Out Next

Available Now

 

 

News and Commentary

9 January 2012

Interview with Dr. Kerry Bolton - Part 1

Alex Kurtagic

My first contact with Kerry Bolton occurred on the back of my first article for The Occidental Observer, 'Memoirs of a Dissident Student in Post-Modern Academia', where I recounted my experiences in postgraduate school. At the time, and as we will see in the interview, Dr. Bolton was having a few unpleasant experiences of his own, so it is easy to see now why my piece resonated with him. A fellow at the Academy of Social and Political Research and of the Centre of Independent Studies, an extraordinarily prolific essayist and writer, publisher of the journal Ab Aeterno, and a contributor to publications such as Alternative Right, The Occidental Quarterly, Counter-Currents, and the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies among others, Dr. Bolton is the author of Thinkers of the Right and, more recently, Revolution from Above, which was published by Arktos last year. He holds two doctoratess: one in Theology and another in Historical Theology, while his writing deals with geopolitics, history, revolutions, conspiracy, religion, the occult, and Freemasonry. In this interview we explore Dr. Bolton's career, learn about his experiences in academia and the media, and get a sense of the man behind the legend. Because of the length of this interview, we are posting it in two parts.

You were born in 1956, a time when New Zealand enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world. How do you remember the New Zealand of your childhood? What kind of things were taken for granted then that seem inconceivable today?

The one obvious factor that was taken for granted was the feeling of security. As a child, New Zealand only had a population of one million. It is today 4 million. The Maori were still mainly rural, and apprenticeships assured that they were given better opportunities economically then than today, although this is now regarded as quaint at best, or condescending, as everyone, including Maori, are supposed to get some worthless academic degree or become an IT worker. There was no racial ill-will, although the attitude towards Maori was patronising, and the term “our Maori people” was a common one, and Maori were generally thought of as concert parties who performed poi dances for tourists at Rotorua. The wool boom and trade with the Commonwealth assured a market for our exports to complementary economies. If there was a murder it was regarded with the height of nationwide shock. New Zealand was still known as a farming country. We also had a good manufacturing sector. There were three automobile factories in my birthplace of the Hutt Valley alone. Import controls were strict; there was not much in the way of consumer goods, or what Mosley someplace called “the junk of civilization.” The Asian community was small, largely descended from gold diggers and market gardeners since the 19th century; immigration was based on a de facto white NZ policy. When royalty came here, the streets were packed with flag waving, happy people. We stood for our National Anthem in the theatres, which was then “God Save the Queen”, and which is now an embarrassingly lacklustre “God Defend NZ”.  Up to 1970, High School inspections each morning assured that every male student had hair that did not extend over the ears or the collar, that fingernails were clean and dress tidy. New Zealand back then is now regarded as having been “boring”, and this is often mentioned in conjunction with our current “vibrancy” as a “multicultural society”, usually on the basis that we now have lots of ethnic cafes.  It was a time before demented arseholes had invented stereos that bring infrasound vibrating through the walls of neighbours from those who, for reasons unknown to me, feel compelled to share their crap tastes in music with others.

What books and / or events made an impact on you during the early years?

I was interested in history and even religion at an early age; even as young as ten, I think. About that time I joined the children’s’ library and the first book I got out was on castles. However, I had a thoroughly normal and happy childhood, and my favourite reading was for a long time Tintin. I still have those books and more recently obtained “Tintin in the Congo” and “Tintin in the Land of the Soviets”. When I bought the edition on the Congo adventures, I was warned by the bookseller that it contained un-PC material. I have to admit that I was dismayed with Tintin’s propensity in this book for shooting any animal in sight, other than Snowy. Herge’s subsequent storylines were far better.

During the 1960s and 1970s hippieism and New Left, liberal crap and even communism was making its inroads among youth and the teaching profession. Our social studies teacher advised her 14-year-old students of any upcoming demonstrations against the Vietnam War. I took a fairly standard anti-communist “Cold War” line, however I was already interested in Fascism, and read Mosley’s autobiography “My Life” at this time. I also made contact with an elderly Lithuanian, Joseph Dilys, who had been a partisan during World War II and lived in Chicago. He sold Rightist newspapers on the streets. He would post me huge bundles of American Rightist literature. Among these was the periodical “Common Sense”, which took the unique view – for me - that Russia since Stalin had divested itself of bolshevism and that the world capital of Marxism was New York. This pro-Russian orientation had a lasting impact, and I have published many of their articles as booklets available from Renaissance Press. “Common Sense” staff were influenced by Yockey and by Spengler.

