Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand
2,955 words
Part 1 of 3
Some case studies in New Zealand provide examples of how blatantly tertiary education is being degraded by the pursuit of political agendas and plain careerism. New Zealand university degrees are poorly regarded elsewhere, a recent report stating: “New Zealand university degrees are the most worthless in the developed world, an international report reveals.” The OECD report states that New Zealand degrees are “at the bottom of the salary league.”
Ironically, it is from corruption-ridden Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand, that Professor Jacqueline Rowarth is reported to have said that what passes for school or even university education would be better suited as after-school activities.[1]
Yet even this honourable scholar declined to comment when I asked what she thought of Waikato’s antics in regard to the academic fraudulence of one of its alumni, Roel Van Leeuwen, and the antics of his supervisor, Dov Bing, an issue I had raised in 2008 amidst considerable news media publicity, most of it of an inadequate nature. Professor Rowarth stated that she was not at Waikato at the time. Apparently, having an opinion as to whether fraud and lies are right or wrong is something that cannot be definitively decided. However, Professor Rowarth’s reply was typical of the reaction of New Zealand academia in regard to the Van Leeuwen fraud, which universally either remained mute or via their trades union threatened action when the shabby careers of several “eminent scholars” (sic) and their protégés stood a narrow chance of being exposed.
The same newspaper report quotes well-known New Zealand polemical millionaire Sir Robert Jones as deploring the state of tertiary education and alluding to a 200-page doctoral thesis on his life and business practices, without ever talking to him. Sir Robert commented: “It was complete gibberish. If she really wanted to know what motivated me, she should have come and asked me.”[2]
While I do not have the disadvantage of a New Zealand tertiary education, I have published within the course of a few years more peer-reviewed papers than most New Zealand academics, and am in close communication with some of the truly great scholars in the world, as indicated by some of those who have appraised and even written prefaces to some of my books. I therefore know how to judge the merits or otherwise of what passes for “scholarship.” And in the social sciences – as distinct from the exemplary physical sciences – New Zealand ain’t got it. It is enough to string a list of liberal-left clichés together to have a dissertation even to doctoral level, regarded as meriting the highest accolades among academicians as they welcome yet another mediocrity to their ranks.
What Passes for a Doctoral Thesis These Days?
One example that recently came to my attention was that of Matthew Dentith, lecturer at Auckland University, who obtained a doctorate this year. Dr. Dentith has his own radio show and focuses on ridiculing Right-wing conspiracy theories.[3] Posting on a website of conservative activist John Ansell, who is campaigning against what he regards as Maori privileges entrenched under a misinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, Dr. Dentith felt compelled to boast to the red-necked plebs of his new qualifications. Dr. Dentith, in “debating” with John Ansell, triumphantly resorts to a condescending:
As to who am I? I am the holder of a Ph.D. which is on the analysis and dissection of conspiracy theories. So I’m quite qualified to dissect and analyse yours.[4]
Dr. Dentith directed said bigots to his Ph.D. thesis published on the internet, so that all could marvel at his scholarly acumen.[5] Dr. Dentith is actually a defender of “conspiracy theories” but only those coming from part of the Left, while those on the Right are delusional.
So what does it take to garner a Doctorate from New Zealand academia these days? Answer: 57,000 words, utilizing 60 secondary sources.[6] Dr. Dentith also states often, again condescendingly, to all the uneducated bigots posting on John Ansell’s blogsite that they do not understand the processes of “peer review.” However, one might look in vain for Dr. Dentith’s own published record of peer-reviewed papers. A dissertation based on reviewing 60 books and articles, and a paper delivered at a conference, appears to be about it.
While a Ph.D. thesis in physics might be as short as a single page setting forth a new equation, for example, one should surely expect something more substantial in the social sciences, when the thesis is based on a review of some books without adding anything significantly new to the advancement of knowledge?
