Here you will find some evidence that Jim Peron has had very close associations with NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association. Go HERE to see NAMBLA's site. The best way to find out what is wrong with this group is to see for yourself what they have to say.

After reading the list of points established in these resources, go to the websites on this page to see the evidence. In your browser menu click: “edit”, click: “find on this page” and type in the key words relevant to each quote like: NAMBLA, Peron, consent to pinpoint where on each page the quotes we have used fit into the context of the discussion on those pages.

Jim Peron wrote everything in yellow. Other people that we quote wrote all text in orange. All other text has been written by us here at The Truth about Jim Peron.

Substantiated claims:

1. According to Jim, he bought a bookstore knowing it sold NAMBLA material and was associated with NAMBLA meetings and supporters (The person who sold the store to Jim has denied this, however).

2. Jim claims that he voluntarily entered an agreement as part of the purchase of the bookstore to continue selling NAMBLA material.

3. Jim states that this agreement extended to the point that Jim could not move the NAMBLA material to a back room, even after hours, it had to be in full display at all times. Jim accepted this agreement.

4. The NAMBLA material was so prominent that people who used his store for political meetings after-hours expressed concern at its prominence.

5. Jim claims that he knew that NAMBLA had been meeting in the store for quite some time before he purchased the bookstore.

6. Jim admitted allowing NAMBLA to continue to meet in his bookstore for some time after he purchased it.

7. Aside what Jim has admitted, in fact NAMBLA met in Jim's store until the time Jim sold the store.

8. After the NAMBLA group stopped meeting at Jim's store (coincidentally, the same time Jim sold the store), the same group then met at a public library, causing a public outcry. When the police infiltrated their group, it was revealed that the publication they were distributing, which Jim had sold for them, provided advice on how to conceal one's child molesting practices from family and authorities.

9. People who frequented Jim’s store were well aware of his personal involvement with NAMBLA, and he was widely seen in that community as an deeply involved member.

10. Jim’s bookstore was under police surveillance.

11. Jim’s bookstore was searched in connection with child molestation charges on the part of Jim’s long time employee.

12. Jim has expressed clear issues with the age of consent for sex, and states that there needs to be debate about lowering it. Jim states this is why he agreed to the condition about continuing to sell NAMBLA material.

13. Jim blames “fundamentalists” or “progressives” for inflicting their moral values onto society by insisting 10 year olds should not be allowed to have sex. This is documented in his own articles, some of which are published on his NZ website since his arrival in NZ, others prior to his arrival in NZ.

14. Jim opposes some widespread laws against child porn. See his article called “the Claptrap over Child Porn.”

15. Jim’s apparent support of NAMBLA was well known enough to various libertarian groups in South Africa, America and New Zealand for them to voice concern at the image it gave Libertarians. Evidence of this can be found on many of the links on this page.

LINKS

http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0074.shtml

[Jim]: Fifteen years ago I bought a bookstore that sold one NAMBLA publication. I never was a member, never endorsed them, etc. I did think, and still do, that the age of consent issue needs debate. I don't know where I'd set it but probably at puberty. And the reason I kept the publication was because it debated those issues.

http://www.solohq.org/Forum/GeneralForum/0074_1.shtml

[Jim]: XXXX [name removed by request] was the one who made me the offer of having me take over the bookstore.

... I had never heard of NAMBLA before this time and my first knowledge that such a group existed when I saw that the bookstore carried the Nambla Bulletin for sale. Dorsey [note: not the same person as above] insisted that as a condition of sale I continue carrying the Bulletin. Nothing in it was illegal or obscene and I agreed.

http://www.solohq.org/Forum/GeneralForum/0074_1.shtml

[William]: I was in the store for a Libertarian Party meeting in the late '80's and asked George O'Brien, who was then an LP candidate, why the NAMBLA stuff couldn't be moved to the back room, since it was an embarrassment and a liability for the Libertarian Party to be associated with it. George replied that there was nothing he could do, because Jim Peron wanted it out front where everyone could see it.

There would have to be a reasonable amount on the shelf for this comment to make sense, if there were just a couple of magazines would anyone notice? Or feel the need to move it?