I read Nietzsche’s “Zarathustra” at 18, which I found inspiring, and at about that time Yockey’s “Imperium” and Spengler’s “Decline of The West”, both of which were being distributed in New Zealand by a Chinese-descended  businessman, who spoke precise English far better than the average, slack lingo of most New Zealanders, a long time Social Crediter who was thoroughly imbued with Spengler. He put out a very good Spenglerian newsletter called “Perspective 21st Century”. This was around the mid-1970s, the high point of the New Zealand post-war Right, such as it ever exited to any extent. There was an excellent book service called Essential Books & Co., operating from Hamilton. The proprietor specialised in books on conspiracy and anti-communism largely from the John Birch Society, but also had material such as The Protocols of Zion, etc., and books by Nesta Webster.

In 1969 a New Zealand branch of the Crown Commonwealth League of Rights was founded and this endured for about twenty years, but eventually faded due to the aging membership, most of whom were war veterans who felt their heritage had been sold out. They were uncompromisingly anti-Zionist, anti-Talmudic, pro-white, and based on orthodox C H Douglas Social Credit theory. They offered numerous books for sale, and organised lectures tours of speakers from overseas. The League still operates in Australia. I was reading books on the machinations of High Finance, by authors such as Ivor Benson and A K Chesterton, who explained why empires had been scuttled.
There was a lot of goodwill in New Zealand for South Africa, primarily through the obsession with rugby by both countries.

During the late 1970s you were involved with the New Zealand National Front, but it seems you had already been active in politics earlier in the decade. What inspired this activism?

The first group I was actively involved with had been the Democratic Nationalist Party, formed by a couple of friends from childhood years. As youthful zealots among a milieu that was quite elderly (i.e. about my age now) we wanted street demonstrations and saw the need for a party rather than a lobby or educational service. The most significant activity was our counter demonstration in favour of South Africa’s participation at the World Softball Tournament at Lower Hutt, in defiance with about 800 anti-apartheid demonstrators. Despite the propensity for many of them to wear full uniforms of the Chinese Red Army, there was not any real trouble, despite their irritation at our handing out leaflets supporting South Africa to the crowds, and displaying a placard of pictures of Black atrocities in Rhodesia, which had been sent to us by the Rhodesian Information Service.

The New Zealand branch of the British National Front was formed a few years later by a group of Christchurch Rightists, mostly supporters of Colonel Elderton’s Southern Africa Friendship Association, and some veterans of the NZ branch of Chesterton’s League of Empire Loyalists from the 1950s, who had been particularly active in Christchurch. Nothing much happened in terms of activities, but the name alone generated news media publicity. That, like the DNP, only lasted a year or two. However, the NZ National Front has existed sporadically since 1969 as different organisations cropping up under that name. I did not bother with it, until joining a version in 2004 and became "Secretary" for that year. However, its skinhead elements made it into a fiasco, although the most active branch was Wellington, whose members were mainly middle aged, and we were holding demonstrations on a virtually weekly basis. I resigned in late 2004 or early 2005 and have had no further association with any such organisations, nor am I likely to do so unless something startling comes along, which is not obsessed with Americanised notions of racial reductionism, and can focus on important socio-economic and geopolitical issues.

Some years after university, you obtained qualifications in psychology. What interested you in this discipline and what were your aspirations then?

These were not taken “after university”. I undertook several courses in psychology and in sociology extramurally, which I mainly studied while I was occupied with a tedious job as a printer. I was interested in applying social science methodology to Rightist doctrine and analyses.

For a while and up until 1992 you were involved with the Temple of Set, from what I understand an offshoot of LaVey’s organisation. What attracted you to that milieu?