The Persecution of Dr. Joel Hayward
One of the most disgraceful acts of academic corruption involved the malicious treatment of Dr. Joel Hayward.
In 1993 Hayward completed an MA thesis on the literature of holocaust revisionism. Hayward is of Jewish descent, was a member of the New Zealand Friends of Israel, and a co-founder of Opposition to Anti-Semitism Inc. Yet in the course of his studies he had come to regard holocaust revisionist literature as making some valid points. It was a controversial conclusion that nonetheless garnered Hayward First Class Honors. When in the year 2000 a University “embargo” on public release of the thesis had expired, the New Zealand Jewish Council, and Professor Dov Bing — keep that name in mind — of Waikato University, launched a campaign to have Hayward’s Masters revoked, on the spurious grounds of “dishonesty.” The matter was made public by Bing, presumably on the safe assumption that the news media could be relied upon to mindlessly smear Hayward, which it duly did.[7] It should also be noted here that Bing, one of New Zealand’s primary apologists for Israel, has a habit of “leaking” information to the news media.
Although Bing et al. failed to have Hayward’s Masters revoked, the Working Party Report of the external enquiry agonized over Hayward having been permitted to undertake that course of research in the first place.
Hayward was harassed, threatened, and had several nervous breakdowns. He had to resign from his position as lecturer of defence at Massey University, Palmerton North, and became unemployable in New Zealand.[8] A few years later he went to the UK and obtained a prestigious post in academe. As for Dov Bing, he was not about to let the matter drop, despite Hayward’s retraction of some of his conclusions in the Thesis. Over the course of more than a decade Bing has continued to milk the Hayward matter for all its worth.[9]
Hayward Targeted Again
Hayward was again targeted in 2011 in what appears to be another campaign to have his academic career wrecked on the basis of the Judaic dictum “never forgive, never forget.” A feature in The Daily Mail was provocatively entitled: “Ayatollah of the RAF. Academic University Head is Muslim convert. Who claims Nazi gas chambers were British propaganda and criticises Libya air strikes.”[10]
The article claims that Dr. Hayward, Dean at Cranwell College, where British pilots are trained, is a convert to Islam who has taken a critical line on the NATO and UN bombing of Libya, and questioned whether the British air force should be placed at the service of a rebel army. Hayward is reported to have written in a magazine article that: “The West runs the risks of its good intentions (and inconsistencies) leading to distrust,” in its bombing of Libya.[11]
The Daily Mail claims that Hayward’s views had caused disquiet among “senior officers at RAF Cranwell, Lincolnshire,” where Hayward is the senior academic and was involved with the tutoring of Prince William. From here the article proceeds with smears that I believe lack plausibility:
In a letter to The Mail on Sunday entitled “The Air Force Ayatollah,” one senior officer expressed concern that Dr. Hayward was focusing more on ‘Islamist activities that are nothing to do with the RAF’.
He also accused him of giving Muslim cadets preferential treatment and making other students take a ‘softly, softly line when writing about Muslim terrorists/Islamist extremists’.
Another officer claimed cadets and lecturers ‘are in fear’ of expressing anything that might be construed as anti-Muslim sentiment. ‘Anyone who fails to follow the line that Islam is a peace-loving religion is hauled into his office for re-education,’ he said.
Last night Dr. Hayward said he did not ‘recognise’ the allegations.[12]
The article states that,
Dr. Hayward was appointed to RAF Cranwell in 2007, but was investigated the following year over complaints of ‘harassment and bullying’. It is not clear what became of the investigation. He is employed not by the RAF but by King’s College, London, which runs academic courses at Cranwell.[13]
The questions that should arise are not in regard to the dubious claims against Hayward’s character, but about whether complaints that started the year after his appointment to Cranwell were motivated by his having displeased certain interests in New Zealand. Given what this writer personally knows about those involved in the harassment of Hayward in New Zealand, I feel that it is a legitimate question.
