Simple Exercise

James S. Valliant's picture
Submitted by James S. Valliant on Sun, 2009-05-10 18:08

This is a paragraph from the ethics section of Wikipedia's article "Objectivism."

It's so very bad that it provides beginning students of Rand's thought with a (simple) exercise: how many misstatements of Rand's ideas can you detect?

"In The Virtue of Selfishness [Rand] attempted to derive ethical egoism from first principles. Value is relative: something can only be valuable for a particular being, and it can only be valuable if that being has a choice. Only living things are able to choose, therefore values only exist for living things, and whatever a living thing acts to gain or keep is a value for that thing. Every living thing maintains its life for its own sake, and - according to Rand - for any living thing, only its own life is valuable for its own sake. On the assumption that every living thing should do or ought to do whatever is valuable for itself, it follows that it should do whatever promotes its own life. But people can only live if they are rational. Since reason is man's means of knowledge, it is also his greatest value, and its exercise his greatest virtue. 'Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.' Therefore everyone ought to be rational."

My list.

1. Values require choice? Not according to Rand, who said that only conceptual consciousness is volitional. Or, is it that values require an "alternative" according to Rand? (For example, a living organism can adapt [either modifying its behavior within its own life-span or through mutation and natural selection]. Such adaptation is a kind of value pursuit that does not necessarily imply a volitional choice.)

2. Values are "relative"? Does this mean that values imply "of value to whom and for what?" That's certainly true, but it also here seems to require a state of consciousness.

3. Values are that which are pursued, sure, but, are values then subjective, i.e., "whatever" happens to be pursued?

4. Get this: "Every living thing maintains its life for its own sake"? IF ONLY!

5. Does Rand "assume" that "every living thing" should do "what is valuable for itself"? Is this idea any part of Rand's case? Isn't this precisely a circle Rand avoids -- and answers? (Talk about upside down and inside out.)

6. "People can only live if they are rational"? Say what?! As Rand knew and dramatically depicted, irrational people survive all the time -- but even for them, reason is their basic tool of survival, of course.

7. Finally, my favorite, the last "therefore" -- as if Rand's argument had just been recounted!

I've said it before and will say it again: Criticism, rational criticism, is a good thing. It sharpens that tool of survival to its finest edge. But the two sorts of criticisms which have unfortunately marred most of Rand scholarship are: 1. ad hominem, i.e., the Branden and Rothbard based lies and distractions about Rand herself, and 2. gross misstatements of what Objectivism says, i.e., the Nyquist, Whittaker Chambers, Robert Nozick, and, now, the Wikipedia, stuff.


( categories: )

The start date

Ellen Stuttle's picture

The Bill Dwyer post on Old Atlantis* which made the initial charges of Peron's association with NAMBLA was dated Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:12:46 -0700, Subject: RE: ATL: Why do Objectivists oppose Libertarianism? He also made charges which he subsequently retracted, about Peron's himself being a pedophile and having been "arrested on a number of occasions for sex with minors."

*ATL; New Atlantis is ATL_II.

Ellen

Ah!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I think it's all becoming clearer—and perhaps I did have slightly, indirectly more to do with it than I realised.

Chris Sciabarra alerted me to the discussion on Atlantis re Dwyer/Peron. Since I had earlier asked Rodney Hide, MP, to intervene to get Peron admitted to NZ, I felt duty-bound to inform him of that particular furore. And I don't doubt I would have cc-ed the message to Deborah. Rodney evidently chose to discount it, and championed Peron regardless (receiving a note of support from Babs). Deborah, on the other hand, became alarmed. She, after all, was the great advocate of a Pedophile Index. But I knew nothing of any impending storm till Peters' Press Secretary approached me at the Press Gallery party, by which time they had a file as long as your arm on Peron. That didn't come from you, Madeleine, or Deborah, as far as I know, so where *did* it come from?

My theory: an ACT Party researcher acting independently with his party's interests in mind. I know the exact person I allude to. We were discussing it one day and he said to me emphatically, "I KNOW it wasn't you." How could he know unless it was he, or someone he knew? In any event, he deserves medals, and Rodney remains indicted for his idiotic behaviour on this matter.

"It was you who unearthed

Madeleine's picture

"It was you who unearthed Unbound. Perhaps you could specifically confirm, for the likes of Peron and Campbell, that it had absolutely nothing to do with me, and that I did not assign you to such a project? That I didn't even know you when the thing broke out? That he'd pissed you off in a major way that I knew nothing about? That I did not somehow master-mind his downfall? (Oh, to have the power they ascribe to me!)"

Well Peron knows full well that it was not you Lindsay, if he is saying that it was you he is lying, but nevertheless, for Campbell's sake:

My unearthing Unbound and writing the Locke Report had nothing whatsoever to do with Lindsay Perigo. Lindsay did not assign me to it and in fact my first ever contact with Lindsay happened well into the research - we had never spoken, written, signed, sang together or otherwise communicated or even been in the same room as each other until after I was some way into my investigation. We've still never even been in the same room together unless you count SOLO as a cyber room....

That said Linz, as just stated in my immediately previous post, I did not engage in my investigation simply because Peron had pissed me off. Deborah Coddington had expressed an interest, we had just set up a research organisation, it made sense and I was bored one evening so I began googling .... the Peron pissing me off thing just made it easier as I was familiar with his dirty tactics.

"I don't know exactly what

Madeleine's picture

"I don't know exactly what Peron had said about Madeleine (and her husband—they were both members of some student thing that Peron had set up) that so set them off, but at the end of the day, his own vindictiveness was his downfall."

It was.

If I was not familiar with Peron's tactics I would have fallen for his spin and deflect routine and followed the name of the previous owner of his store that he was freely giving out to everyone instead of knowing him well enough to know that if he was freely giving that name up then that person would be singing his tune. I checked the names of the previous owners and I found a different name, the name of the true and sole previous owner and when I contacted him he sang a very different tune and had hard evidence to back it up. Evidence that I cross checked and corroborated independently - all documented in the afore mentioned Locke Foundation Report

I should state for the record, once again, that I did not do what I did because Peron pissed me off. Yes he pissed me off, he lied about me for months and was generally abusive towards me but that is not enough to accuse someone of being a paedophile apologist - that's an accusation one only levels if one is certain it is the truth and I am.

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. After Peters let his bomb drop and the media went nuts and Peron came on TV crying Deborah told me to give what I had to Winston Peters. She sounded really dejected as she said this which unless you know NZ politics you may not get why - but basically she was telling me to deal with ACT's opposition which was not her first preference by any means.

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. You can trace its origins back to discussion forums documented in the Locke Foundation report complete with URL's and copy and pastes and you can see that Lindsay was not involved in starting it or in perpetuating it and most certainly not in my getting involved.

Madeleine

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It was you who unearthed Unbound. Perhaps you could specifically confirm, for the likes of Peron and Campbell, that it had absolutely nothing to do with me, and that I did not assign you to such a project? That I didn't even know you when the thing broke out? That he'd pissed you off in a major way that I knew nothing about? That I did not somehow master-mind his downfall? (Oh, to have the power they ascribe to me!)

I've never been to New

Madeleine's picture

I've never been to New Zealand. Should I be concerned that if I apply for a visa, Mr. Perigo will employ the political connections he denies ever having used, in order to keep me out of the country?

Perigo? Political connections? No offence to Linz but the suggestion that any member of the Libertarianz party has the power to get people kept out of New Zealand is nuts! You have heard we are run by socialists surely?

Mr Campbell if you come to New Zealand and you are prepared to work and you tell the truth about anything illegal you may have done in your past and as long as you have not published and authored any kiddy porn erotica and lied about you'll be sweet - you'll really like the beaches here.

If you want the goss go here Jim Peron. Take a look at the Locke Foundation Report for a detailed and thoroughly referenced time line of events. If you are not looking from an NZ IP address look at Unbound and check the article Peron himself wrote - I say not from an NZ IP address as due to our socialist laws it is an offence worthy of 10 years in prison just to download it as our Chief Censor (I mean, come on, how could a libertarian have influence in a society with a chief censor) has deemed Jim Peron's journal as objectionable.