I was irritated by the failure of the Christian-based conservative movement to act beyond low-key methods, and the Right was decreasing with age. For reasons which are now obscure, I thought that something could be made out of the so-called Left Hand Path as an iconoclastic movement. I had already rejected Christianity due to the critiques of Ben Klassen’s “Creativity” books, which on hindsight was very superficial. Critiques of Christianity and the Bible tend to be of a superficial character.

You subsequently formed The Order of the Left Hand Path, which was later renamed Ordo Sinistra Vivendi and then, according to some, Order of Deorc Fyre. What were your aims at that time?

As mentioned, iconoclasm was the aim. The doctrine, although banal on hindsight, was supposed to be a synthesis of half-digested Nietzsche, along with Spenglerian cyclicity, and Jungian archetypes. I was never a member of the Order of Deorc Fyre, let alone the “leader”, claims by fraudulent “academics” notwithstanding, and had resigned from the OSV.

Another organisation was also created around this period: the Black Order. This organisation is said to have been concerned with the occult end of elitist political thought and its expression in popular youth culture, including industrial music.

The Black Order was supposed to be specialised chapter of the OSV that focused on European paganism. The OSV was multiracial and had no race doctrine, again, lies from pseudo-academics and others notwithstanding, and if we had a cluster of other races for example, they would have been encouraged to form their own specialised orders. There was no particular focus on popular youth culture, and I assume you’ve read some nonsense written by some idiot on Wikipedia, or something as equally worthless.

These efforts were misguided and banal. Secularism, humanism and godlessness are symptoms of cultural pathology, not answers to it. Why is Catholicism so denigrated and smeared, and subjected to ridicule? Whatever is being attacked on such a colossal scale must be regarded as a hindrance to the world power structure, including Talmudism and Masonry. Importantly, also, Catholic social doctrine, based on papal encyclicals, provided the impetus for Social Credit, national-syndicalism and Distributism. I am not a member of any church or baptised into any religion; I am merely looking at these issues objectively. The Western Civilisation took a wrong turn with the Reformation, which opened the way for plutocracy.

Underground popular music informed by occult and elitist thought was more or less nascent at the time and has since grown into a rather sizeable network of loosely overlapping or interconnected alternative subcultures in the 18-45 age range. What significance, if any, are we to attach to this phenomenon?

Youth subcultures are cultural nihilism. Appeals to elitism, to “destroying the weak”, etc. are laughable at best. The significance is as a symptom of cultural decay. I understand many of those who are committed to Black Metal and other such genres might be well-meaning, and my son is a Black Metaller in a band, but I cannot see redeeming qualities culturally or aesthetically. Industrial Music of the Laibach type, demonstrates some martial ethos, and Michael Moynihan’s Blood Axis has interesting balladic material. Some of the neo-folk of groups such as Robert Taylor’s Changes are excellent. In general, I am a proponent of the classical and baroque, and of harmonic music, of form over the formless.

The definition of “elite” is a bit elusive, and I am not convinced that Heavy Metallers make the grade. I believe in Monarchy and a hierarchical social and political structure formed from the bottom upward by guild and corporatist representation. This is a constant idea that has not deviated since my youth. “Finding one’s place” is not synonymous with being trodden on by others. The Western Medieval era provides a model, which influenced reformers even from the Left, such as the guild-socialist A R Orage. In the vision of an “elitist” society that youth subcultures get enthused about, I and probably most of them, would be in the position analogous to Baldric on “Blackadder”, fantasies about being a Lord or a Knight notwithstanding. 

It seems that throughout the 1990s you continued to be active in straight politics, and were involved with the New Zealand Worker’s Party towards the end of the decade. On the surface, there appears to be a contrast between the elitist character of the earlier organisations and the populist flavour of the ones that followed. How did your outlook evolve over the decade? How do you look back on it today?