Hayward is presumably in a good position to try to mitigate the anti-Islamic propaganda that is feeding the “clash of civilizations.” Having been hounded for years for his thesis on holocaust revisionism, knowing that he is under constant scrutiny by Zionists, it takes courage for Hayward to have his views on Islam published, despite his pointless back-pedalling on his MA thesis to try and appease those who cannot be appeased. He has set up a website called “Islam & War” which includes an essay by him entitled “The Qur’an and War: Observations on Islam and Just War.”[14]
Dov Bing & Dennis Green
Dr. Hayward’s predicament goes back to his student days at Christchurch, New Zealand. Dr. Dennis Green, later to serve as a religious studies lecturer at the deplorable Waikato University, Hamilton, and now touring the world engaged in something he calls “anarchaeology,” had been a student with Hayward at Canterbury University. They had formed a group, Opposition to Anti-Semitism. The Christchurch Press reported at the time of Hayward’s thesis debacle:
In May 1992, the university received a letter from an organisation called Opposition to Anti-Semitism Inc (OAS). The group, based in Christchurch, was concerned about the direction Dr. Hayward was taking in his then half-completed thesis.
Ironically, OAS had been formed a year earlier by Dr. Hayward with Yossie EtzHasadeh (previously Philip Woodfield of Christchurch, now in Israel) and Denis Green.
The organisation’s goal was to monitor anti-Semitic groups in New Zealand and warn people about Holocaust revisionism. Several members were converting to Judaism. Joel Hayward resigned from the group before he started his thesis.
He says he left OAS because of a personality clash.
OAS members soon became worried about the path Dr. Hayward’s thesis was taking and arranged to meet him. Dr. Hayward says he went along on January 30, 1992, to what he thought was an ordinary afternoon tea with friends. As they talked about his half-completed masters thesis a video camera hidden behind a hollowed out book recorded the entire conversation.
Dr. Hayward says a selective 13-minute transcript was made of the three-hour conversation by the OAS. “They only included statements that cast me in the worst possible light.”
The group sent Canterbury University registrar Alan Hayward (no relation) parts of the transcript with a letter detailing concerns about Joel Hayward’s views on the Holocaust.
Dr. Hayward did not find out about the video until two months after it was made. He considers the taping dishonest and unfair and says he nearly had a breakdown as a result.[15]
It was as a religious studies lecturer at Waikato University that Green is acknowledged by a certain Roel W. Van Leeuwen as being “the man who planted the seed” for a fraudulently contrived Masters thesis that Van Leeuwen completed in 2008. Furthermore, Van Leeuwen’s co-supervisor was Professor Dov Bing, lecturer in Political Science and Public Policy at Waikato University.[16]
Hence, enter again, two primary characters involved in the Hayward affair.
Dov Bing is a very active Zionist and apologist for Israel. He has been involved not only in the Hayward matter, but in the debacles concerning German student Hans Kupka, and Malcolm Evans, an award-winning cartoonist who had his eminent career ended due to his criticism of Israel in his Auckland Herald cartoons.[17]
It is in the matter of the Van Leeuwen thesis that I know something personally of the nature of Bing’s attitudes and tactics. The events against Hayward, Kupka, and starting from 2008 against this writer, follow similar scenarios.
Dr. Hayward wrote on his “old website” of what he endured in New Zealand:
Most of the garbage I received was unimaginative and only semi-literate, and phrases like “hope you die,” “you’ll get yours,” “die scum!,” “rot in hell,” and “we’ll be waiting for you outside your work” seemed so common that, had the calls and mail not come from different parts of New Zealand or been sent from many different email addresses, I probably would have concluded that they came from one small group of hate-filled people.
