Season ticket holders generally didn't have to stand in the same line as those without and I never had any problem getting in. That's why I purchased those tickets--and to support the Forum.

If you buy any of those talks and they don't have the Q and A you are missing their primary value. I was never as impressed with the talks themselves as I was with her charismatic presence. Everything she wrote after ITOE seemed to be AR using a fraction of her enormous brainpower, but that brainpower while under-used seemed to be transfused at all times straight into her moral and intellectual rectitude and imo the primary source of her charisma. She had tremendous charisma, even more than Nathaniel Branden--much, much more--and she didn't work at it at all. She just stood at the podium reading her talk. It did not seem to come from audience projection onto her person, but that surely had something to do with it. She was always a giant post publication of AS. I think the accent had a lot to do with it too. While living near NYC in 1960-62 I heard someone on the radio that was probably AR, this is a very vague memory, before I had ever heard of her--it was just a voice but that voice was so different and intriguing I never forgot it.

--Brant

Evasively, Lindsay Perigo says

If that's what I said, I retract it. Obviously I have no way of knowing such a thing. But the coincidence of a philosophy of, or conducive to, sexual repression and pedophilia is strong. Kant was the ultimate apologist for the former. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he were a pedophile. That's the way I should have stated it, if I didn't actually do so.

What does he mean, "If that's what I said"?

Mr. Perigo said it right here, on his own forum.

If he doesn't remember, he can look himself up.

Mr. Perigo used to accuse all of his critics of "bad-faithing" (a word now temporarily retired from his rotating short lexicon of invective).

Well, this is all the evidence of bad-faithing anyone who still entertained doubts about Mr. Perigo ought to require.

And the guy likes to run "Say What You Mean, and Mean What You Say" at the upper right corner of this page...

Blecch!

Robert Campbell

Come the question period, though, her channeled calm would usually evaporate at least once and her wrath would emerge like a sudden unscheduled intrusion from the percussion section (using a musical analogy, since it's [X] I'm answering). Regulars at Ford Hall got so that they could tell when it was coming. Someone would pose a question by which she felt insulted or otherwise irritated, and she would let loose with anger. And then immediately calm down again and proceed -- with clarity and no sign of lingering emotional upset -- to answering the next question.

Love it!

Yet whomever she got mad with is probably whining about his hurt feelings and calling her anger a 'flaw' to this day!

Returning to my comment above that her aura of power wasn't an issue of her "obtruding" herself or appearing to try to exert command: It was something to do with her being intent and not displaying the sort of social nuances which most people display. For instance, when she would walk into the lecture room at one of the New York lectures, she wouldn't be looking around for people she knew, pausing, smiling at people. She would just walk into the room headed for her chair. And if someone would stop her trying to make light conversation, she would just make some acknowledging response to the person's presence but continue on her way. Also when she would talk to people -- for instance in the autograph line -- it would be as if she had no awareness of her effect on them; instead as if she was solely occupied, with those enormous eyes of hers searching the person, only on assessing the level of intelligence with which she was confronted.

Love it!

More please.

Linz asks for my impressions of Ayn Rand.

As it happens, I have a post I wrote 6+ years ago for Atlantis_II responding to someone who was wondering what Ayn was like in person. In Feb. '06, in response to a similar query, I re-posted this on OL, making some minor copyediting corrections and substituting "[X]" for the name of the Atlantis_II poster. I also deleted a paragraph which referred to comments someone else had made.

So here's a re-post of a re-post.

The story about the interrupted explosion at the FHF is included, with a bit more detail.

==

--- START re-post

Date: 6/28/03
Subject: [Atlantis-II] AR's Aura (was: Necessarily Wrong)

[X] wrote:

> *sigh* I am again glad that I didn't meet Rand, though
> I am very curious about her and wonder what she would
> have been like in person. I would love to have observed
> her in action. That is: watched her body-language and
> physical mannerisms while listening to her speak. I am
> a relatively good reader of people and am very curious
> what I would have found. Anyone want to comment?