Immigrant employed sex offender

gregster's picture

Immigrant employed sex offender in US, says Peters

5:00AM Friday Mar 11, 2005
By Audrey Young and NZPA

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters told Parliament yesterday that United States immigrant and Auckland bookstore owner Jim Peron had his San Francisco shop raided by police in 1987 because he employed a sex offender.

That was despite Mr Peron having said on Radio New Zealand yesterday that he had never been arrested or investigated for anything.

Mr Peters said one of Mr Peron's employees was jailed for 16 years for child molestation.

The MP first raised the case on Wednesday, saying that Act leader Rodney Hide had supported Mr Peron's business application to live in New Zealand and was a board member of his Institute of Liberal Values.

Mr Peters accused Mr Peron of being linked to the North America Man Boy Love Association, of being a paedophile, and of dealing in pornography.

Bear in mind that Peters is a populist grandstander.

Yes Ellen

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Wasn't Peron on New Zealand TV before the tabling in Parliament?

If you mean the tabling in Parliament of Unbound, yes. Winston Peters alleged the NZ Immigration Dept had let in an advocate of pedophilia, namely Peron, before Unbound was uncovered. Peron appeared on TV in the subsequent melee. Madeleine Flanagan, a Christian whom Peron had pissed off, set about digging into his background and unearthed Unbound. I don't know exactly what Peron had said about Madeleine (and her husband—they were both members of some student thing that Peron had set up) that so set them off, but at the end of the day, his own vindictiveness was his downfall.

The Herald article

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Thanks, Greg.

The date is March 30, 2005.

It contains the sentence:

"In Parliament Mr Peters said the other tabled documents contradicted Mr Peron’s recent denials of his allegations."

That doesn't specify what allegations had been denied up to then.

Maybe there are details I missed reading the article quickly, or maybe my memory is wrong that Peron had already been talking about the publication before it was produced.

Ellen

Incidentally

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Psycho-Prof says:

Mr. Perigo has refused to provide details that (so far as I know) he is eminently able to provide. Such as who was "minding the store" and found drawings of naked boys while busily minding.

I don't give out their names because I know what a vicious vindictive bastard Peron is and that he'd go after them behind the scenes in true Brandroid fashion. But I'll say this much—they were both folk who hitherto had sided with Peron against me in my attempts to alert Libz to the truth about the cockroach.

Nambla-Campbla further sets up a straw man:

Yet when asked to describe the misdeeds that he committed while in New Zealand, Mr. Perigo et al. fall strangely silent.
When asked about objectionable advocacy that he engaged in while in New Zealand, they don't seem to be able to come up with any.

That's because he was never accused of any, by us or anyone else. Except one person who wasn't willing to come forward. We don't "fall strangely silent"—there's nothing, as far as we know, to be vocal about, and we've never said otherwise.

The great irony here is that in the first instance, no one was more overjoyed than I that Peron was coming to NZ. We didn't know about all the NAMBLA stuff and we sure as hell could have used the additional "grunt" of someone who was what he claimed to be. I started having doubts when he began to ring me long-distance and not stop talking. On and on and on, to the point where I'd have to make up excuses to escape. That was the solipsist part. Alas, we didn't learn about the NAMBLA part—or the fact that he was just a nasty prick—till he was, with considerable input from me, ensconced here.

Yes, Linz, but when?

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Wasn't Peron on New Zealand TV before the tabling in Parliament?

The list where Bill Dwyer first mentioned the publication was the Old Atlantis list -- I don't recall exactly when, except it was after the splitting off of Atlantis II (which I think was in February 2002; I'm hazy on the dates). Bill described what he'd seen as an autobiography. I thought that he'd since realized that what he'd seen was an autobiographical article in a magazine.

Ellen

Try this Ellen

gregster's picture

From the NZ Herald Bulletin ‘favoured man-boy sex'

Then there are many more dates if you use the site search.

Just when I was going to bed L.P. does his thing

Brant Gaede's picture

Well, the second observation wasn't mine, but it makes sense. In the much larger U.S. Peron's activities, whatever they were, past and present, couldn't hurt any movement, but N.Z. with its small population is another matter.

If the whole thing had happened in the U.S. and you were a resident here instead of there, I doubt if it would have crossed your radar.

I don't care to stick around just to confirm any part of Campbell's estimation of you by how you react to me. It's tiresome. I'm cutting way back on my postings here and have elsewhere too. I might just go zip here. My Internet postings go back to 1988-89, if we can call what we had back then the Internet. My first personal computer was a Kaypro I got in 1984 with a built in modem. Now I need more time to use the Internet--and for other things--in a different way. At the age of 65 my life is accelerating and I'm making room for what's coming. I have to get out of my own way.

--Brant

Ellen ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I recall Peron being asked on NZ TV if he'd ever been involved in the publication of a magazine for pedophiles. His answer was a flat "no." At that point no one knew the name of it and it hadn't been unearthed. But William Dwyer, many months earlier, had recalled seeing such a publication in Peron's bookstore on some list that I believe you belonged/belong to. To this day, in fact, Dwyer insists that what he saw was not Unbound but something else by Peron again!

Date please, Robert W.

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Robert W.:

"For instance, [Peron] denied all knowledge of ~Unbound~ right up until Winston Peters tabled the thing in the NZ Parliament."

When was that? The reason I ask is because I think he might have, first, been denying all knowledge of it and then telling some far-fetched stories about how it was produced (a mysterious person using his type-setting equipment) before the tabling. I'm not sure of the date sequence.

Ellen

As I've said before, Brant ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Lindsay's Jihad against Peron is in interesting contrast to the free ride he gave Michael Jackson, an actual child molester. Maybe that's because Jackson was never a resident of New Zealand active in libertarian politics.

You're a dirty rotten bastard.

Here is what I said about Michael Jackson:

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."

And you paint that as a "free ride for an actual child molester"? You fucking scumbag. Brandroidia deserves you and vice versa.

As a matter of interest, how do you know Michael Jackson was "an actual child molester"?

One would hope ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... the Psycho-Prof's academic mentors, and his victims, at Clemson are aware of his disgraceful conduct here, and the "rigor" he has displayed.

Evidence? What evidence.

Peter Cresswell's picture

"That's me reporting what Jim Peron said."

So that's just hearsay built upon hearsay built upon bullshit, then.

Good to have your standards of evidence so clearly demonstrated, professor.

And what if Peron fails to corroborate

Robert's picture

Campbell's version of events?

After all, Campbell is on record twice (once here and once on OL) spreading this malicious load of bullshit. Peron, on the other hand is at liberty to deny all knowledge, and that's one thing he has a track record of doing - especially if it means that he'll be caught in a lie. For instance, he denied all knowledge of Unbound right up until Winston Peters tabled the thing in the NZ Parliament.

Perhaps Campbell should revisit Ethan's advice.

Oh dear!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The Psycho-Prof. omits one salient fact among many in his latest litany of lies and libels. Mr. Peron didn't merely contribute an article to Unbound, he was the editor and publisher of the damned thing. That's why he got booted out after the rag was unearthed.

As Mr. Cresswell has pointed out, Peron and the truth are strangers. Campbell chooses to believe Peron because he, too, is a stranger to truth, and has a vested interest in the lies that have already been propagated: Babs supports Peron therefore Campbell must support Peron also. Plus, like attracts like. And then of course they all share Linz Derangement Syndrome.

Well, Robert

Brant Gaede's picture

You effectively called Peter Cresswell a thief using a third party. While I think you owe him an apology, I doubt he wants it.

But this is only a comment off the top of your post.

Lindsay's Jihad against Peron is in interesting contrast to the free ride he gave Michael Jackson, an actual child molester. Maybe that's because Jackson was never a resident of New Zealand active in libertarian politics.

--Brant

What's to Retract?

Robert Campbell's picture

In all of the hullabaloo, what I said has predictably been forgotten:

Mr. Peron did, in fact, say that books were removed from his former store and sold without his knowledge and permission. And that a witness identified Peter Cresswell as one of those who gained entry to the store around the time the books disappeared.

That's me reporting what Jim Peron said.

If you want more details, ask Mr. Peron for them.

There's nothing for me to retract. I am truthfully reporting what another person said to me, and I named my source. End of story.