Some of this mail even came from a senior academic at another New Zealand university, and, with full specifics, I reported that academic’s behaviour and mail to the Working Party. I felt so distressed by some of the mail that, in a letter to the Head of the Working Party, Sir Ian Barker, dated 1 August 2000, I pointed out my concerns. Sir Ian told me during our interview on 10 October that he shared my grave concerns.[18]
The Working Party Report on Dr. Hayward referred to this matter of vindictive e-mails, stating:
2.47: On 2 October 1999, Dr. Hayward received what he describes as the first of many e-mails from Professor Dov Bing, Professor of Political Studies at the University of Waikato. . . . Dr. Hayward claimed that he had received several nasty e-mails from anonymous persons and was concerned at what action might be taken by Professor Bing and NZJC [New Zealand Jewish Council] . . .[19]
The Hans Kupka Affair
In the case of Hans Kupka,[20] pressure was applied on Waikato University when material first appeared in the student newspaper Nexus. As will be seen, the attitude of Nexus follows a certain line regardless of editor. Of this Professor Middleton in a “strictly confidential memo” to the Post-Graduate Studies Committee (PGSC) stated:
On April 11 the story broke in Nexus in an article full of inaccuracies. These inaccuracies result from the fact that the article is based on the same package of materials that was circulated by Dov Bing to all PGSC members and members of the University Council on or around the same day as the Nexus article appeared. I sent an e-mail round the PGSC members cautioning that the materials contained a large number of distortions and inaccuracies and that it was unwise to discuss this matter on e-mail.
During March and April, some of those charged with ensuring that due process is followed have been subjected to harassment and threats and have had to seek support of various kinds. I am prepared to speak only for myself, to whom the damage has been comparatively very minor. You will note that, despite my requests to Dov [Bing] that his correspondence and queries be directed to the Chair (the usual convention), correspondence on this matter continued to be addressed to me – with the result that inaccuracies and distortions of the facts have been attributed to me and circulated to the University Council and the media. My name has therefore been published in Nexus (April 11) and circulated round Council.[21]
Kupka, the target not only of media attention, and the machinations going on within the University administration and faculty, but even of street protests from student and Jewish groups, left New Zealand. He had been pushed out on the pretext that he might conduct interviews with those of German descent that were “Holocaust survivors.”
12 Comments
I find your grounds for causally dismissing my doctoral work interesting. For one thing, for your argument to work, you would need to show that you are comparing like with like. In order to say my thesis is sub-standard merely because it is concise and relies on what you consider to be a small sample of the available academic literature on conspiracy theories, then you would need to compare it to other contemporary PhDs in Philosophy and ask “Is this one representative?” (comparing my PhD with a PhD in the Social Sciences is a bit of a stretch, not only because it is not obvious that Philosophy is a Social Science and because the Social Sciences is a broad church with a lot of different research methods and writing styles). Now, given that my examiners had no trouble with either the word count or my referencing, I can only surmise that you’re simply trying to find something trivially wrong with my work because you aren’t going to grapple with my arguments.
Indeed, your comments suggest that you haven’t read my thesis in any depth. Why do I think that? Well, firstly, my thesis, like most doctoral dissertations, is front loaded with the standard literature review (the bit you seem to have trouble with) whilst the second half of the thesis features, predictably, fewer references and, rather, relies on advancing original arguments for my novel contribution to the debate on the warrant of conspiracy theories (namely, how to gloss the inference to the best explanation such that we don’t immediately rule out conspiracy theories as being in the pool of candidate explanatory hypotheses considered “best”). If you can point towards existing, prior literature in Philosophy which deals with the same arguments and reaches the same conclusions, I’d be happy to hear about it. Certainly, my examiners thought the work was novel enough to recommend I be awarded my PhD, and given that they a) didn’t earn their PhDs in Aotearoa me Te Wai Pounamu (New Zealand) and b) at least one examiner was not local, you can’t really blame a conspiracy of local academics for awarding me my doctorate despite what you take to be its poor credentials.