I might be the only person on this list who *can* comment in any detail, since I think I'm the only person here who was around her on more than an occasional occasion. I was never at a social event where she was present, and I only a few times had any direct conversation with her (I didn't attempt to initiate conversations with her, since I could predict what would have happened: it wouldn't have gone well); but I did attend three lecture courses at which she was present -- one of them Allan's music course where I deliberately always sat in the row in front of where she was sitting so I could eavesdrop on her comments to Edith Packer (Edith always sat next to her at those lectures). I also attended the Ford Hall Forum lecture for five or six years running.

To this day when I remember Ayn as person -- her physical person -- I still feel a palpable sense of her aura. The phrase which immediately comes to my mind attempting to describe that aura is "a presence of power." But this can be misunderstood unless it's taken in a particular sense of the word "power." There was no quality of aggressiveness, of an attempt to "obtrude" herself, to exert command. The "power" I mean was a quality of certainty of mind. Maybe a sense of it will come through as I proceed.

I assume that you've seen pictures of her, that you know that she was short -- not a lot taller than I am (I'm 5'2") -- and that she was "squarely," almost stockily, built. Another word which comes to mind is "stalwart." When she would stand at the podium she would stand straight, four-square, maybe with one or both hands resting on the podium while she read her speech or answered questions. She didn't move or gesture much while speaking, though there was a particular gesture she'd make as a sort of emphasis, a "there it is, that is the thatness of it" statement, a punctuation mark of finality. This gesture was a sweep of her [right] lower arm and hand, palm down, on a sharp line from her body outward. She used that arm/hand sweep several times during the first lecture of hers I attended. That was before I moved to New York; it was at McCormick Place in Chicago. Between then and the next time I saw her, the split had happened and Nathaniel's and Barbara's replies to her statement had been published. In his reply he refers at one point to "a characteristic gesture." I've never asked him, but I'd bet that the gesture he was thinking of was the one I'm describing.

She would read a speech in level tones, the words neither hurried nor dragged, but paced so that each could be distinguished. She showed no signs of nervousness -- or even of any awareness of the audience as audience. She did none of the things one is taught that good public speakers do -- and which in fact most of the people whom I've considered good public speakers have done -- such as trying to make eye contact, trying to develop a "rapport," a "relationship" with the audience. Instead it was as if she was entirely unconcerned about the audience's reaction. Except when she would make one of her "jokes." When she would use one of those wry twists she could do on an image (an example is "The Chickens' Homecoming," the title of one of her essays), she would pause slightly as if awaiting a laugh, then look mischievously pleased for a moment when the laugh materialized.

Despite -- or maybe even partly because of -- her typical apparent unconcern for gauging audience reaction, her effect on an audience was riveting. It was as if her mind was a lens gathering and focalizing thought, and the audience would respond with a concentration answering hers. Of course, most of her lectures which I attended were at the Ford Hall Forum, where the audience was almost entirely composed of "students of." But the effect was the same at the McCormick Place lecture, where she was talking to a general audience numbering in the hundreds. There was soon a "you could hear a pin drop" intensity of attending to what she said. And judging from Nathaniel's and Barbara's reports, she achieved this same response wherever and to whomever she was lecturing.

Come the question period, though, her channeled calm would usually evaporate at least once and her wrath would emerge like a sudden unscheduled intrusion from the percussion section (using a musical analogy, since it's [X] I'm answering). Regulars at Ford Hall got so that they could tell when it was coming. Someone would pose a question by which she felt insulted or otherwise irritated, and she would let loose with anger. And then immediately calm down again and proceed -- with clarity and no sign of lingering emotional upset -- to answering the next question.

I was often fascinated by the sudden contrast. My favorite example needs some background to describe. The moderator at the Forum was Judge Lurie, an interesting person in his own right. He was diminutive in size, slim, agile; rather elfishly twinkling -- and sharply quick-witted. Judge Lurie would always repeat so the whole audience could hear it whatever question had been asked. Well...one time this guy started to ask her something to the effect (I don't remember the exact words), Why had she allowed so bad a screenplay of her book *The Fountainhead* to be shot? (I have no idea if this guy knew that she herself had had a big hand in the screenplay, or if the question was asked in ignorance of its being insulting to her.) She started to rip into him. But Judge Lurie held up a hand and said in his inimitable speech cadences: "*Miss* Rand, *Miss* Rand [the reprise at a lower decibel level], wait until I repeat the question." She sort of ducked as if a little embarrssed and smiled at him with a shy girlish look. "Oh, I'm sorry, Judge," she said. So he repeated the question. And THEN she let the guy have it. After which she proceeded to give the next question a penetratingly thoughtful answer as if none of the above had just occurred.