William (Bill) Dwyer repeats hearsay that Jim wanted the material out front where everyone can see it. However, in direct response to Bill, Jim does not dispute this, see next two quotes in yellow and check the page they came from (previous link) to see the full context.

[Jim]: When XXXX [name removed by request] and [Ron] Dorsey owned the store they were selling the Bulletin and little else except their own publication from the so-called Radical Caucus (which the ARI has attacked vociferously and with some merit). Thus the Bulletin stuck out like a sore thumb. To rectify that but keep with the agreement I brought in about 60 other publications. Now the Bulletin sat on a shelf with 60 publications instead of with a handful.

[Jim]: I can't comment on what George said. George was a good guy and I spoke at his meetings which were an informal discussion group that met once a month. George came to me and asked about the publication and I told him that it couldn't be removed and mentioned the agreement I had with Ron. George then came in and meet with Ron while I was there. Ron was absolute in his insistence that the agreement be kept and the publication be on the shelf.

Jim admits he refused to remove the material in question. He states that the agreement he chose to freely enter into did not just mean he had to keep selling the NAMBLA material but that this agreement prevented him from moving NAMBLA materials from the shelf to a back room. Who agrees to a purchase condition like ‘I promise to keep selling NAMBLA publications and I promise to ensure they are highly visible even to the extent that when the groups I like find them offensive and ask them to be moved out back after hours I refuse to?’

And what exactly is this "NAMBLA bulletin" that Jim Peron felt obliged to keep selling? Maybe it really didn't contain anything illegal or obscene. Let's have a look at this.

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/NAMBLA/nambla-KRON.transcript

Here you'll see the transcript of a report aired on KRON in the States, a report about the NAMBLA group that met in Jim's bookstore (Jim acknowledges this below), and then moved to meet in a public library. Observe the following observation, available at this link.

These are pictures of a NAMBLA meeting at the Portrero branch of the San Francisco Public Library, taken with a hidden camera. It may seem innocuous. But look at the magazine NAMBLA publishes ten times a year, the "NAMBLA Bulletin." Letters to the editor smolder with stories of sex with children, and advice on how to molest youngsters without getting caught.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with selling material that offers advice on how to molest children and get away with it, right? And letting groups that promote these activities use your premises to spread them isn't wrong, right? And New Zealand would welcome anyone who facilitates the promotion of these views, right? The article goes on to point out that at least some of this group that met in Jim's store and moved to the library, and who are actively engaged in sexually molesting minors, are HIV positive.

http://www.solohq.org/Forum/GeneralForum/0074_1.shtml

[Jim]: Sometime prior to my move NAMBLA had been holding meetings at the Gay Community Center in San Franciso which went bankrupt (the center not SF) and they moved to the bookstore. Their having meetings at the bookstore was not a condition of sale and sometime after I took over I asked them to change meeting location which they did -- to a public library.

“Their having meetings at the bookstore was not a condition of sale” demonstrates that Jim knew that NAMBLA were meeting in the store.

“Sometime after I took over I asked them to change meeting location” is not how one describes that one promptly sent the NAMBLA people packing the minute one took over ownership and discovered NAMBLA were meeting in one’s new bookstore. Consider Jim’s comments on http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0503/S00082.htm in his recent interview:

... prior to my buying the bookstore there had been a movement in San Francisco to abolish the vice squad and the people who were making that - leading that movement - used the bookstore as the headquarters of that campaign. From that point on the police had kept a very close eye on the bookstore – coming into the bookstore going through things.

By the way I was not informed of this when I bought the store and only discovered that fact afterwards. It may have made me think twice had I known about that.

Knowing that the police kept an eye on the store because of the vice squad abolition movement would have made him think twice about buying the store. However, knowing that it sold NAMBLA material and NAMBLA met there and a condition of sale was that he had to keep selling NAMBLA material and could not even move NAMBLA material from the shelves, even after-hours, did not make him think twice about buying the bookstore? Why is it more important to avoid the vice squad abolition movement than to avoid supporting paedophiles?

http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz/index.php?action=view_journal&journal_id=118

Liberal Capitalism vs Fundamentalism: The Battle of the Century by Jim Peron

D'Emilio and Freedman realise that expanding sexual freedom in the United States was "protected by the laissez-faire attitude toward morality and commerce." And it should be noted that much of the morals legislation and enforcement that is associated with Victorian America came about under the influence of so-called "progressive" movements of the Left. Censorship laws, prostitution laws, the increase in the age of consent were all brought about by social purity groups that had a decidedly collectivist, antilaissez-faire attitude.