Mr. Perigo has refused to provide details that (so far as I know) he is eminently able to provide. Such as who was "minding the store" and found drawings of naked boys while busily minding.

By contrast, I am unable to provide further details.

The discerning reader will nonetheless note that I am more inclined to credit what Mr. Peron says about Mr. Perigo than what Mr. Perigo says about Mr. Peron.

Why might that be?

Mr. Perigo (to accompaniment provided by several allies who have made an appearance here) shouts long and loud about the boundless evil of Mr. Peron.

But he provides amazingly little documentation. And if Mr. Peron's evil is so pervasive, documentation should be omnipresent.

Mr. Peron published that article in Unbound. I've read it. I didn't like his article. I don't think anyone else ought to, either.

I read some other stuff (not by Mr. Peron) from that same issue of Unbound. Tried not to puke.

I haven't read any of the books that were advertised in that issue, and expect they would be hard to locate even in the farther recesses of plain-brown-wrapper-land, but I'm reasonably sure they would induce projectile puking.

If Mr. Peron was going to write about his unfortunate life experiences, there were better ways to do it. And much better venues in which to publish it.

Still, his article did not promote NAMBLA as an organization.

It neither reported nor hinted that Mr. Peron ever molested an underage boy.

It neither reported nor hinted that he ever wanted to molest an underage boy.

So, Mr. Peron published an article in a NAMBLA-affiliated magazine, nearly 20 years ago. He may have helped to publish the issue in which his article appeared. He should have been forthcoming about the article and the magazine as soon as questions about them were raised.

None of these are good.

Still, they were all done years ago, a long way from New Zealand. They do not constitute evidence that Mr. Peron was or is a pedophile. There is no indication whatsoever of a continuing connection between Mr. Peron and NAMBLA, or any comparable organization.

What I find remarkable, in relation to the above, is that Mr. Perigo and his associates repeatedly refer to Mr. Peron as one of the foulest beings in the entire universe. His foulness is so stark and encompassing that it instantly transfers to anyone else who questions their judgment of him. The epithets fly: "promoter of pedophila," "Namblaphile," "Nambla Campbla," "pedo-Mafia," "spinner of lie-webs of Peronic proportions and malevolence."

Yet when asked to describe the misdeeds that he committed while in New Zealand, Mr. Perigo et al. fall strangely silent.

When asked about objectionable advocacy that he engaged in while in New Zealand, they don't seem to be able to come up with any.

Their reactions to him are highly excessive, in relation to what he is known to have done. Their reactions are well out of proportion to anything they are willing to claim he has done.

While these matters are somewhat murky, some others have been quite clear.

Mr. Peron's expulsion from New Zealand, by the apparently arbitrary ruling of a single bureaucrat, is not the kind of thing that Mr. Perigo or any of his libertarian associates profess to believe should happen in a free society. (His socially conservative associates may, of course, think differently.) Yet they applaud the expulsion.

Mr. Perigo pretends to believe that whoever got Mr. Peron kicked out of New Zealand deserves a medal of valor with an oak-leaf cluster. Yet he denies having done anything to make it happen, with such vigor as to make it obvious that he doesn't really think the deed will be viewed as commendable.

Anyone who asks questions about the conduct of Mr. Perigo or his key associates is tarred with the very worst epithets in Mr. Perigo's endlessly abusive vocabulary, and threatened with meritless lawsuits by one or another of his hotheaded flunkies.

Finally, some of Mr. Peron's allegations about Mr. Perigo have face validity.

For instance, Mr. Peron considers Mr. Perigo to be a narcissistic individual. Sure fits my experience...

According to the current version of the DSM, narcissism is marked by at least 5 out of these 9 characteristics: a grandiose sense of self-importance; preoccupation with fantasies of ideal brilliance, success, or love; believing in one's specialness and need to associate with people who are likewise special; demanding excessive levels of admiration from others; having a sense of personal entitlement; being interpersonally exploitive; lacking empathy; showing envy for others and supposing that others are envious of oneself; arrogance and haughtiness. I'd give Mr. Perigo checkmarks on 7.

Mr. Peron considers Mr. Perigo to be extremely vengeful. Umm, yeah, his conduct toward such former friends as Barbara Branden, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Michael Stuart Kelly, and Joe Rowlands looks vindictive to me.

Mr. Peron has noted that Mr. Perigo possesses the contacts among the New Zealand media and the New Zealand political class that would enable him to do a black bag job on a personal enemy, should he so desire. Mr. Perigo doesn't deny having the contacts. And the sheer ferocity of his hatred for Mr. Peron indicates how he might have so desired.

I personally have noted that Mr. Perigo has a knack for generating novel legal theories when they suit his vindictive impulses. For instance, he has notoriously claimed that he was entitled to publish private emails from Chris Sciabarra, because Dr. Sciabarra's alleged backbiting of Lindsay Perigo was a crime. If Michael Stuart Kelly is as much as a "cockroach" as Jim Peron, from Mr. Perigo's standpoint, doesn't Perigonian logic justify excluding him from New Zealand, too? If Jim Peron is one of the foulest creatures in the entire universe, why wouldn't Perigo-logic license taking and selling books without his permission? I should think that, on Perigonian grounds, he'd be getting off lightly.

Finally, my own experience with Mr. Perigo would lead me to look out the window before agreeing with his judgment that it's raining. One of his favorite lies about himself is the pious denial that he would ever got involved in intrigue or backstabbing.

Hence, when Mr. Perigo heatedly denies engaging in sleazy connivance with the intent of doing major harm to a personal enemy, I am disinclined to believe him.

Does this mean that I know with certainty how Mr. Peron got kicked out New Zealand? No.

Do I know whether anyone stole books from Mr. Peron's store? No.

Could Mr. Perigo be telling the truth as to who did the "dobbing"? Yes.

Mr. Perigo does, after all, end up being right about a few things, at least as often as the proverbial stopped clock.

Bottom line:

No apologies to Mr. Perigo. The little respect he gets is already more than he deserves.

None to his acolytes. Their continuing association with him suggests that they are, at the very least, poor judges of character. Their impassioned defenses of his actions make me wonder whether they also feel entitled to behave as badly as he does.

Mr. Perigo may, of course, boot me off his list.

I hope he does.

The way I see it, getting banned from his virtual presence is nearly as good as a medal of valor with an oak-leaf cluster.

Robert Campbell

Maybe.

Peter Cresswell's picture

Oh, I see, I must have misunderstood your "has a beef" reference.

Oops. Smiling

I don't know

Brant Gaede's picture

how Peter and Lindsay got the idea I said Peter should "say nothing." Did I misplace or displace a "no" somewhere? R.C. owes Peter substantiation or a retraction and an apology. Aren't we all waiting for the next shoe to drop?

--Brant

Well, let's see, Robert

Brant Gaede's picture

America plus Robert = more brains

America plus Robert minus Brant = less brains

Ergo, you figure it out

The airplane is a Texas Air National Guard flying boxcar--two reciprocating engines. The place is San Antonio, Texas summer of 1965. I was temporary duty (TDY) to Ft. Sam Houston from Ft. Bragg, NC for Special Forces medical training. My fellow trainees and myself got into that thing and flew west about 60 miles to Hondo, TX and jumped out at 800 ft above ground level (AGL) into a well-plowed field. One of us had a Mae West but managed to pull his reserve. When you pull your reserve you grab it coming out of the bag and throw it to the side so it doesn't tangle up with the main as it deploys.

My brother, as a skydiver--I don't think he was still in the Marines--survived a double malfunction jumping out of a Russian military airplane in Eastern Europe in the late 1960s. He finally got the reserve deployed just before he would have gone splat. He was using their equipment. I have no idea how he got that gig.

--Brant

That's the thing ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Oirishman asked Gaede:

A beef, Brant? You think I should say nothing when I'm accused of being a thief?

Brandroids do think that. It's perfectly fine to libel and smear; it's somehow uncouth to protest. They have no moral compass whatsoever.