Returning to my comment above that her aura of power wasn't an issue of her "obtruding" herself or appearing to try to exert command: It was something to do with her being intent and not displaying the sort of social nuances which most people display. For instance, when she would walk into the lecture room at one of the New York lectures, she wouldn't be looking around for people she knew, pausing, smiling at people. She would just walk into the room headed for her chair. And if someone would stop her trying to make light conversation, she would just make some acknowledging response to the person's presence but continue on her way. Also when she would talk to people -- for instance in the autograph line -- it would be as if she had no awareness of her effect on them; instead as if she was solely occupied, with those enormous eyes of hers searching the person, only on assessing the level of intelligence with which she was confronted.

[....]

There's more I could say, but I'm hoping that this note might be seen by [X] before he leaves for the TOC seminar, which starts today. If you do see this before leaving, [X], and if you get a chance at the seminar, ask David Kelley and Marsha Enright the question about Ayn's body language. David might not have much of a description to offer, since he would probably have been mainly noticing the details of what he talked to her *about* instead of her manner of talking. But Marsha could tell you interesting stories regarding her cat conversations with Ayn. Marsha had this way, unlike anyone else I ever observed, of getting into non-philosophic "chit-chat" (for short) exchanges with Ayn during the breaks at lectures. (I used to try to lurk near the edges where I could hear, I was so intrigued by the difference from her usual patterns in the way Ayn would react to Marsha.)

Signing off of this one now. I'm in a rush myself preparing to leave for the evening.

Ellen S.

--- END re-post

___

More please!!

you risked not getting in if you hadn't purchased a season ticket, and even if you had a season ticket, you needed to stand in line for hours before the event to ensure a seat in the main auditorium.

And Ellen, PLEASE describe your impressions of her.

Sometimes a hasty quip...

OK, Judge Lurie stories. He was a retired Judge, apparently retired about 1970 according to Brant's info. Judge Reuben Levi Lurie. A FHF program I have for the 1979-1980 season says that he was President of the Forum from 1950 - 1974. I found little about him Googling. One thing which came up was a book published in 1930 titled "The challenge of the forum: the story of Ford hall and the open forum movement; a demonstration in adult education" (link).

During at least all the years when I attended the Ford Hall Forum, he was the moderator. He was short, maybe not more than an inch or so taller than Rand, if that. Slim, dapper. Impeccably dressed in his FHF appearances. Still agile and swift -- and rapier with the words.

The routine was, as RC noted, that he would repeat a question. This was before mikes for the audience, so he wanted to be sure the whole audience had heard the question.

I don't remember which year it was when he interrupted Rand after she'd already started to lambast a questioner. Probably later than '71, since I think it was after the FHF "O'ist Easter" had become so popular among Rand's admirers, you risked not getting in if you hadn't purchased a season ticket, and even if you had a season ticket, you needed to stand in line for hours before the event to ensure a seat in the main auditorium. Another reason I think it was later than '71 is because I'd attended enough times by then, I, like many who went regularly, had learned to anticipate there being at least one question at which Rand would explode.

The question which elicited the eruption that time pertained to The Fountainhead. I don't remember the exact words. It was to the effect, "Why did you permit the movie to be made with such a bad screen script?"

I couldn't tell from the voice tones if the question was asked in innocence -- if the questioner was ignorant of Rand's role in the script -- or if there was intention to provoke. One way or the other, she was provoked. After Judge Lurie's interrupting her to repeat the question, she said something like, If you knew how hard a battle it was to get the script right....!!

--

Robert mentioned that as time went on, Judge Lurie was getting a bit hard of hearing. A comical incident resulted at one of the Rand appearances later in the '70s. Someone asked how Leonard Peikoff's book was coming (The Ominous Parallels).