The use of the term “progressive” is notable. Jim talks about how the US had liberal policies and that numerous bad ones (including age of consent laws) were brought about by the progressive movement.

As a libertarian, Jim supports laissez-faire attitudes in both economic and social realms. He opposes "collectivism" and morals-based legislation – he terms these “progressive America”. Jim views the progressive movement as a bad thing, at odds with his own beliefs and worldview. In this quote he is clearly associating increases in the age of consent as an example of the type of morals-based legislation he opposes.

This argument that Jim uses is the same argument one finds in other pro-paedophile literature. Go to a University library and have a look, you will see examples where very similar arguments are used in literature on paedophilia – children being inherently sexual, negative religious attitudes leading to the increase in the age of consent, etc.

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/eat_their_young.htm

They Eat their Young: Abuse Sniffers and the War on Children by Jim Peron

For most of human history it was assumed that children were sexual. The more religious amongst us didn't even deny this. In fact they tended to think it proved the innate sinfulness of humankind. Age of consent was uniformly ten years of age in pre-Progressive Era America. Many youths in their early teens were independent and often had families of their own that they supported-without Levine's beloved welfare state.

Jim makes the same points here as he did in Liberal Capitalism vs Fundamentalism: The Battle of the Century, the quote above. However he elaborates here that prior to the progressive era the age of consent was 10. Again the picture emerges that Jim is arguing that raising the age of consent higher than age 10 was a bad thing and should not have happened.

http://www.ilv.org.nz/index.php?action=view_article&article_id=247

The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of the Religious Right, (Part 1) by Jim Peron

During the war dictatorship of Lincoln major inroads for collectivism were made both economically and socially. And as these inroads were being made church membership had risen to 15.5 per cent. Again, during the Progressive Era major battles were fought as the country adopted a religiously oriented, morally rigid position. By 1910 church membership had risen to 43.5 per cent. At the same time that Prohibition was gaining ground, age of consent laws were passed (this was previously under common law), abortion was made illegal, prostitution was attacked, censorship was embraced and economic collectivism was applauded. State regulation of the market place was wedded to the same philosophy that called for government intervention into the social sphere.

Age of consent laws, says Jim Peron, are examples of a morally rigid position and examples of the economic and social collectivism.

http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0074.shtml

[Jim]: I never was a member [of NAMBLA], never endorsed them, etc. I did think, and still do, that the age of consent issue needs debate. I don't know where I'd set it but probably at puberty. And the reason I kept the publication was because it debated those issues. The publication was legal in all senses of the word.

Take a look online at the context this statement appears in. Directly following his justification for having NAMBLA material in his store. Jim thinks the age of consent needs debate, this is why he sold the NAMBLA publication to encourage debate on lowering the age of consent. Jim himself has participated in advancing this debate. He clearly endorsed NAMBLA's beliefs in this matter, and this very belief is the very reason most people find NAMBLA so objectionable.

And lastly on this page, email correspondence from someone with first hand experience in Jim's bookstore, explaining Jim’s relationship to NAMBLA. Jim says now that he was never really involved with the group. We say he lied. Contact us for details on author and recipient.

Subj:Re: controversy over jim peron

Date:8/5/2003 4:36:19 PM Pacific Standard Time

From: XXXXXXX

To: XXXXXX

Jim was a participant in the organization [NAMBLA], not an innocent bystander. There was no visible closet. We all saw him as an active participant.

If Jim sued someone over this, I certainly would be willing to testify and could find others.

Established: Jim Peron sold NAMBLA material, allowed NAMBLA to meet in his store. Jim endorses NAMBLA’s message about the age of consent, and visibly participated in the organisation. NAMBLA promote the viewpoint that adults should be allowed to have sex with pubescent children (and younger) and that there is nothing wrong with this.

Puberty can occur as young as age 8.

BACK TO MAIN PAGE