This would be the Nationalist Workers’ Party, also known as the New Force Party, ca. early 1980s. Activities prior to that were not “elitist”. Activities subsequent to that have been misrepresented by idiots and rogues. In fact, much of my writing in the Left Hand Path milieu centred on debating with social-Darwinists and libertarians. I attempted to point out that a “natural society” is not “red with tooth and claw”, or an individual struggle for survival, but is socially co-operative, as Kropotkin observed and wrote of in “Mutual Aid.” Libertarianism and free trade are by-products of social Darwinism, and are antithetical to the Right, despite the tendency of political scientists, media pundits and other idiots to describe free trade doctrine as “Right wing” or “new right”. Others have attempted to portray me as advocating all manner of ideas which I did not advocate, by the rather odd expedient of crediting me with the authorship of articles which are not mine. I have advocated banking reform, guild-socialism and co-operative economics since I was at least 18, and that has never changed. One does not advocate ideas of this type if one is a “misanthrope”, as many in these subcultures are proud to call themselves.  Religiously, the closest to be found is within Catholic social doctrine, as mentioned. Archetypically, Jesus representatives the figure of the ultimate anti-materialist. His portrayal as the “pale Galilean” might be countered with the figure driving traders out of the Temple with a scourge and overturning their tables, and telling the Pharisees to “go to hell” (literally). Pharisaism and modern-day Talmudism are ‘satanic’, and there is nothing that such ideas can offer the Right. This is quite apart from whether one believes Jesus to be a Divine Being, the Son of God, personal saviour, or even a historical figure. There is an undeniable mythos that I think is worthwhile. I remain a Traditionalist, and see value in all Traditions across time and space, which is the basis of revolutionary conservatism, and which have a commonality of core beliefs.

How did you get involved in publishing?

My first publishing efforts were on a small offset press, printing a journal, “Attack!”, and leaflets and booklets for the Nationalist Workers Party/New Force. After that folded I obtained photocopiers and put out a series of newsletters. They were issued mainly to keep ideas ticking over, and to keep in contact with a few people, although none ever had much of a circulation.

I now publish the peer-reviewed journal Ab Aeterno, for the Academy of Social and Political Research, Athens, edited by Dr Dimitris Michalopoulos.

Tell us about Renaissance Press—its origins, early days, aims and aspirations, and method of operation. Is it still operating today?

Renaissance Press was established ca. early 1990s. I mainly provide photocopies in booklet form, of archival material, ranging from Hungarism to Social Credit and Czarism, and reprints and offprints of my own articles. There are no big aspirations for it. Professional publishers such as yourself, Finis Mundi in Portugal, Arktos Media Ltd., Black Front Press, and Counter-Current Publications are able to produce and distribute quality material on a far vaster and grander scale. Renaissance Press is similar to Steven Books in Britain. Renaissance Press continues to operate, and offers a lot of material not obtainable elsewhere.

The year 2003 saw the publication of Thinkers of the Right, probably the book for which you are best known. What inspired you to write it and what was its purpose?

Around that time I was issuing my newsletter, The Nexus, and had written a few articles on people such a D’Annunzio, W B Yeats, et al. Michael Moynihan, who was then working for Feral House, stated that Adam Parfrey was interested in publishing a book on those who were metaphysical fascist types. I started writing the chapters, but heard nothing more of the book idea. I gathered the chapters together and copied them as a booklet, Thinkers of the Right.  Keith Thompson, associated with Steven Books in Britain, thought it would be good as a commercially published book and it was printed by a firm in Greece, and distributed by Historical Review Press in Britain and others. I wouldn’t know whether it is the book for which I am best known, nor how well it sold. It is now out of print.

The book Artists of the Right is due to be published by Dr Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents Publications. While this was originally intended as a reformatted version of Thinkers, I really wanted to thoroughly reference it to scholarly standards, and rework much of it, as well as present a lot of new material. So the book that Dr Johnson will be publishing soon is really something quite new. Despite the major limitations, on hindsight, of Thinkers, Professor Paul Gottfried gave it an excellent review at Taki’s Magazine, and said it was one of the best books he has read on the subject. It was encouraging praise from someone of the intellectual stature as Dr Gottfried.

Since the 2000s you seem to have shifted increasingly towards academic work. Indeed, in 2006 you obtained a PhD in theology. What prompted you to become a full-on academic at this stage? How did you find the system of tertiary education had changed since the 1970s?

I am only an “academic” in the sense that I am a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research under the direction of Dr Michalopoulos. Other Members and Fellows include such luminaries as Tom Sunic, Kevin McDonald, Alfred Vierling, et al. I am also widely published in the scholarly and broader media, possibly more widely published in scholarly venues than any other “academic” in New Zealand, although I am persona non grata within New Zealand. I wonder why?