Judge Lurie called him "Dr. Peacock."

Twitters from the audience, and people shouting out the correct name.

Without missing a blink, Judge Lurie said (punctuating this as he inflected it): "I ~s-e-e-m~ to have made...a BIRD out of you!"

--

Another Lurie story, not pertaining to Rand's appearances. One time a speaker had to cancel at the last moment because of illness or whatever. So the Forum administration asked Judge Lurie to pinch-hit by giving an extemporaneous lecture -- I don't know on what subject.

He and some of the ushers went down the line of people waiting outside, explaining that there'd been a substitution, Lurie not identifying himself as the person who would be speaking. A woman asked, "Is this Judge Lurie worth hearing?"

"Madam," Lurie replied, "~he~ is the only reason I'm staying."

--

The time Brant talked about -- when the little girl asked a question about why there weren't programs for bright students, and when some of the overflow audience was seated on the stage, and when some nuns were among those on the stage -- was her talk "Of [or On] Living Death," about a then-current Papal Encyclical.

Brant, guess what, John Dailey, formerly known on Atlantis as Morganis Chamlo, was also among those sitting on the stage at that talk. He says that at the time he was sporting a small beard, and she glowered at him, but he didn't understand why until some years later when he learned of her disliking beards.

Ellen

Here's what I said about Michael Jackson on the day he died:

It will surprise no one here that I'm not a particular fan of Michael Jackson's music, but I always thought his brand of pop was at least benign, as opposed to the militantly malignant headbanging caterwauling I despise. And there was no denying the talent, energy and charisma that made him stand out from his siblings in the Jackson Five right from the get-go. I don't know if the allegations about his private life were true , but I do believe they were often driven by mercenary opportunism. He claimed to like children for the reason that they were the only human beings who told the truth. This, as the adult world persecuted him because of his talent and eccentricity, was at least understandable. The world is certainly less colourful for his passing. "Whom the gods love die young."

Psycho-Prof Nambla-Campla:

But Mr. Perigo refrains from condemning the late King of Pop.

Difficult to condemn someone for something I don't know he did. Perhaps the Prof. has access to evidence I don't, though observing his usual evidentiary standards, I doubt it.

Besides, there is such a thing as "time and place," though again I doubt the boorishly gauche Prof. has been educated about that.

Then we note that, a little while back, Mr. Perigo confidently proclaimed that Immanuel Kant was a pedophile.
There is not one thing in the historical record to support this. When that was pointed out to him, Mr. Perigo nonetheless reiterated his charge.

If that's what I said, I retract it. Obviously I have no way of knowing such a thing. But the coincidence of a philosophy of, or conducive to, sexual repression and pedophilia is strong. Kant was the ultimate apologist for the former. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he were a pedophile. That's the way I should have stated it, if I didn't actually do so.

Mr. Perigo is also on record proclaiming that Catholic priests are, in essence, all pedophiles unless proven otherwise.

If I were a Catholic parent, I would start from that presumption, absolutely.

All of this, of course, is to divert from the Psycho-Prof.'s championing of a known champion of pedophilia, and the humanity-diminishing, anti-heroism, Sun Ra-worshipping sewer of a world view in which the Psycho-Prof. slithers.

The hole you keep digging your reputation into just gets deeper and deeper with all the lying, humanity diminishing, anti-herosim and smearing. There's ruining your reputation and then there's just shredding every last bit of self-respectability you may have left! Why don't you go off and actually do some work, you know, that stuff your employer is paying you to do?

Deeper

Where is Mr Campbell gone?

Here's a sneak peak. Wow all that persistant rubbishing must have taken its toll.

Ayn Rand did have narcissistic tendencies, in my opinion. Certainly these were in evidence by the early 1950s, when she began to acquire a group of younger followers. There is a narcissistic ring to the proclamation, in her journal, that Nathaniel Branden jilted her because she was and would continue to be "too much for him."

That makes her a "narcissist"??

DSM stands for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, Edition IV-TR.

American Psychobabsle Association you mean.