I probably should boot Campbell over that "thief" business, which of course he won't retract any more than he'll retract any of his nonsense about me. I can't justify his presence on the grounds of "exchange of ideas" since he doesn't contribute any. But he's such a fruitful study in evil, even Ayn Rand couldn't have imagined him. A psychopathic psychology professor, a spinner of lie-webs of Peronic proportions and malevolence, utterly conscienceless, an academic hostile to free speech, inexplicably let loose on young minds. BUT—were it not for his contributions here, would we know any of this? Is he not Brandroidia's most exemplary specimen? Is he not the perfect illustration of part of my thesis in Music of the Gods, the part that says excrement is drawn to excrement?

Um...

Robert's picture

Maybe you should have had a lie down before writing any more. If you stay put then the aggregate IQ of the country will stay the same. The number of people in it haven't changed you see... I'm not moving too fast for you am I? After that, the only way the aggregate IQ of America can rise is by my positive contribution to it when I finally become a citizen. The number of citizens has increased by one... See how it works?

It's called arithmetic and before you consider applying for that promotion out of the stamp licking department you will probably have to learn enough to pass the test.

That's not really you in the photo is it? It's a GI Joe in an airman's uniform and the aircraft has a big key sticking out of the top and Hasbro written on the side... You got it them as a set last year for your birthday didn't you? You must have been so proud of them to take that picture! It's really cute.

Robert

Brant Gaede's picture

Why do you think I care? After your performance here? Talk about displaced victimhood! The wonder of it all is when you become an American citizen the aggregate IQ of the country will actually go up! That's because I'm not moving to New Zealand.

--Brant

Economical...

Robert's picture

You link your reply to my post, making it clear to anyone (using threaded viewing) that you were directing you comments to me. And then you insult the intelligence of the other readers.
All in one post even.

You must be so proud of your own cleverness.

Just one question before you go and take a lie down after such a strenuous mental exertion: Tell me again why should I give a fuck what you think?

"Robert's"

Brant Gaede's picture

was a reference to R.W., not R.C. I forgot that regulars on this site might not figure that out.

--Brant

Nope

Brant Gaede's picture

I didn't see any substantiation from R.C.

--Brant

A beef, Brant?

Peter Cresswell's picture

You think I should say nothing when I'm accused of being a thief?

Robert's

Brant Gaede's picture

fulminating, for no rational reason I can figure. He's gone off the tracks but he manages to keep on going. Rather, the wheels keep going around but he's obviously stuck played for a sucker.

Peter Cresswell has a beef as far as I can tell.

--Brant

Another Disconnect between Campbell and Candour

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The Evil Professor says:

Perhaps Mr. Perren would care to comment on Lindsay Perigo's pronouncement that anyone who criticizes his conduct vis-à-vis Jim Peron belongs to a "pedo-Mafia."
Which Mafia, Mr. Perigo, has assured us, has a lengthy membership roll...

Whereas Mr. Perigo had actually said:

There's a pedo-mafia within libertarianism. It's belligerent, nasty and deceitful, rather like Peron himself. It mustn't be allowed to succeed.

Spot the differences.

Perhaps Campbell

Robert's picture

would like to read up on a copy of Unbound. I downloaded a copy while it was still on the Locke's Society website in case the cockroach decided to cross my path again.

Whenever you deal with vampires, it's good to have a crucifix handy.

No.

Peter Cresswell's picture

"Mr. Peron did, in fact, say that books were removed from his former store and sold without his knowledge and permission. And that a witness identified Peter Cresswell as one of those who gained entry to the store around the time the books disappeared."

Mr Peron, in fact, couldn't lie straight in bed.

That Mr Campbell is happy to float blatant lies can be added to an already unattractive list of qualities against his name.

Robert ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Am I to take it you'll not be attending any Peron/Campbell Unbound gatherings?

Just think of what you'll be missing:

Brant's crocodile lament re damage to this site is mere wishful thinking. The only damage the cockroaches have inflicted is upon themselves.

Damage? To SOLO by my response?

Robert's picture

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Clearly you exaggerate my role here. I have none. Would take none, as I would not have the time to do it justice.

As to my response. My comments were not just directed at Campbell, but to Peron and anyone else that might happen upon this thread in the future when they decide to Google him and the array of odious controversies that surround him. If you care to check, you will find that there are many and that they've been fermenting for many years.

It's always a good time to snuff out any accusations of criminal activity in my opinion. And if that lessens your opinion of me, who cares. I don't know you and I don't care to. I don't want to face the Professors bullshit insinuation the next time I get interviewed by Homeland Security (I'm an immigrant BTW.)

And yes, they are fully entitled to ask about my acquaintances along with the color of the drapes in the bedroom, my wife's eyes and all manner of other personal, intimate stuff. That they did not, is a credit both to the professionalism of both the immigration lawyer I hired and the agent who interviewed me. I may not be so lucky next time. So yes, for the next few years I'm going to be hyper sensitive about such nonsense.

I make no apologies for this. I explain my response only because you have used them to unjustly smear this site.

Duplicate deleted.

Peter Cresswell's picture

Duplicate deleted.

No.

Peter Cresswell's picture

"By the way, it wouldn't be Mr. Cresswell's site, would it?"

No, it wouldn't be.

More speculation without evidence from someone for whom evidence seems to be something he just dreams up.

No.

Peter Cresswell's picture

"Jim Peron has charged that before the books from his former New Zealand store were shipped to the United States, all of the libertarian titles were removed (from boxes already packed and sealed) and sold off by a crew led by Peter Cresswell. Any truth to this allegation?"

No.

Truth and Peron are strangers. Jim Peron having charged anything is ipso facto grounds for disbelieving whatever is charged.

Mind you, that's probably grounds for Mr Campbell believing it.

Total Diversion.

Robert's picture

You insinuated that Peter Cresswell and unnamed co-conspirators stole Peron's property. Don't think that you can bury that underneath a pile of irrelevant verbiage.

Specifically what was stolen? When? How does Peron know that the packages were opened prior to transit as opposed to being handled roughly at the port/airport? What evidence (other than his rabid imagination) does Peron have that Peter was to blame. How did Peter allegedly get into the store?

Go on, you're accusing Peter of committing a criminal act. Where is your evidence? These are questions you'd have to answer in order to file a Police report, so it isn't unreasonable for you or Peron to provide these answers.

Strange

Brant Gaede's picture

Isn't it defamation to claim defamation where there was no defamation?

Robert C. has reduced Robert W. to making threats that are next-door neighbor to initiation of force--and to name-calling, him et al.

It's so obvious that R.C. has accomplished exactly what he came here for which was to damage SOLOP, badly. Not by what he said, but by the reactions, and not even Lindsay's reactions. Lindsay was much too smart to take any of the bait.

Pitiful.

--Brant

Winefieldian Litigiousness

Robert Campbell's picture

Keep going, Mr. Winefield. You must lack opportunities to express yourself.

In a few decades, at this pace, you may compile a record of contentless verbal belligerency to rival your master's.

You know, if I were 1/100 as litigious as you pretend to be, I could sue Lindsay Perigo for calling me a member of the "pedo-mafia."

Taken at face value, that sounds really awful. And Mr. Perigo has no reason to believe that such an organization actually exists, so it's malicious, to boot.

Unfortunately, the judge would throw my case out, as soon as he or she realized that Mr. Perigo has become a complete Looney Tune.

Robert Campbell

Mr Campbell is just

Kasper's picture

loving all this attention guys.

Duplicate post deleted

Robert's picture

Duplicate post deleted

"So why does he keep up the threats?"

Robert's picture

That's obvious to everyone except you it seems.

I'll spell it out for you:

I consider you to be a muck-racking piece of plague-rat shit (see the post that started this exchange). There are not words strong enough to describe my loathing for Peron.

In my humble opinion, the only two things that either of you can be relied upon: First, you will come up with self-serving melodramatic and utterly fictitious stories about those you despise, and damn the facts (for example: Peron's claim that Linz initiated Peron's perils in NZ, despite the fact that others have proudly, and voluntarily assumed that mantle. This is to say nothing of your 'theory' that James and Linz have a desire to run TASS). Second, you will aim your lies at your enemy and your enemy's friends. You are, the textbook definition of a piece of excrement and the most hygenic way to deal with you is preemptively.

Do I consider myself important enough for you or Peron to despise that much? I don't care. I saw you firing up your Acme Random Shit Slinging Machine(TM) and was making it abundantly clear that if any of it touches me, I'll be coming for you by every legal means available.