I have undertaken tertiary studies since the1980s, and would like to do a diploma of art history sometime soon, if time and money permit. However, I have undertaken these extramurally, some from private institutions in New Zealand, some from overseas. New Zealand state tertiary education is a corrupt fraud, in the social sciences, while excellent in the physical sciences, as explained below.

Are you a double doctorate?

I have Doctorates in religious studies and a Ph.D. honoris causa in recognition of the extent of my published works from an eminent Asian institution. These are research degrees through the submission of dissertations and other papers.  My papers have appeared in the Journal of Social Economics; Geopolitika, Moscow State University; India Quarterly; Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies; The Occidental Quarterly, and many others. Many of the papers are available as offprints from Renaissance Press.

In 2008 a student at Waikato University submitted a master’s thesis that purported to be a study of your earlier career. You filed a formal complaint with the university, describing the thesis as inaccurate and inept. Please tell us about this experience—how you discovered the thesis, how you felt upon reading it, and what you encountered during the complaint process.

The words “inaccurate and inept” are overly generous. The process was so convoluted; it involved hundreds of pages of documentation, none of which ended up being read. I have published a 76 page booklet, Waikato University: A Case Study in Zionist Methodology and Academic Corruption, which includes reprints of correspondence with such unredeemable liars as Vice Chancellor Roy Crawford [right], et al. I have also written an article providing a synopsis of the escapades, which Dr MacDonald is supposed to be publishing at The Occidental Quarterly Online. Readers can also refer to my article on this at “Foreign Policy Journal”: 

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/09/24/dr-joel-hayward-in-the-firing-line-again/

I found the “thesis” at an academic online database by accident. I was amazed, as I had not known that some screed that was just a personal smear against me had been written as a thesis. The first thing I noticed was that the author, Roel van Leeuwen [right], claimed that I had “mistreated a brain damaged man”. Why he claimed that, he could not explain, when I contacted him, and he promptly removed it from the thesis, on the advice of his supervisors. I pointed out that the entire thesis was fraudulent and made a complaint, as is my right and duty under the Education Act, which supposedly assures public scrutiny of universities to assure “scholarly excellence”. What is not widely known is that a mutual friend of both Van Leeuwen and myself, Mr G Wilson, who was acknowledged by Van Leeuwen in the thesis for his help, and who was acknowledged by Waikato Uni. Vice Chancellor Roy Crawford as a “knowledgeable expert’ on the subject, also filed a complaint, when I asked him what was going on. He was as appalled as myself when he read the thesis, and did not want his name associated with it. The news media did not widely report Mr Wilson’s involvement , because he could not be smeared as a “neo-Nazi”, “former secretary of the National Front,”, etc., but his objections to the thesis are the same as mine, and he regards Van Leeuwen also as an outright “liar”. 

The thesis co-supervisor was Dov Bing [above], a lecturer of political science at Waikato University, who is New Zealand’s leading Zionist. The individual whom Van Leeuwen credits with giving him the idea for the thesis is David Green, a religious studies lecturer formerly with Waikato Uni. Green also happens to be a Zionist. When I pointed these matters out, Van Leeuwen claimed to the media that I believed there was a “Zionist conspiracy” against me; one of many red-herrings that Van Leeuwen used to deflect attention from the issue of his being a liar and a fraud. It is of interest that both Green and Bing were prominently involved in hounding Dr Joel Hayward about 15 years ago for having written an MA thesis on Revisionist histiography for which he received first class honours. It was also Bing who was prominent in harassing German language student Hans Kupka out of Waikato University when it was found he was “Right-wing” (a supporters of the German Republican Party). In all these instances, including my own, where Bing was involved in reach, it just so happens that the issues were leaked to the public by first appearing in the University student newspaper Nexus. It seems the newspaper, regardless of editor, can be relied on to do the bidding of Dov Bing. Nexus editor Joshua Drummond, instead of looking at the corruption at his institution, did a hatchet job on me, for which he was given a journalism award.