Further evidence that psychiatry is the domain of charlatans, shysters and shamans. Exhibit A: Psycho-Prof Nambla-Campla.

he was a retired judge of some distinction. I could find out more if I had a lot of time.

--Brant
Judge Ruben Levi Lurie, apparently active as a judge at least as late as 1970

Who is Judge Lurie? Is that his first name, or his title?

It was probably the early 1970s. I'd guess 1972. One year, not the alluded one, they put seats on the stage for overflow seating. I sat stage right while the pretty little girl who asked Rand about honoring or helping students of ability not just the deficient was opposite. I also recall there was a group of nuns behind Rand. Quite a sight. I had come to NYC in the spring of 1968 and attended my first "Objectivist Easter" in November or December of that year. I think she lambasted the Pope in 1968 and a year later Woodstock when she caused the audience to laugh like I suspect no Rand audience has ever laughed before or since. The biggest was when she quoted one of the participants passing along a slice of watermelon with a big bite taken out.

I went every year subsequently stopping in 1974. I'm pretty sure I didn't go in 1975. On my way to the FHF in 1968 I stopped off in Stony Creek, CT. where The O'Connors had spent one summer with Frank doing summer stock and Rand coming up with the climax to The Fountainhead, if I remember the last right. It was so strange to come upon a home on a small peninsula with a mailbox that said "Rand" on it.

Ellen could well have a more accurate date about the matter of Judge Lurie interrupting Rand. I suppose '69 or '70 is not out of the question.

There was another incident. Rand didn't like having her photo taken. The reason Lurie gave was she was distracted by the flashes. So a guy shows up and tells Lurie no problemo, I'm using high speed film and he went on snapping away from several angles right in front of the stage. If that had happened at NBI his film would have been confiscated and he might have been shown the door. Unfortunately at NBI there was always muscle apparent to deal with miscreants. Unavoidable I suppose; it was a private forum afterall and you never would know when a loon would pop up, wave his arms and go "Naw, naw, naw" sticking out his tongue.

--Brant

Ted,

Judge Lurie was the moderator at the Ford Hall Forum for many years.

They didn't use to have floor mikes for questioners. He would repeat questions from the audience out loud on stage before the speaker answered them.

As he and Ayn Rand both became somewhat hard of hearing, the process occasionally turned awkward.

Ellen Stuttle and Brant Gaede will have to tell you the year of this particular incident. The first of Rand's Ford Hall Forum addresses that I heard was in 1971.

Robert Campbell

Ellen, can you explain the allusion, who is Judge Lurie, where did this happen and what was the context?

That's exactly what happened! I got a big kick out of that.

--Brant

I'd say she was "too much for him," though that isn't why he "jilted" her. She'd have been too much for damned near anyone -- except maybe Judge Lurie:

"MISS Rand, Miss Rand! I haven't repeated the question."

"Oh, sorry, Judge." Cute schoolgirly grin, and a drawing-back-from-anger deferential deflation of stance.

So he repeated the question, and THEN she let the questioner have it!

Ellen

Answer: Michael Jackson.

Reason: Lindsay Perigo doesn't think he was a pedophile.

Brant Gaede brought up the difference between Mr. Perigo's reactions to Jim Peron and to Michael Jackson.

It's true that Michael Jackson was never convicted of molesting a boy. It is uncontroverted fact that he paid the family of one boy something like $20 mil to go away and not bring charges that he had molested their son. It is also clear from his creepy, creepy, creepy interview with Martin Basheer that he, at the very least, had an unhealthy obsession with pre-teen boys.

But Mr. Perigo refrains from condemning the late King of Pop.

Mr. Peron was not just not convicted of molesting a boy, he's never, to my knowledge, been accused of molesting a boy.

But Mr. Perigo condemns Mr. Peron as one of the most evil creatures in the entire universe.

Seems disproportionate, to say the least.

Then we note that, a little while back, Mr. Perigo confidently proclaimed that Immanuel Kant was a pedophile.

There is not one thing in the historical record to support this. When that was pointed out to him, Mr. Perigo nonetheless reiterated his charge.

Mr. Perigo is also on record proclaiming that Catholic priests are, in essence, all pedophiles unless proven otherwise.