As for this:
So you want to change the name of New Zealand to some Maori name? Why don’t you really get serious and just go back to Britain – you are White and therefore an invader. Your whole life and career are made possible by the conquest of New Zealand. Until you acknowledge that, you have no right to enjoy the fruits of the conquest. If you enjoy the fruits of the conquest, you must support the conquest – or be existentially inauthentic. Instead, you want to throw other Whites to the wolves and transform New Zealand into part of Asia. The Maori don’t want that btw – as if you really care about them either.
Absolutely. Truth be told, if whites had a great leader, able to show the way to other European-Americans, so many heads would role in white Western nations, mainly those heads of the traitors that are selling out their inheritance. Peace.
” If you can point towards existing, prior literature in Philosophy which deals with the same arguments and reaches the same conclusions, I’d be happy to hear about it”
I recently saw a CBC documentary called “Conspiracy Rising”, which features several conspiracy theorist experts. This seems to be an up and coming profession. This profession was apparently invented by Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine.
After reading through some of your thesis, it seems to me that you are only putting a more philosophical dress on the same ad hominem strategy. 1. speak with an air of bemused academic curiosity. 2. completely ignore the evidence presented by the “conspiracy theorists”. 3 present nebulous straw man arguments and beliefs as being that of the conspiracy theorists 4 conflate “conspiracy theory” with every type of unconventional belief; from life on other planets to some movie’s theory of who killed Mozart.
The essence of the thesis is summed up in your term for it’s subject; the dismissive epithet “conspiracy theorist”. The argument boils down to a pure ad hominem. There is no originality, philosophical or otherwise, in any of this.
Sorry, that last section should go:
As for this:
Do you have a reference for that? I quite happily take people to task on both sides of the political spectrum when they offer up vapid conspiracy theories and, on more than occasion, I’ve said that a specific claim of conspiracy offered by someone on the right may well turn out to be a plausible explanation for some event.
Dear Dr. Dentith,
I do not have a PhD but I am an educated person and I have read Mr. Bolton’s work. I follow this site regularly. Since you are interested in “right-wing conspiracy theories”, perhaps you have heard that many white “racists” believe that white people have been targeted for genocide by mass immigration into ALL white countries and forced integration with non-white immigrants. As I’m sure you know, whites are effectively precluded from organizing in our own best interests or even socializing together for fear that some “anti-racist” will inform our employers, or even the FBI, that we are associating with “racists”, which so far as I can tell means a white person who wants white people to continue to exist.
My question for you is this. Do you see us as irrational “conspiracy kooks” for this despite the following public statements by prominent officials:
(1) “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.” -General Wesley Clarke (Notice there is no objection to ethnostates in Africa or Asia.)
(2) Défi du métissage que nous adresse le 21ème siècle. Ce n’est pas un choix, c’est une obligation, c’est un impératif. On ne peut pas faire autrement. Si ce volontarisme républicain ne fonctionnait pas, il faudra que la république passe à des méthodes plus contraignantes encore. -Nicholas Sarkozy
(The challenge of race mixing in the 21st Century. Its not a choice, its an obligation, an imperative. We cannot do otherwise. If republican voluntarism doesn’t work, it will be necessary to to move on to more coercive measures.)
(3) “Mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural . . . the policy was intended — even if this wasn’t its main purpose — to rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”. -Andrew Neather, former advisor to Tony Blair (I presume “render their arguments out of date” means bury any notion that the British Isles belong to indigenous white people.)
(4) “We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country . . . We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.” -Earl Raab, Jewish activist
(5) “The strengthening of multicultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would be more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian.” -Miriam Faine, editor of Australian Jewish Democrat
(6) “In Florida, there’s going to be hundreds of thousands more Latinos and African-Americans voting than there were last time. The demographics of some of these states are already improved, through nothing we’ve done.” -David Plouffe, Senior advisor to Barack Obama
(7) The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendent quality.” -Ben Wattenberg, NYT reporter (?)
