Part 2 of 3
A Fraudulent Thesis
In 2008 I happened to find an MA thesis by R. W. Van Leeuwen, entitled “Dreamers of the Dark” (Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand, 2008) that had been written under the auspices of Waikato University’s Department of Religious Studies. It is fraudulently contrived from start to finish. As stated, the thesis credits Dennis Green for the idea, and was co-supervised by Dov Bing.
The thesis purports to document and analyze a “satanic-nazi” conspiracy in New Zealand centred around myself. As three unpublished draft chapters of the thesis show, the thesis did not start off in that manner, and the one draft chapter about myself is actually very objective and accurate. However, the material in these drafts did not find their way into the final version, and one might wonder whether Van Leeuwen succumbed to temptation, and finished it easier to redo the thesis on the basis of “just making stuff up.” Alternatively, was he advised by someone such as Dr. Dennis Green to refocus the thesis as just a smear against the “neo-nazi, Bolton”? Whatever the motive, such a thesis was going to get plaudits from “eminent scholars” such as Zionist Dov Bing and liberal theologian Jim Veitch, apparently regardless of scholarly merit, although Bing has publicly stated that the thesis is “sound scholarship” (sic).
Van Leeuwen sought to show that I was the sinister mastermind behind all manifestations of both right-wing extremism and left-hand path occultism in New Zealand. He did this by the simple expedient of falsely ascribing authorship of documents to me, some of which I had not hitherto heard of, and some of which I still have not read to this day. This “scholarly” method of false attribution also served to show that I was involved in occultism long after I had dissociated myself from any such interests (other than to expose them as nefarious) and to ascribe a major influence to me with a group – “O.D.F.” – to which I had never belonged and still know little about. Therefore, using the Van Leeuwen method of scholarship I became approximately half a dozen different people, including two Englishmen, Van Leeuwen’s means of identifying authorship being “writing style comparisons.” This unique method was to prompt another complainant to Waikato University, Mr. Graeme Wilson, to flippantly enquire whether he could take such a course, the reply being that no such course exists.
Another Van Leeuwen method of scholarship was to simply place me into situations in which I was never a part. Therefore a ludicrous meeting and its aftermath between Mr. Steven Larsen, chairman of a small Wellington group, New Right, and the drunken, pot-smoking then leader of the New Zealand National Front, Mr. Sid Wilson (no relation to Graeme Wilson), was transformed into a meeting between myself and Sid Wilson. Afterward Sid Wilson vented his drunken spleen on Mr. Larsen calling him a devil worshipping Khazar Jew etc., etc., as was his style, but affording Van Leeuwen the opportunity to claim that the meeting and reference was actually in regard to myself.
The rant by Sid Wilson had been spurred by an article that Mr. Larsen had written on the NR website, entitled “Why the NF will not succeed under its present leadership.” Van Leeuwen, using his unique form of methodology, simply ascribed authorship of the article to me, although the writing styles between Mr. Larsen and myself do not have the vaguest similarities other than using the English alphabet.
By that time I did not have any connection with either the New Right Wellington group, or the NZ National Front, and did not know of any such meeting until reading of it in the thesis. However since, I was supposedly the “leader” of this “New Right” in Wellington (of course) it also gave Van Leeuwen a reason to make a quip about my poor abilities as a web-designer. In the world of reality, as distinct from the paranoid-delusional world of Van Leeuwen, Bing et al., “where there be witches,” the only connections I had had with the NR website were to have published several very non-naziesque articles: one praising accused Soviet spy Dr. Bill Sutch, a left-wing economist, for his patriotism, and another defending the indigenous Waitaha people, who claim a separate identity from Maori.
Another primary method of Van Leeuwen was to try to synthesise the disparate views of various individuals and groups into a single ideological package and ascribe them to me. Other than personal objections, I also questioned the “scholarship” of defining the concept of Realpolitik as meaning “no bullshit,” and other slipshod definitions.
The above will hopefully indicate something as to the nature of the thesis, and more particularly as to the nature of those associated with it, who sought to defend their reputations by threats and lies. The objections raised with Waikato University by both Mr. Graeme Wilson and myself run into hundreds of pages.
My complaint to Waikato University regarding the thesis, and my request for an inquiry in regard to revoking the Masterate, which had received First Cass Honors, resulted in a saga which has yet to be concluded, during which I was lied to, lied about, stonewalled, and misinformed by the University administration, headed up by a craven liar, Vice Chancellor Dr. Roy Crawford.
Crawford established an inquiry under the direction of an academic of integrity, Deputy Vice Chancellor Doug Sutton (who has since resigned from Waikato University, and does not wish to discuss the matter). The terms of reference for the enquiry included: “(3. a) Whether or not regulations, policies, procedures and guidelines were adhered to in regard to the thesis.” If these were adhered to (3. b) “Can the University be confident that the thesis was in fact of an adequate standard to be passed?”