And yes, I am that vindictive and proudly so. As they say in latin: nemo me impune lacessit.

Linz and Peter may not care because they reside in NZ and are unlikely to be affected by your repeated attempts to slime members of this site. I live in the US and work in the University system (like you) so I'm more allergic to your bullshit than they are. Is that clear enough for you?

Conspiracy Theorizing

Robert Campbell's picture

Perhaps Mr. Perren would care to comment on Lindsay Perigo's pronouncement that anyone who criticizes his conduct vis-à-vis Jim Peron belongs to a "pedo-Mafia."

Which Mafia, Mr. Perigo, has assured us, has a lengthy membership roll...

Robert Campbell

More Hand-Wringing

Robert Campbell's picture

If Mr. Dawe were even remotely serious about rationality or well-formed and cogent arguments, there are other posters he could be chiding. God knows, SOLOP is a target-rich environment. "Immune to facts" and "lacking in courtesy" are pretty accurate descriptors of Lindsay Perigo, for starters.

On his latest visit, Mr. Dawe has been heavy on the insults and light on the factual statements.

It couldn't be that he is a troll, could it?

Robert Campbell

What Is the Bully Afraid Of?

Robert Campbell's picture

No one, including me, has charged Mr. Winefield with stealing books.

So why does he keep up the threats?

Maybe he intends to sue Jim Peron on behalf of Peter Cresswell, although I don't think he has any standing to do that.

In any event, his threats to sue me are completely irrelevant. But he keeps right on with them:

We both know that there are always consequences from defamatory speech in public. True, the victory might be a Phyrric, but a price would be exacted and that'd be enough for me.

What is Mr. Winefleld afraid of being charged with?

Robert Campbell

Piling On

Jeff Perren's picture

"getting people to believe untrue statements is a much more impressive demonstration of his authority" [Robert Campbell]

Did I just enter an alternate universe? This is an Internet forum, right? The overwhelming majority of posters have no business or personal relationship with Lindsay Perigo. All manner of them post content with which the owner disagrees, sometimes vehemently, and they continue long past when that disagreement is expressed, Mr. Campbell first and foremost. Even the webmasters are volunteers.

Where in all this lies any opportunity for Lindsay to exercise "authority" in any usual sense of that word? So far as I've been able to see - for good or ill, and there have been both - he doesn't even have much influence over SOLO posters. Would that he did.

I think we'll have to chuck this one in the bin with the other conspiracy theories, chuckling all the while.

Campbell on facts....

ethan_dawe's picture

Good Lord!

I can't believe you are actually a professor... Scratch that... Yes I can.

You are so immune to facts and so lacking in courtesy that you hurt every cause you try to support by your own statements. Of course, regarding the Peron case, there is no case against Lindsay. You are a troll. You are not concerened with the facts, merely in tossing out slanders.

If I were Neil I would be embarrassed to have you supporting my work. Of course I'm in the position of agreeing with some of Neil's conclusions and some of Mr. Valliant's conclusions.

As for hand wringing.....hardly. Years ago I noted your total lack of ability to argue rationally and prodded you far more politely to leave off efforts to "help" other people's arguments. You never listened. Your cries and insults grew only more shrill, rude, ill-formed, and distracting. I won't waste my time presenting "factual information" as you've shown yourself to be immune to them, unless they seem to agree with what you already believe.

Now I do what the situation calls for. I treat you with all the courtesy, dignity, and respect that your posts deserve. That is, not a single bit. If calling a ruse idiot and idiot is bullying then call me a bully!

Thanks for the free legal advice...

Robert's picture

I'm sure it's worth every cent I paid for it.

And seeing as you've changed tack from spreading defamatory gossip to attempting to one-up me in the legal arena, I'll assume that you have nothing of any substance to add and leave you to it.

One final observation though. If you are so secure from legal retaliation for your defamation, why bother twice repeating the fact that I was not a member of this fictitious raiding party?

This is a rhetorical question by the way. We both know that there are always consequences from defamatory speech in public. True, the victory might be a Phyrric, but a price would be exacted and that'd be enough for me.

Have a nice day.

Still More Bullying

Robert Campbell's picture

Since no one, to my knowledge, has accused Mr. Winefield of stealing books, I have to wonder why he keeps right on puffing up and threatening:

And as for profiting from the US defamation laws. I value my reputation more than I value money. With an excess of the former, I can easily gain more of the latter but the reverse is not true. And in any case, I'm quite capable of paying up front to take on a piss-ants like you and Peron.

I will say no more on this, and I would strongly advise you to do the same. Think of your friend Peron; I'm sure he has had quite enough sunlight for the moment.

The problem with US defamation laws, as they work at present, is that they do not effectively prevent meritless cases from being brought—even, in some cases, from going to trial. But those meritless cases are hardly ever won by the plaintiff. They merely separate both plaintiff and defendant from considerable sums of money, while doing nothing positive for the plaintiff's reputation.

Robert Campbell

Statements of Facts, and Demands for Obedience

Robert Campbell's picture

Mr. Perigo says

I laid out the facts four years ago in response to Riggenbach's inquiry. They haven't changed. Facts are funny like that.

Mr. Perigo seems to be having trouble telling the difference between a statement of fact and a demand for obedience.

He imagines that he makes a declaration loudly enough, with sufficient bluster, and enough of his acolytes then join the chorus, all within earshot will knuckle under, submissively endorsing his declaration as true.

I expect it has occurred to Mr. Perigo that getting people to believe untrue statements is a much more impressive demonstration of his authority than getting them to believe statements that are true.

For if the statements are true, people might end up believing them for reasons entirely independent of Mr. Perigo's status as an authority figure.

And then where will Mr. Perigo be?

Sorry, but genuine facts have a tendency to outlast strident demands for obedience.

I asked Mr. Perigo several questions, downthread, that would be a cinch for him to answer, if he had the facts on his side. Instead, he ignored them, or resorted to his usual name-calling.

It matters from a factual standpoint whether Mr. Perigo delivered dirt on Jim Peron to Winston Peters, or merely cheerled from the sidelines while others did the dobbing.

But it doesn't especially matter as far as his standing in Rand-land is concerned.

For either he rid himself of a personal enemy by underhanded, illiberal means, or applauded when others rid him of that enemy by illiberal means.

Either way, he permanently damaged his reputation within Rand-land and libertarian-land.

And does Mr. Perigo really expect anyone to believe his story about not demanding public support from Barbara Branden over l'affaire Peron?

If he hadn't privately demanded public support, it would have been a first.

Mr. Perigo constantly demands public support from his friends and associates when he gets in a jam. Lately, as readers of this list can see for themselves, he has been irritating Mr. Perren with such demands, in much lower-stakes situations, and periodically yanking his boy Gregster back into line.

Meanwhile, if Mr. Peron is a cockroach, and therefore deserved to be booted out of New Zealand, and anyone who criticizes Mr. Perigo's conduct toward Mr. Peron is likewise a cockroach... does everyone who criticizes Mr. Perigo over his role in l'affaire Peron also deserve to be booted out of New Zealand?

I've never been to New Zealand. Should I be concerned that if I apply for a visa, Mr. Perigo will employ the political connections he denies ever having used, in order to keep me out of the country?

Robert Campbell

"No one has suggested that Mr. Winefield stole books"

Robert's picture

Glad to hear it. Pity you didn't choose to (a) not repeat the charge that Peter and unnamed others raided Peron's store or (b) repeated the charge in full and supported it with evidence.

I issued this warning because I observed Peron's modus operandi while he was in New Zealand. And so I expect that Peron's invented this fictitious raiding party after consulting the NZ edition of his enemies list - of which I am a proud member. Which is to say that one would be wise to take Peron's melodramatic stories with a grain of salt. I repeat, if he has been robbed, why no Police complaint?

And as for profiting from the US defamation laws. I value my reputation more than I value money. With an excess of the former, I can easily gain more of the latter but the reverse is not true. And in any case, I'm quite capable of paying up front to take on a piss-ants like you and Peron.

I will say no more on this, and I would strongly advise you to do the same. Think of your friend Peron; I'm sure he has had quite enough sunlight for the moment.