Vice Chancellor Crawford set up a three-person enquiry under the direction of Deputy VC Doug Sutton, a man of integrity who has left the University. The terms of reference established by Crawford stated that the enquiry was to consider whether processes for evaluating the thesis had been correctly followed, and even if they had been, whether the thesis nonetheless merits First Class Honours. On this second, and most important, point Crawford reneged. The Waikato Times found out that the hundreds of pages of evidence provided separately by Mr Wilson and myself had not even been read, but nonetheless Sutton had recommended the thesis status be downgraded, and opined that Bing was biased on the subject matter. Of course Dr Sutton was castigated for “taking my side” (sic).

Sutton’s report was never made public, and Crawford lied by claiming that the enquiry had found the thesis meritous. What had transpired also, was that Dov Bing, Van Leeuwen, co-supervisor Marg Coldham Fussell, external examiner Dr Jim Veitch of Victoria University (supposedly an “eminent scholar”) and Douglas Pratt, head of the religious studies department at Waikato, had all gone creeping off to the Tertiary Education Union which threatened industrial action unless the enquiry was stymied. The TEU then boasted of its intervention on its website and lyingly stated that there was no response to it (I had written a response, but it was not posted by the TEU on their site). I therefore e-mailed my suppressed response to the TEU to sundry academics and TEU branches, but nobody gave a damn, indicating that NZ academics are self-serving and worthless. They care nothing about lies , fraud and lack of standards.

Apparently leaving nothing to chance, Dov Bing also threatened me with a $300,000 libel suit—his slimebag lawyer quipping to me not to try and sell my house—unless I published a retraction in the major press and the NZ Jewish Chronicle, saying that the thesis was acceptable and that Bing had “done a most professional job” at supervision. What an idiot. In trying to contrive some kind of half-cocked entrapment of me I caught him out lying about the Assistant to the Vice Chancellor, Sarah Knox, and the University lawyer, Gillian Spry. After intervention from the Office of the Ombudsman, I eventually got a statement from the University lawyers admitting that Bing was a scabrous liar. Correspondence on this is reproduced in my booklet. Anyone else would have got sacked. However, the gutless Crawford did no more than claim to me that Bing had been spoken to. I doubt that he even did this.

As both Mr Wilson and myself documented independently, Van Leeuwen had deliberately credited me with articles and pamphlets he knew I had not written, claimed that statements were made in articles that were not there, frequently referenced his footnotes as nothing more than “archives”, misidentified me as being about half a dozen different individuals. Some of the material I had supposedly written I had no even heard of, and some I have still not been able to locate.

Van Leeuwen claimed that I was “raised a Mormon”, which I was not, and used that to launch into several pages of nonsense on Mormonism. The most outlandish was that Maori had not been permitted into the priesthood until “after 1978”, “well after” I had supposedly left the Church. Keep in mind that Van Leeuwen was writing this crap under the tutelage of the religious studies department, and the external examiner is one of New Zealand’s leading religious studies lecturers, Jim Veitch, whom Crawford calls an “eminent scholar”.  Keep in mind that Waikato University happens to be in Hamilton, the Mormon center of New Zealand, where their Temple [above] is situated. Van Leeuwen falsely cited as his reference on the Maori and Mormon priesthood claim, the “Encyclopedia of Mormonism” by Embry. He faked his reference. There are no such references in the “Encyclopedia”. It took me about ten minutes to determine the true relationship between Maori and the Church since colonial times. At no time did these religious studies tutors Fussell or “eminent scholar” Veitch pause to question whether Van Leeuwen’s idiot claims on Mormonism over the course of several pages, were plausible. Mormon Church officials were angered but too gutless to act. Anyone who lived in Hamilton in particular, should realize the historically close relationship between Maori and the Church since colonial times, let alone the religious studies department of a University situated in Hamilton. What a farce. What a pack of morons.

For my troubles, I was smeared, and Van Leeuwen came out with added weird quips, such as that I “never finished secondary school,” and that I had organized my “followers” to send “anti-Semitic e-mails;” presumably to the idiot Dov Bing.