On the whole, Mr. Perigo's judgments as to who is a pedophile are, well, erratic.

Robert Campbell

Well, I guess it isn't Ban Ban Bannity Ban Ban time.

I'm surprised.

But Mr. Perigo apparently feels a further need to justify himself.

I should have mentioned that on the checklist for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, "special" is further explicated as "prestigious," or "high status."

This can be illustrated with the venerable Bonzo Dog Band number (sung as a Tony Bennett impression):

Look at me, I'm wonderful
Shoobee doobee doobee wah
I'm better than you or you or you
I'm a handsome singing star
You all buy my records, so I'd like to say
A little old cliché...

John Keating, in Dead Poets Society, was not a promoter of narcissism, as I understand it.

In Rand's novels, Howard Roark and John Galt were never portrayed as expecting other people to admire them, let alone as having some disproportionate need to be admired.

Ayn Rand did have narcissistic tendencies, in my opinion. Certainly these were in evidence by the early 1950s, when she began to acquire a group of younger followers. There is a narcissistic ring to the proclamation, in her journal, that Nathaniel Branden jilted her because she was and would continue to be "too much for him."

DSM stands for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, Edition IV-TR.

Robert Campbell

Did anyone pay close attention to the criteria for "narcissism" listed by Psycho-Professor Nambla-Campbla in his last LDS outburst? Apparently this is some official list published by the DSM, whatever that is. One of the criteria is:

believing in one's specialness and need to associate with people who are likewise special;

Do I need to spell out the insidious evil of this? In order to qualify as non-"narcissistic" one must believe in one's ordinariness or worse, and seek out people who are likewise ordinary, or worse. Presumably John Keating of Dead Poets Society was encouraging "narcissism" when he exhorted his boys to "seize the day; be something extraordinary!" All of Rand's heroes, clearly, were hopeless "narcissists." Not to mention Rand herself. Etc. This is Psycho-Prof's war against "total passion for the total height."

This is the vile bullshit we're up against. A professor, a champion of a champion of pedophilia, a humanity-diminisher whose sense of life is by his own admission summed up thus:

Madeleine:

"Ellen if you are not based in NZ where it is illegal to do so read Unbound for yourself. Ask yourself how plausible it is that Peron was being set up as the fall guy by whoever really wrote it [...]."

I was on one of the twin Atlantis discussion lists where the whole thing started. I read Unbound back when it was uncovered.

I have no doubt that Peron wrote the article. I was just trying to get the details of the time sequence straight; they'd grown hazy in memory.

Ellen

You're over-qualified.

(Hopefully I'm not barred for calling Trotter a fuckwit)

... I might be in Ak next Friday night, Oct 2. Do I count as a blogger?

next time at Galbraith's Madeleine.

Ellen the stuff on "But" was a hasty last edition, you are quite correct that it is not correct to call it a grammatical error. We toyed with including it however anyone familiar with Jim Peron's style of writing as we were could see that it was his, we were trying to get at that. It was hard to nail down precisely and we were sloppy with the terminology on that particular point. However, the rest of the report does not suffer the same problem.

Peron said all sorts of contradictory things following the release to the New Zealand media of Unbound and our report. On Looking In NZ blog he said, well someone copied and pasted an email apparently with his permission, that he both did not write it and that he did but that he had only momentarily flirted with those views, a youthful mistake, he had since changed his mind. On another site, I forget where, he said that Abused One Boy's Story was written by him, someone had stolen the story, something he was outraged about because it was personal (typical Peron diversionary tactic - add heaps of personal anecdotes to make the spin seem more real) and whoever stole it had added the bits advocating paedophilia.

Contradictions coming from Jim Peron explaining the 4 year publication of Unbound using his address as the official address for service aside, I contacted child shrink/academic/peadophile apologist, Dr Fritz Bernard of the Netherlands, who was completely unware of the furore in NZ over Peron. He confirmed he had been published in Unbound and when I asked him who the editor was he cited Jim Peron.