Over half a year later, Crawford’s “report” comprised a one-page letter stating that “after careful consideration” the thesis had been found to be worthy. “Of particular note” was that the thesis had been examined by “two well qualified academics.”
Nicola Brennan of the Waikato Times, the only journalist whose articles on the subject were of any value, stated that Crawford had told her “it is important to understand that it [the inquiry] wasn’t a reassessment of the thesis. It was to check that the processes around it were correct.” When asked about the “inaccuracies” that both myself and the other complainant, Mr. Graeme Wilson, had raised, Crawford stated that “we didn’t go through each of those into detail.” What transpired, and somewhat to the surprise of Nicola Brennan, Crawford had reneged on the primary aspects of his own terms of reference in regard to the standard of the thesis. The most notable part of the terms of reference for the Sutton team was that even if procedures were followed correctly, was the thesis meritorious? This is a matter that has ever since been studiously avoided by Crawford, as it was by the supposedly “neutral” Chief Ombudsman, Ms. Beverley Wakem.
The significance of Graeme Wilson’s complaint is that he had been a friend of Van Leeuwen’s and was acknowledged by Van Leuween for his help with the thesis, although significantly Wilson was only ever sent three initial, and quite good, draft chapters of the thesis for comment, none of which were subsequently used. They had known each other through interests in occultism and through Freemasonry. In fact Wilson had only ever seen three draft chapters, none of which were subsequently used in the thesis. Wilson was as appalled as myself at Van Leeuwen, whom he regards as a “liar.” He is indignant at being acknowledged for helping Van Leeuwen in this fraudulence.
The news media however carefully avoided mentioning that Wilson was also a complainant and opted instead on smearing this writer, rather than uncovering the corruption at Waikato. Interestingly, Crawford has described Wilson as a “knowledgeable expert” on the subject, but his complaint got no further than my own. Further, Wilson cannot be smeared as a “right-wing extremist,” a “neo-nazi,” a “former secretary of the National Front,” a “holocaust denier,” ad infinitum, as I was in a manner predictable from desperate people having to resort to red herrings with the help of a banal news media.
Indeed, the red herring was frequently resorted to by Van Leeuwen who, along with the pitiful editor of the student magazine Nexus, Joshua Drummond, attempted to state that the whole issue was a matter of “holocaust denial” whereas the “Holocaust” did not enter into the issue at any level. The thesis was not about the holocaust, or about holocaust deniers, nor were the complaints even vaguely related to anything of the type. The other red herring was that of “academic freedom.” Rather, it was a straightforward matter of lying in a thesis.
Both Wilson and I separately complained to the Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem (now Dame) in regard to the failure of the University to properly deal with the matter. More months followed while Crawford prevaricated in replying to the Ombudsman. Eventually Crawford issued what was supposed to be a “report,” which is nothing but a series of generalized statements on processes, covering three and a half pages. Crawford here claimed that the decision had been based “largely” on the recommendations of Dr. Sutton’s inquiry. In fact, Sutton recommended the thesis mark be “downgraded” and considered that both Dov Bing and Van Leeuwen were biased. Sutton’s opinion was, it should be noted, formed despite not having looked at the hundreds of pages of evidence submitted by both Wilson and myself proving that Van Leeuwen was a liar.
Crawford made the Sutton report “confidential” on the grounds of “privacy.” However, someone “leaked” the report to the student magazine Nexus, and gave copies to others, including Professor Kwiet, a lecturer on Holocaust studies at Sydney University, and therefore of no relevance to the issues at hand, who was asked to submit his own half-witted two-bits worth in support Van Leeuwen, et al., while using the same inane quips against me that he had used against Hans Kupka several years previously.
The predicament for the gutless Vice Chancellor Crawford is that he claims the Sutton report upheld the merits of the Van Leeuwen thesis, whereas according to the indignant reaction of Nexus, the Tertiary Education Union, and Professor Kwiet, Sutton recommended that the First Class Honours for the thesis should be downgraded. Crawford must therefore ensure that copies of the report not get into unfriendly hands, because it shows he is a liar.
Crawford also stated, “the University must defer to people qualified to assess the thesis from an academic view point.” Yet to my complaint to Victoria University, Wellington, regarding Dr. Jim Veitch, external examiner of the thesis, the reply was that “an external examiner does not have any decision-making authority.” The buck stops with Roy Crawford. Again, Crawford lied in claiming that he must take cognizance of the determination of external examiners.