(8) “I think there’s a resurgence of antisemitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we’re gonne be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.” -Barbara Lerner Spectre, director of Zionist organization Paideia (In “The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography”, Joseph Steinlight admits that the Jews are behind the ethnic cleansing of whites in America as well. )
(9) “But if the European example is much poorer in terms of the integration of workers into their society, in terms of their getting jobs, that is related to the fact that the United States or Australia and New Zealand are migrant societies and therefore accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others, which is precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.” -Peter Sutherland, UN Migration Chief (What do all these countries have in common?)
(10) “Our most important task ahead is to deconstruct the majority, and we must deconstruct them so thoroughly that they will never be able to call themselves the majority again.” -Norwegian social anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen
(11) Effekten av SD var att vi fick en politik i motsatt riktning, förklarade statsministern belåtet.
-Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of Sweden
(The effect of SD’s [immigration restrictionist party] entrance into Parliament is that we pursued the opposite policy) (It appears ABB was right when he said no peaceful solution to white genocide is possible because a vote for immigration restriction will just be punished with more immigration.)
Once again, I ask you, in all good faith, do you believe I am “paranoid” for believing that these statements are evidence that “demographic change” throughout formerly Western countries is not “just happening” but rather a conspiracy to finish off white people? How should I, as a white person, interpret these statements?
Perhaps the most outrageous thing about the ethnic cleansing of whites in ALL white countries is that whites are manipulated into accepting the end of their race and cultures by way of collective historical guilt. Yet non-whites hear the same anti-white propaganda that is targeted at whites, which of course winds up making non-whites hate white people. The same rhetoric that is used to soften up whites for cold, non-violent genocide could very well incite non-whites to hot genocide against us. “Dehumanization” is Stage 3 of Genocide according to Genocide Watch. Of course, our achievements and contributions to human welfare are simply ignored or attributed to dumb luck.
I sincerely hope you reply as I am very much interested in your point of view on these matters.
Hi Just. A great post. A great description of white plight today, the challenges we face and the tactics used against us. Clearly you’re not just another pretty face.
My experience with people like Dr. Dentith when it comes to the questions you pose, is that he will disappear. Those questions ARE the questions.
I agree with Erfow, that was an EPIC post, JustAWhiteMom!
I’m making sure to save that to my hard drive, memorize some of the quotations, and share it with others when the topic of Western racial demographics arises.
(Don’t expect any useful replies from the NZ professor. He obviously gave up his honesty long ago, and most useless scribblers actually feel empowered when proven wrong. I’d allocate that time and effort to strong and honest men, not creepy and submissive nothings.)
Bobby writes: “My experience with people like Dr. Dentith when it comes to the questions you pose, is that he will disappear. Those questions ARE the questions.”
I have noted that such people tend to be hypocrites, obscurantists, and ethnomasochists. They are infected with what Louis Pauwels aptly called “mental AIDS.” With regard to race, they often claim that race doesn’t exist and doesn’t matter, and that our society should be color-blind, but they don’t act as if they actually believe this: they are obsessed with race, they advocate all kinds of discriminatory and genocidal policies against Whites, and they are quite proud of what they have brought about in places like Rhodesia and South Africa.
Would it be too much to say that these witchdoctors deserve to be “necklaced” (i.e., have a petrol-soaked tyre tied around their neck and set alight) to give them a taste of their own medicine? This remark might sound extreme, but considering what these people have done and are doing collectively, it is actually quite moderate.
JustAWhiteMom, your was a masive post. You should expand it a bit more, write a brief intro and submit for publication as an article here at CounterCurrents, or Occidental Observer, or AltRight or any other place that takes it. I am sure you will succeed.
If you can make an article out of it, it will be easier to find and reference in the internet.
Dark Henry,
I would like to see someone do a video with all the anti-whites who have publicly demanded, justified, or celebrated white genocide, including some quotes I didn’t mention. Maybe that Hugh MacDonald who did “Group Polarization and the Fad of White Ethnomasochism.”