Curtain Call by the Hand-Wringer

Robert Campbell's picture

If Mr. Dawe has any factual information to contribute to this discussion, he is welcome to provide it.

Otherwise, it will appear that has made one of his infrequent reappearances—just to disassociate himself from me.

I doubt that anyone thinks that Mr. Dawe and I have anything to do with each other, so his latest exercise in hand-wringing is completely unnecessary.

Robert Campbell

More Bullying

Robert Campbell's picture

No one has suggested that Mr. Winefield stole books from Mr. Peron's former store.

But still he puffs up and threatens.

If Mr. Winefield decides to sue Jim Peron or anyone else for defamation, he will soon discover that no one profits from US libel, slander, and defamation laws except lawyers.

And they won't take his case on a contingency-fee basis. He'll have to pay up front.

Robert Campbell

Slander and Libel

Robert's picture

is an assault on someone's reputation. I'm merely responding in self defense. If you claims are true you have nothing to fear. The truth is an absolute defense in such a law suit.
Trouble is, we both know that your claims are baseless.

Peron, regardless of his creditability deficit with the NZ immigration service, was and still is at liberty to file a complaint of theft with the NZ police. And if he was afraid to, he could have hired a lawyer or asked his ex business partner (who is an NZ citizen) to do so on his behalf. None of this happened. It will never happen because the charge is baseless. This is why Peron is repeating it in private conversations when (and only when) he is outside the jurisdiction of the NZ court system.

But understand this. I am in the USA. It is my intent to become a US citizen and if Peron or Campbell insinuates that I am a thief, I will defend my reputation for honesty to the fullest extent of the law and damn the expense.

Campbell

ethan_dawe's picture

Any long-time poster here knows Lindsay and I have had our dust-ups, so its well known that I'm no Perigo Sycophant. It is also important to note that I beleive in trying to keep these internet discussions polite and generally free from rants, insults, and name-calling. In the past I have lost my temper and mostly regretted it. With those bits out of the way I'd like to deal with Professor Campbell's "arguments" regarding the Peron matter with all the care and reason they deserve by stating the following carefully considered response: Shut the fuck up you idiot.

Thank You for your time!

Ethan

Bullying

Robert Campbell's picture

Mr. Winefield just did what bullies always do.

Instead of refuting a charge, he threatens to punish the person who made it.

Mr. Peron did, in fact, say that books were removed from his former store and sold without his knowledge and permission. And that a witness identified Peter Cresswell as one of those who gained entry to the store around the time the books disappeared.

Over to Mr. Winefield and Mr. Cresswell ... in case they have facts to present, instead of threats.

Robert Campbell

And this man is a Professor?!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Mr. Thomas was foolish to extend the speaking invitation in 2006. Mr. Perigo's role in l'affaire Peron already constituted sufficient evidence of his bad character and his harmful impact in Rand-land.

What role was that, Prof? You still haven't explained. I laid out the facts four years ago in response to Riggenbach's inquiry. They haven't changed. Facts are funny like that. And no matter how much your buddy pisses in your ear, they still won't change. If you have evidence to the contrary, you are, of course, at liberty to present it. SOLO is like that, unlike the Stalinist Brandroid milieu in which you are at home.

I'm at a loss to get the connection between the NZ government's expulsion of a one-time publisher of soft kiddie-porn, my character and the health of Rand-land.

Meanwhile, Mr. Perigo's unsuccessful efforts to get Barbara Branden to line up with him against Jim Peron put a fatal strain on their relationship, before "Drooling Beast" ended it for good.

Wrong again, Prof. I didn't try to enlist Babs against Peron. But I was shocked when she sang his praises after all the evidence came out. Now, of course, I'm not surprised in the least.

"Drooling Beast" was, of course, a pack of lies, which would earn it your undying adoration, no doubt.

Now the once-voluble Mr. Perigo has been reduced to sputtering inanely repetitive epithets.

In your dreams, Prof—your Linz Derangement Syndrome is showing again. But it does "reduce" me to engage you, especially on this matter—talking about a cockroach to a cockroach is thoroughly unedifying—so I propose to ignore you henceforth unless there's some compelling reason not to.

Has Peron publicly accusing Peter Cresswell

Robert's picture

of theft?

You'd be well advised to tell Peron to tread carefully. Peter and his friends, myself included, do not share Peron's distain for the laws against slander and libel.

Mr. Perigo's Pyrrhic Victory

Robert Campbell's picture

Mr. Perigo has now failed to answer some simple and obvious questions about Jim Peron's exclusion from New Zealand, and his role in campaigning for it.

He has also dismissed a review of his old puff-piece for PARC as "just your usual trail of slimy Brandroid apologetics."

It doesn't matter all that much whether Mr. Perigo "dobbed" Mr. Peron, as Mr. Peron has charged, or merely led the cheering section while others manipulated the levers to get Mr. Peron kicked out of New Zealand.

Either way, Mr. Perigo's victory over the hated Mr. Peron was Pyrrhic.

I used to think Will Thomas was foolish to extend a TAS speaking invitation to Mr. Perigo in 2008, after Mr. Perigo had flounced in 2006.

I realize now that Mr. Thomas was foolish to extend the speaking invitation in 2006. Mr. Perigo's role in l'affaire Peron already constituted sufficient evidence of his bad character and his harmful impact in Rand-land.

Meanwhile, Mr. Perigo's unsuccessful efforts to get Barbara Branden to line up with him against Jim Peron put a fatal strain on their relationship, before "Drooling Beast" ended it for good.

Then in the wake of that Lindsay Perigo/Barbara Branden split, one disaster came tumbling after another:

• Mr. Perigo's alliance with Jim Valliant
• Joe Rowlands' withdrawal of support from Mr. Perigo
• Michael Stuart Kelly's founding of ObjectivistLiving
• Mr. Perigo's short-lived alliance with Diana Hsieh and her ARIan contingent, leading to his public trashing of Chris Sciabarra
• Four years of Valliant Wars, ending in total defeat for Mr. Valliant, who no longer bothers to show up on Mr. Perigo's site

Now the once-voluble Mr. Perigo has been reduced to sputtering inanely repetitive epithets.

Robert Campbell

Nambla-Campbla

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Valliant "ghosted" parts of my review? Another of your nutty conspiracy theories, Prof., as feasible as my and Valliant's conspiring to take over TAS. Remember that one, Prof?

The rest is just your usual trail of slimy Brandroid apologetics.

Robert

Brant Gaede's picture

I believe "TheBrandens" should be rendered "TheBrandens(TM)." Registered by the ARI and Associates.

--Brant

Review of a Review

Robert Campbell's picture

Mr. Perigo prefers not to answer questions. He would rather direct readers to his immutable, authoritative statements.

In the case of Jim Valliant's book, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, Mr. Perigo keeps referring questioners to his review of the book, originally posted on SOLOHQ in September 2005: http://solohq.solopassion.com/...

Notwithstanding the four intervening years of Valliant Wars, let's review that review.

On rereading it, no one is likely to classify it among Mr. Perigo's best essays. Parts of it are written so mawkishly, one has to wonder whether he got Mr. Valliant to ghost them for him:

It is a stark reminder of a litany of unconscionable deceits. It is an account pregnant with the tortured cries of the deceived, Ayn Rand, as she struggles to make sense of a monumental mendacity completely alien and inconceivable to her innocent soul.

Mr. Perigo has virtually nothing to say about the contents of Part I of PARC, in which Mr. Valliant seeks to discredit TheBrandens (TM) on account of internal inconsistencies in their books and inconsistencies between their books. (He does have something to say about the method employed in Part I, as will be seen below.) Mr. Perigo has subsequently admitted that he made no direct comparisons between Mr. Valliant's many references to The Passion of Ayn Rand and actual passages in Barbara Branden's book. He was therefore in no position to catch the many distortions and misrepresentations of which Mr. Valliant has turned out to be guilty.

Mr. Perigo's coverage of Part II (which contains Ayn Rand's journal entries, as edited by Jim Valliant and Casey Fahy) suggests that he spent hardly any time reading the entries. His summaries closely follow Mr. Valliant's windy, hectoring commentary, which is credible only to those who haven't bothered to read what Rand said, and was put there precisely in order to ensure that hardly anyone read it. Some of the bullets in this section of the review also sound as though Mr. Valliant ghosted them.