Mormonism in New Zealand
Veitch is supposed to be one of the “eminent scholars” who externally examined the thesis, an “expert” on theology with two doctorates, who was too inept or too lazy to even notice major fallacies in the thesis in regard to Mormonism which should have at least given pause for thought to anyone with even a rudimentary background in religious studies. He could not even notice, when applauding Van Leeuwen for his excellent referencing, that some of the footnotes allude to nothing other than “archives,” with no identification of where these alleged archives might be found. One footnote even stopped mid-sentence, although Van Leeuwen subsequently removed the footnote altogether after my having pointed this out. (You’re welcome, Roel.)
Particularly bizarre is that Van Leeuwen vents his spleen for over two pages of his thesis against the “racism” of the Mormon Church, which, he claims, did not allow Maoris or Polynesians into the Priesthood until “after 1978.” He cites for his reference Cherry and Embry’s Encyclopaedia of Mormonism. In fact, his reference of Cherry and Embry is falsified, and there is no mention of “brown skinned men” in New Zealand being denied the priesthood. He would have been better referring to the section of the Encyclopedia in regard to New Zealand, if he were wanting information on New Zealand. Since colonial times Maoris were among the first to be converted to Mormonism, and specifically Maoris in the Waikato.
Now the majority of Mormons in New Zealand are Maori. This is obvious to any New Zealander, without referring to statistics – apart from, that is, tertiary lecturers and “scholars” of religion. It is not difficult to determine the situation regarding Maoris and New Zealand Mormonism, unless you happen to be a tertiary student or a theology scholar. The first Maori convert was baptized in 1881, the same year as the arrival of the first Australasian president of the LDS Church, and eight years later the Book of Mormon was published in Maori. In 1887 the “Maori priesthood” had been asked whether they could support the translation. Hence there was a Maori LDS priesthood from the earliest days of LDS in New Zealand. By 1900 90% of LDS were Maori.
What makes this one point alone of significance is that Hamilton, the hometown of Waikato University, is the center of Mormonism in New Zealand, and the location of the Latter Day Saints Temple. Van Leeuwen wrote his thesis as part of religious studies at Waikato, and was co-supervised by Marg Coldham Fussell, religious studies lecturer. Among the gaggle that squirmed to the TEU for help was Douglas Pratt, head of the religious studies department at Waikato University, and another of New Zealand’s “eminent scholars.” Jim Veitch, one of two external examiners of the thesis, is supposed to be an “eminent scholar.” None of these idiots paused to question a major contention in Van Leeuwen’s thesis that was based on fraud. Coldham, Fussell, and Pratt live in Hamilton, teach religion at a university, and yet were too inept to question that part of the thesis. Even the LDS Church was too gutless to broach the subject when I directed it to their attention, Utah alluding to “not putting one’s hand into the hornet’s nest.”
Hence the venerable Waikato University is content to have under its auspices a thesis that makes fraudulent claims on a religion that is the mainstay of their own hometown. Other budding “scholars” researching New Zealand Mormonism can cite the Van Leeuwen thesis as a peer-reviewed reference to the claim that Maoris were denied the Mormon priesthood “until after 1978.” Crawford, Pratt, Veitch, et al. and the Tertiary Education Union are all fine with that. In fact, there is nobody in media, academia, or Parliament who is not fine with it or with the widespread fraud, lies and ineptitude implicit in this matter alone. The whole fraudulent discourse on Mormonism by Van Leeuwen was motivated by my supposedly having been “raised a Mormon” (sic), another delusion of Van Leeuwen’s.
 K. R. Bolton, Waikato University: A Case Study in Zionist Methodology and Academic Corruption (Paraparaumu Beach, New Zealand: Ab Aeterno, 2011).
 R. Crawford, Waikato University, Hamilton, terms of reference for working party enquiry, October 8, 2008, p. 2, Section 3 a and b.
 R. Crawford to K. R. Bolton, June 30, 2009.
 My contention is that this was not a matter of “inaccuracies” but of lies.
 N. Brennan to K. R. Bolton, July 7, 2009.
 N. Brennan to K. R. Bolton, telephone conversation.
 R. Crawford, “Complaint regarding W. R. Van Leeuwen’s Thesis,” December 8, 2010, 2.2.4.
 R. Crawford, ibid., 3.4.3.
 R. Miller, Manager HR Shared Services, Victoria University, to K R Bolton, September 17, 2009.
 His reference is Alan Cherry and Jessie L. Embry, “Blacks” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Daniel H. Ludlow (ed.), (New York: Macmillan, 1992), pp.125-127.
 CultureGrams Worldwide Saints, History of the Church in New Zealand, Part 3: 1880-1919: Australasian Mission, Maori Agricultural College, Book of Mormon Translated, http://www.mission.net/new-zealand/gems3.html