Keep in mind that given that googling Unbound and trying to find out who the editor was was like finding a needle in a haystack, the only way he could have produced Jim Peron's name in his email back to me would be if that was who he communicated with when he was published in Unbound. Unbound was published pre-internet. Bernard was Netherlands based, Peron and Unbound were San Francisco based. If Peron had had nothing to do with Unbound then why would Bernard name him so easily? How would he have his name?

Ellen if you are not based in NZ where it is illegal to do so read Unbound for yourself. Ask yourself how plausible it is that Peron was being set up as the fall guy by whoever really wrote it - why does Peron seem to attract such misfortune? He gets chased out of two countries completely innocent - just a victim. He gets accused of paedophile associations wherever he goes including by politicians in New Zealand. 90% of his staff turn out to be active paedophiles. The paedophilic community in the Netherlands know his name - do they know yours? The community group who wants to use his shop for meetings are all paedophiles. He has naked pictures of boys in his Auckland shop. New Zealand's most famous paedophile apologist, Moonen, is seen in his Auckland shop - Moonen doesn't shop at my local bookstore, how random. Jim Peron has the worst luck of anyone I know - everyone is out to get him.

Is this sort of thing common amongst Libertarians? I'm not a card carrying member but I know plenty of Libertarians and none of them have this sort of thing happening to them wherever they go. I don't recall it happening to Rand or Mises either and I would have thought them slightly more influential and therefore more important to stop by any means than Peron.

Brant Gaede wrote: "There are legitimate questions about what the age of sexual consent should be: 14, 16, 18? "

Maybe there are but the age of consent was not the central issue in Peron's demise from NZ; paedophile apologists don't just have issues with the age of consent, most of their arguments centre on the distinction between child rapists, whom they deem evil and despicable and child lovers like themselves they view as unjustly persecuted for introducing children to the joy of sex earlier than they might have experienced it due to the restrictions prudes place on children by way of age of consent laws.

In any event we documented Jim Peron alluding to the good old days where the consent was young as age 10 before the religious prudes came along and wrecked it all - a piece he seems to have written while he was in New Zealand as it was published on the Institute for Liberal Values website - see the Locke Foundation report.

But again - not the issue. Creating a journal that published paedophile erotica, in which Peron himself wrote pieces justifying paedophilia and engaged paedophile advocates like child shrink Dr Fritz Bernard to pen articles also defending it, giving NAMBLA a home for their meetings and hiring paedophiles to work in his shop while they were active (which in and of itself might have been innocent but for the broader picture those employment choices fell in and his misfortune at managing to inadvertantly hire 2-3 or them in a 4 year period to work in a low-staffed book store - what are the odds?). Then the shop was raided by the FBI, material confiscated and his staff prosecuted for sexually molesting children and what was Peron's response? A tirade in his paedophile publication against the "uniformed thugs" that did the raiding and arresting - umm ... not how I'd respond. The biggest mistake he made though was lying about all the above to the NZ authorities.

His views on age of consent? not so big in the grand scheme.... though in context with the above... maybe.

How dare you consider getting ready for your impending wedding to be more important!

Aroint thee, wretch!

Robert, yes, thanks, others have filled in the time line.

Here are some further pieces I found in the Atlantis_II archives. (I won't provide links, since only list members can access the posts.)

On Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:07 pm (I'm not sure which time zone), atlantis_II Message #19605, Roger Bissell posted a copy of a report from the Locke Foundation:

[bold added]

Locke Foundation of New Zealand Media Release follows:

EMBARGOED 7pm New Zealand Time 24 March 2005
New Evidence in the Jim Peron Immigration Allegations

Yesterday morning the Locke Foundation received documentation proving Jim Peron endorsed and defended as a human right, "man-boy" love (paedophilia). Jim Peron's defence of paedophilia was published at the same time the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), with his permission, met in his San Francisco store Free Forum Books.

The documentation is in the form of periodical called Unbound, a pro-paedophilia magazine and a complete copy was sent from the archives of the Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut USA to the Locke Foundation. Unbound contains explicit paedophilic erotica some of which was written by a convicted child molester, paedophilic poetry, pictures of naked men and boys, a reference to a previous article written by Dr Frits Bernard a prolific defender of paedophilia in Europe. Most damning, and contrary to media reports over past weeks, is an article written by Jim Peron defending child molestation as natural and the man boy movement as a mainstream gay human right movement.