Contrast this unflattering picture—the one gleefully seized upon by critics—exhorts Valliant, with the actual Rand revealed in her journals:

*A Rand who gave endlessly of her time and intellect proffering Branden what amounted to psychotherapy, struggling to help him overcome problems that were actually fabrications by him designed to throw her off the scent of his clandestine affair with a young actress.

But all of this was a waste of her time and intellect, and not just because she was being lied to. Ayn Rand was an incompetent counselor, as the interminable philosophico-psychological diagnoses (e.g., "Kantian goddess premise") in the diaries make painfully apparent. She also violated a whole slew of conflict-of-interest rules that, for eminently sensible reasons, prohibit offering psychotherapy to one's lover, business partner, or employee. Mr. Valliant is too caught up in his sycophancy to notice any of this.

*A Rand who saw the fallacy of rationalism and repression in his problems as he falsely stated them and lovingly sought to haul him out of those traps.

Since Rand's own efforts at counseling were shot through with rationalism, and Mr. Perigo admits as much elsewhere in his review, this is complete rubbish. What's more, "lovingly" is one of several conflicting adverbs that an honest and careful observer would use to describe her attitudes during this tumultuous time.

*A Rand who virtually encouraged Branden to have a sexual affair with a younger woman as she came to realise that the age gap between herself and Branden must be a problem for him, notwithstanding his repeated reassurances that he would continue to find her desirable at any age. (All the while, of course, he was having a sexual affair with a younger woman!)

Mr. Valliant's interpretation, as usual, is tenable only if one fails to read what Rand wrote. For there one learns that the more she thought about it, the less Ms. Rand was inclined to tolerate an affair between her Nathaniel and any "Miss X." The prospect was acceptable to her only so long as no living, breathing candidates for the X role were in view. Patrecia Scott was categorically unworthy from her point of view, and the more she wrote about Ms. Scott the more negative her language about her became.

*A Rand who for four years erred on the side of the most charitable explanation possible for Branden’s increasingly erratic, baffling and hugely hurtful behaviour, even as her “stomach feelings” (yes, the “rationalistic” Rand—“stomach feelings”!) told her the man was actually rotten.

On account of her exemplary status, Mr. Perigo, like Mr. Valliant, can't admit the possibility that Ms. Rand was kidding herself about Nathaniel Branden.

*A Rand who contemplated the continuation of her professional association with him even as she realised she would probably have to repudiate him personally.

For a little while, yes. One of the few issues on which I agree with Mr. Valliant is that her relationship with Nathaniel Branden had deteriorated so badly that a personal break could not have been avoided. Where I disagree, of course, is on the allegedly imperative need for a public denunciation of him, accompanied by a demand for faith-based commitments from her remaining followers.

*A Rand who, to herself, wished him “best premises—in the name of the best within him” even after she had finally come to deem him “the worst traitor and the most immoral person I have ever met.”

All this indicates is that Ayn Rand was ambivalent about Nathaniel Branden, as well as prone to exaggeration in both positive and negative directions. By age 63, after escaping from the Soviet Union, Ms. Rand had undoubtedly met a few people who could outdo her ex-lover in the immorality department.

This Rand, to be sure, is far removed from the Ayatollah Ayn who makes up a significant part of the Brandens’ portraits, and one can only laud Valliant for his resurrection of her.

Of course, Mr. Valliant is not merely saying that there were other sides to Rand; he "proves" that Rand the totalizer and Rand the demander of obedience never existed. It is not clear that Mr. Perigo ever bought Mr. Valliant's contention that there was no "Mullah Rand," since in the review he interprets her moral condemnation of homosexuality as Aytollahish behavior. But if Mr. Perigo had other ideas about Ms. Rand's leadership style, he sure kept them to himself during the Valliant Wars.

Meanwhile, parts of the review failed to survive even the earliest battles of those wars.

For instance, this Perigonian declaration promptly turned out to be wrongheaded:

It must equally be stated, however, that Valliant is not working to an agenda-ridden Branden-bashing brief drawn up by the Ayn Rand Institute. This is not a belated arousal of the orthodoxy via a stooge. Valliant is his own man. To be sure, the crucial exhibits—Ayn Rand’s private journal entries—were supplied by Leonard Peikoff, but these merely bolstered (enormously) conclusions Valliant and his associate Casey Fahy had already reached independently.

Mr. Valliant goes around witnessing to the eternal truth of "Fact and Value," the notorious brief for a worshipful attitude toward Ayn Rand and obeisance to her vicar on earth, Dr. Peikoff. Mr. Valliant's book has been sold by the Ayn Rand Bookstore since the day it was published, and Mrs. Valliant won't answer questions about bulk purchases. During the four years of the Valliant Wars, he never offered a genuine criticism of any ARI policy or any decision of the ARI leadership. When Jim and Holly Valliant were up against the wall at Wikipedia, they begged Dr. Peikoff to intercede (unsuccessfully, as it turned out) with Jimmy Wales.

It is true that Mr. Valliant has never been invited to speak at OCON, and is unlikely to draw an invitation in the future; that many at ARI don't want to be reminded of his book; and that the Ayn Rand Archives did not cite PARC in a recent roundup of scholarly projects to which they have lent assistance. But none of these are what Mr. Perigo had in mind when he tried to dissociate Mr. Valliant from ARI.

And his fatuous pronouncement about "belated arousal of the orthodoxy" is not the only one that casts doubt on Mr. Perigo's thought processes.

I owe James Valliant an apology for initially dismissing The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, sight unseen. This is precisely the kind of behaviour for which the ARI, rightly, gets condemned and ridiculed. James, I’m sorry. Your book deserves much better. It deserves the widest possible readership. Your research is unimpeachable and your achievement admirable.

Mr. Perigo lurched from one irrational response (I can't be bothered with the issues raised by Mr. Valliant's book, so I'll condemn without reading) to another (Hallelujah! I've seen the light! All on account of Mr. Valliant's Rand-inspired book!).

Mr. Valliant's book got few readers, and deserved fewer.

And its research has been impeached and convicted.

With PARC, justice to Ayn Rand has been done.

Since justice depends on objectivity, evaluating Ms. Rand's character and actions justly depends on ascertaining the facts about her correctly. Mr. Valliant never was terribly interested in getting the facts right; he was in much too big a hurry to confirm his prior subjective commitments to the perfect rightness of Miss Rand and the perfect wrongness of TheBrandens.

And it's not as though Mr. Perigo was completely blind to Mr. Valliant's slop and bias. His review included this qualification:

It must be stated at the outset that author Valliant is a prosecuting attorney by training, and he behaves exactly like one in his pitiless pursuit of the Brandens. The hell with a rounded portrait; he’s out to convict. These two are irredeemably rotten. Their smallest inconsistency is a Big Lie. He’ll discount or downplay any evidence that helps the defendants’ case. He’ll indict their memoirs as “valueless as historical documents” because of the self-serving lies with which he says they are riddled, but he’ll quote from them as though they’re truthful when it suits. (He’ll also, of course, quote from them to show they are untruthful when it suits.) And he’ll neglect to remind us as often as he should, perhaps, that the defendants have long since pleaded guilty to the main charge, in these very biographies he dismisses as worthless. For Prosecutor Valliant, there is no Statute of Limitations and no protection against double jeopardy.

When I first read the review, I thought Mr. Perigo was criticizing Mr. Valliant.

But after four years of seeing how Mr. Perigo prefers to argue, and how he deals with critics, I've realized that he admires Mr. Valliant's modus operandi.

In the end, that's all anyone really needs to know about either James Valliant or Lindsay Perigo.

Robert Campbell

Who Was Minding the Store?

Robert Campbell's picture

Mr. Perigo said

The two fellows who were minding the store after Peron had been spirited away by the ISIL found the drawings

The two fellows presumably had names. Who were they?

Jim Peron has charged that before the books from his former New Zealand store were shipped to the United States, all of the libertarian titles were removed (from boxes already packed and sealed) and sold off by a crew led by Peter Cresswell.