An amusing sidelight was that Mr Wilson and myself were directed by an anonymous informant to Van Leeuwen’s digital journal which he kept at the time of trying to write his thesis, during which he commented that the subject is so obscure, if he was running out of time (which he was) he could “bullshit” his way through. There were additional comments about how he fantasized about his female students when he was tutoring a class at Waikato Uni. He wanted to feel up their breasts, and has other fantasies about a “geeky” student. He records that co-supervisor Fussell is a “laid back hippie type”. He also recorded his first impressions of Dov Bing, where Bing commends van Leeuwen on the progress he’s making with the thesis, even though Van Leeuwen had never spoken to Bing of it previously, and wonders whether Bing “knows what the f . . . he is talking about”, or whether Bing is mistaking van Leeuwen for someone else. A few minutes are spent discussing the thesis, then Bing rambles on about Israel and other matters. Van Leeuwen also records his disquiet at having Bing as a co-supervisor because of Bing’s harassment of Hayward and Kupka. Ironically, and hypocritically, Van Leeuwen subsequently used the red-herring of claiming this whole issue of the thesis complaint was a matter of “holocaust denial”, and tried to make me out as a “holocaust denier”, even though the Holocaust is not even mentioned in the thesis. As soon as Van Leeuwen found that his digital journal entries on the thesis and his supervisors had been exposed he took it down, but too late. The entries are reproduced in my booklet on the matter.

Both Mr Wilson and myself lodged complaints with the Chief Ombudsman in regard to the corrupt manner in which the enquiry had been handled. After more procrastination of many months by Crawford, he came up with a “solution” that the Ombudsman thought we should accept, the “solution” offered to Mr Wilson being substantially the same as that offered to me: We could submit a list of “corrections” to Van Leeuwen’s “errors” (sic) in the thesis and he would decide whether he wanted to attach any as an appendix on the hardcopy at the University library.   Both Wilson and myself had contended that Van Leeuwen was a liar, and I maintain that the Degree should be revoked on the grounds of dishonesty and that all those associated with the thesis should be called to account. Accepting Crawford’s proposals would mean conceding, in Crawford’s opinion (although he had never examined the thesis or our documentation) , that the thesis contained nothing more than a few “errors” , which one would normally expect.

Van Leeuwen intended undertaking a Doctorate at Queensland University. His academic career should be tracked. I hope readers will spread the word on Waikato University and the dysfunction of tertiary education in New Zealand.

How has the history of New Zealand been revised by academics during your lifetime? How has New Zealand’s perception of itself changed?

The focus is on New Zealand as a part of Asia rather than as a part of the British Commonwealth. British colonialism and heritage are denigrated. New Zealanders no longer see themselves as “British” or Britain as the Mother Country, which they did until a few decades ago. There is a push to change our flag to something that is suitable as a “trade mark” (sic). There is a bogus “patriotism” that sees New Zealand as detached from Britain, and from Europe, as a trading state with Asia and the Pacific. There is a bogus New Zealand “identity’ which is banal and centres on sport and puerile crap of nothing in particular, with a few Maori motifs thrown in to give the appearance of substance.

What is called the “Treaty Industry” has emerged, whereby the Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840 between the British Crown and Maori chiefs, who ceded their sovereignty in return for Crown protection, has been reinterpreted in recent decades as a so-called “living document.” This means the interpretation of the Treaty can be changed at will to whatever suits Maori demands, and what is regarded as reparations for alleged wrongdoing by the Crown in the buying or confiscation of Maori lands. It is now claimed that the chiefs did not cede their sovereignty in terms that they understood. Old history books record accurate accounts of Maori land sales, which show that these lands were sold several times over, or that there have been so-called “final settlements” of sale on multiple occasions, and yet every few generations there are new demands for “final settlements” and the whole process starts over again. It’s like a con-man selling the San Francisco Bridge on multiple occasions to different gullible buyers.  However, conservatives get so caught up in Maori issues, that they remain oblivious to other more crucial issues going on, such as the economic sell-out of New Zealand to international capital.

Continue to Part 2

Bookmark and Share

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

 

Appreciation

Updates

Find Our Outposts

Utilities

Bookmark and Share


Join the Mailing List
Enter your name and email address below:
Name:
Email:
Subscribe Unsubscribe