[....]

On Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:05 pm (time zone?), atlantis_II Message #19595, an email to one of the list members from Jim Peron was posted with Peron's permission. The email is a long one and includes multiple statements about the political situation in New Zealand as well as about the other charges (besides the publication of Unbound) against Peron.

I'll just quote the part where he denies authorship of the article:

Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 1:37 PM [probably New Zealand time]
Subject: RE: A life of its own

[S]o right now I can't worry about who is saying what on Atlantis. I'll check it later and see after I get over this trauma.

Now in an interview one of the two former owerns of the bookstore admitted the other one may well have put the Bulletin on the shelf and may well have allowed Nambla to meet there. That is precisely what I said all along. In additional Nambla is issuing a press statement confirming this as well. However the fundies are claiming the opposite.

Instead they are now pushing a publication which they say is mine. For years Garris told me it was named Forum. It wasn't. It was something else and it was not published at our address but at some PO Box I never heard of and was unlikely to use -- after all I owned a mail box service with 240 mail boxes for rent. The person who produced it referred to me in the third person and quotes me saying things (indicating it wasn't me who wrote it). I think I know who it was but there is no name anywhere on the copy I have and it's merely a theory. I had not seen this publication before. But all the evidence is pointing in the same direction. In fact I didn't even have the technology needed at that time to produce a publication with photos. My copier would not do that sort of work well -- not 20 years ago but the person I suspect ran a Desk top publishing firm and leased an office in our premises. He also apparently rewrote letters I wrote and puffed them up as editorials. He took private material I had where I was thinking out loud and published it as well. No wonder he had this going out of a PO Box instead of using his mail box at the bookstore.

I also recall seeing a long item later, an item which maybe appeared on Peron's website and I think was written in interview form, in which he elaborated about the (supposed) person who rented an office and published the magazine and used material from Peron's private papers.

Incidentally, when I said in a post below (#78686) that I thought "Peron had already been talking about the publication before it was produced," I meant before it was produced in Parliament. Apparently, from the NZ Herald article Greg linked, dated March 30, 2005, Unbound was produced in Parliament on March 29 (the article says "yesterday").

And......once a grammar nazi always a grammar nazi: Madeleine, I noticed in rapidly perusing the Locke Report your saying that starting a sentence with a "But" is a grammatical error. It isn't. Overusing "But" at the start of sentences is sloppy writing. BUT, not a grammatical error.

Ellen

I trust you have the information you need now from the other folks? I was diverted by much more important business this morning.

I see Lindsay has edited a previous post in which he called me a name so he could pile on some more. I decline to be embarrassed for him, but his friends here should. Isn't that what friends are for?

--Brant

Is there any evidence Lindsay had anything to do with Peron being denied permission to return to New Zealand? Did I miss something? It's one thing to do that and another thing to beat up on the man AFTER that fact.

There are legitimate questions about what the age of sexual consent should be: 14, 16, 18? When NAMBLA was being exposed in the news media in the late 1980s its members--I think it was on an ABC TV network story--came across as smarmy in just the same way Unbound reads smarmy--and it was obvious they generally didn't care about age of consent laws except those getting in the way of their predilections which seemed to involve younger than teenagers as well as teenagers. It's all a myth from the standpoint of the benevolent older partner doing what the kid really wants, and in the age of AIDS too boot.

There was a sub-set of libertarianism in the 1980s that was favorable to just what Peron was sanctioning back then which contributed mightily to Peter Schwarz's famous denunciation of libertarianism. It seems to have since disappeared. Libertarianism itself seems to have grossly shrunk for a variety of reasons, the biggest one its not having any philosophical/moral roots letting anybody come inside, especially if NIOF is affirmed as an unthinking mantra.

So, the bottom line so far is Lindsay had nothing to do with Peron being excluded from New Zealand except he helped get him into N.Z. in the first place and L.P., for reasons sufficient to him has been going after the man tooth and nail since, especially if anyone claims L.P. did have some responsibility for the exclusion. Again, I don't see that. Was any evidence presented I missed? Where?

--Brant