Any truth to this allegation?

The phrase "spirited away by the ISIL" implies that Mr. Peron left New Zealand to avoid prosecution, or that allies of Mr. Peron got him to leave New Zealand to protect him from prosecution.

Is there any reason to believe either of those implications?

And is it customary for Mr. Perigo to refer to the International Society for Individual Liberty without a prefatory epithet, such as "anarcho-Saddamite" or "pedo-mafia"?

Robert Cambpell

Disloyalty

Robert Campbell's picture

If Gregster hadn't called me "scum," that would have been a further act of disloyalty toward Mr. Perigo.

By enrolling anyone who questions his conduct toward Jim Peron in a "pedo-mafia," Mr. Perigo is wading in where Winston Peters decided not to get his feet wet.

Mr. Perigo loves to rant about conspiracy theories, but one presumes that any "pedo-mafia" worthy of the name would be actively promoting or excusing sex between adults and underage boys and girls. Who in libertarian-land is doing that? And where is it being done?

On the other hand, if merely being belligerent, nasty, and deceitful constituted proof of involvement in the pedo-mafia, Mr. Perigo would surely be a charter member.

Robert Campbell

Nambla Campbla

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Poor Gregster has once again committed an act of disloyalty to Lindsay Perigo. It's so frighteningly easy to do...

How so? I simply pointed out to him something he may have been unaware of, which you, Prof., confirmed. He didn't seem to mind. 'Tweren't me he called "scum."

There's a pedo-mafia within libertarianism. It's belligerent, nasty and deceitful, rather like Peron himself. It mustn't be allowed to succeed.

Prof (Prof?)

gregster's picture

Poor Gregster has once again committed an act of disloyalty to Lindsay Perigo. It's so frighteningly easy to do...

You are scum Campbell.

I've got the forthcoming books on order, and fuckwits as yourself better make sure they've had their vitamins.

The Review Was by Jim Peron

Robert Campbell's picture

In fact, that review of Jennifer Burns' book was by Jim Peron.

Poor Gregster has once again committed an act of disloyalty to Lindsay Perigo. It's so frighteningly easy to do...

Meanwhile, the Ayn Rand Archives appear to be changing their access policies. How far they will go, and how lasting the changes will be, we don't know yet.

Robert Campbell

Gregster

Neil Parille's picture

Don't assume that I have been kept out of the archives.

Likely Peron did ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... and folk shouldn't support his enablers, ISIL, LFB, O-Lying and NAMBLA. Buy through Amazon. Keep the freedom movement free from the taint of NAMBLA. Of course, AR Bookstore should carry these works, but hell will freeze over before they learn the meaning of "open exchange of competing ideas." See their treatment of Reisman.

It's not entirely positive

gregster's picture

and I don't know who wrote the review.

Who ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... wrote that review?

During my rounds

gregster's picture

"Under the influence of Rand’s heir, Leonard Peikoff, the archives were off-limits to many scholars for years. Peikoff has a history of wanting to protect Rand’s reputation, even if that means giving facts short-shift. That Burns had full access to Rand’s papers is a good sign for future Rand-related scholarship—though Burns does warn that scholars who were involved in “Objectivist controversies” may still find themselves barred from seeing the papers."

The reason Parille wasn't allowed anywhere near the archives?

From Laissez Faire Books review of the Jennifer Burns book Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right.

Nambla Campbla

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Who were the "folk" who found these drawings?

The two fellows who were minding the store after Peron had been spirited away by the ISIL found the drawings.

As for the Minister of Immigration's official "finding," I thought it was that Mr. Peron was of "unfit character." Does "unfit character" have a special meaning in NZ bureaucratese, along the lines of "did something in another country that would be a crime if done here"?

That's probably about it.

Or is Mr. Perigo merely expanding on his novel legal theories? Such as his claim that backbiting is an initiation of force, when its victim is named Lindsay Perigo...

*Lying* about someone behind his back *is* an initiation of force against him.

Jesus, how you stink, you rotten-souled bastard.

Incomplete Updating

Robert Campbell's picture

Who were the "folk" who found these drawings?

As for the Minister of Immigration's official "finding," I thought it was that Mr. Peron was of "unfit character." Does "unfit character" have a special meaning in NZ bureaucratese, along the lines of "did something in another country that would be a crime if done here"?

Or is Mr. Perigo merely expanding on his novel legal theories? Such as his claim that backbiting is an initiation of force, when its victim is named Lindsay Perigo...

Robert Campbell

Nambla Campbla

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The drawings were referred to the police by the folk who found them. They did not constitute child porn since they were just drawings of naked boys. There is no law against drawings of naked boys. The Minister of Immigration certainly did endorse the implication that 'Unbound' would have been deemed criminal had it been published in NZ by refusing Peron re-entry into NZ.

One Thing that Mr. Perigo Ought to Update

Robert Campbell's picture

Mr. Perigo imagines that nothing in his cobwebby apologia needs updating.

How about this?

Not long after the matter blew up in Parliament, photographs & drawings of naked pubescent boys were discovered in Peron's Auckland bookshop.

Is this true?

Did any photos or drawings actually found in Jim Peron's former bookstore constitute child porn under New Zealand law?

Mr. Perigo has said, after all, that Mr. Peron committed no crimes in New Zealand.

He leaves the implication open that Mr. Person committed crimes elsewhere—an implication that the NZ Immigration Minister was unwilling to endorse.

Robert Campbell

Nambla Campbla

Lindsay Perigo's picture

By the way, it wouldn't be Mr. Cresswell's site, would it?

Another of the Prof's mad conspiracy theories. No, it wouldn't. And it ain't mine. This will be a shock to the Ra-addled prof, no doubt, but decent folk generally are appalled at the promotion of adult-child sex. His O-Lying Brandroid milieu, fortunately, is not typical of the humanity he constantly strives to diminish.

Eh?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'll be happy to discuss Sunny's music with anyone who is actually interested,

Wot music?

This?:

There never was ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... a claim that Peron committed any crime in NZ. What does that have to do with anything? What am I supposed to update?

Mr. Cresswell's Link

Robert Campbell's picture

Thanks to Mr. Cresswell for posting the link, to material that I've already seen but had lost the URL to.

By the way, it wouldn't be Mr. Cresswell's site, would it?

There's an interesting passage in the New Zealand Herald article referenced there:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n...

Act MP Richard Prebble asked [Immigration Minister Paul] Swain if there was any evidence Mr Peron had committed a crime in any country, to which Mr Swain said "no".

This prompted a battle between Mr Peters and various members of the Act party, finally sparking an apology by Mr Peters for referring to a political party which "seems to be a defender of paedophilia behaviour".

Mr. Perigo has been disinclined to provide an update. Does anyone else care to?

Robert Campbell

Ra-ology

Robert Campbell's picture

I started publishing about Sun Ra in 1993, and there was material about him on my website when I first stated posting on the old SOLOHQ.

But Lindsay Perigo is shocked, shocked... to be told about all of this in 2009.

If anyone still needed confirmation of Mr. Perigo's utter intellectual slothfulness, now they have it.

I'll be happy to discuss Sunny's music with anyone who is actually interested, but could we take that topic to another thread?

Meanwhile, for Sun Ra's years in Chicago, see

http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~cam...

Robert Campbell

Rah, rah, Sun Ra

Brant Gaede's picture

I went to You Tube. I liked his "Calling Planet Earth." I read about him on Wikipedia. He was a very interesting man who had an interesting life. I had never heard of him before this thread.

--Brant

Uh

Brant Gaede's picture

LP,

When I said I could one up the Sun Ra video, I meant better. I'm at a loss for worse. I did not like it.

If you weren't you, you and RC would have a higher opinion of each other. So would we.

--Brant
out of the loop

Sun Ra

Brant Gaede's picture

I do like some Jazz. I can't figure Sun Ra. Maybe there is other material that seems more like music and less like something I might be able to do. You have to admire the balance and precision of what was done in the video, but where was the music?

--Brant
didn't like Mario Lanza singing "Danny Boy"

Wrong Excerpt

Jeff Perren's picture

Linz,

You selected the wrong words. Here's the money portion: "strange and highly fruitful"

That is unquestionably true.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.