A Case Study in Zionist Methodology & Academic Corruption
Bing’s Lies
Note that in his strange contrivance of a vexatious legal threat against me, Bing quips that the “Assistant of the Vice Chancellor” (Sarah Knox) “surely would not lie” in regard to claims that I had been requested to delete allegedly defamatory material from a website. Of course she wouldn’t; but Bing would… and did. After months of continually requesting from the University lawyer, Gillian Spry, information pertaining to this delusional telephone conversation with me, I finally received a reply, and only because the Assistant Ombudsman, Richard Fisher, had asked – twice – for a response. Ms Spry replied as follows:
Further to you letter dated 30 October 2008 and your e-mail of 16 December 2008,[30] I can confirm that no employee of Norris Ward McKinnon has held a telephone conversation with you in which you have been requested to remove three pages from your website. As such, I believe that providing you with Norris Ward McKinnon’s phone records will not be necessary.
I also believe that a sworn statement from me outlining what was supposedly said in the alleged conversation between yourself and Norris Ward McKinnon will not be necessary at this time. If you subsequently require such a statement as evidence in any future legal action, then I will be able to provide you with an affidavit at such time.
I can also confirm that the Assistant to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Waikato did not have a conversation with Professor Dov Bing in which Professor Bing was told that a telephone conversation between yourself and Norris Ward McKinnon had taken place. The Assistant to the Vice Chancellor is also willing to provide an affidavit outlining this if you are subsequently involved in any legal action.[31]
It is difficult to understand what the mental state of Bing was when he decided to try to entrap this writer into admitting making statements that I openly acknowledged anyway. Was it just a matter of pure chutzpah? What is involved here is Bing lying about the University law firm – namely, Gillian Spry – and the “Assistant to the Chancellor,” Sarah Knox, as part of some hair-brained ploy. If the matter had gone to Court, did Bing assume that I would not be calling Sarah Knox or Gillian Spry to testify?
In January 2009, I filed a complaint against Bing on multiple grounds of misconduct, including not only lying about others, but misusing his university e-mail account in breach of University regulations, and bringing the University into disrepute. In March 2011, two years after filing the complaint, and on repeated enquiry, I received the following from Crawford:
With respect to you previous complaint regarding Professor Dov Bing, this matter was considered by the University and as a result, Professor Bing was reminded that staff must not use the University’s email system inappropriately.[32]
The little matter of Bing lying about others, including Crawford’s own Assistant, Sarah Knox, which could have embroiled her in a Court proceeding, was not mentioned. I would be surprised if Crawford even bothered mentioning the matter to Bing.
Bing’s Role in Thesis
While solicitor Stephen Williams claimed that Bing had only supervised the thesis in regard to “structure,” to his colleagues in the NZ Zionist Federation, Bing was posturing as the “senior adviser,” and presenting himself as the champion of freedom of scholarly enquiry. The NZ Zionist Federation stated of a Bing presentation that he was indeed the “senior supervisor,” contradicting the pervious nonsense by his lawyer that he only played a minor role; and that, “In the end, the Vice Chancellor saved the reputation of the University and rejected the findings of the three investigators, stating that the external examiners and the supervisors had done a sound job.”[33]
“Unease” with Bing as a Supervisor
Ironically Bing’s blue-eyed boy and media darling, Van Leeuwen, when first being told that his co-supervisor would be Professor Bing, felt “unease.” I had received information that Van Leeuwen had created a web “live journal” recording his feelings in the course of contriving his thesis. It had been a heavy burden on his social life, despite having several years to trot out a scant one hundred pages of double spaced diatribe that was largely the product of his imagination, or what Bing called “sound scholarship,” and what the “eminent scholar,” Dr Jim Veitch, recommended as worthy of Honours. Van Leeuwen’s “live journal” contained some embarrassing remarks that were deleted as soon as he realized he’d exposed himself. Now the enquirer will only find where this “live journal” had existed:
Error, This journal has been deleted and purged.[34]
The Waikato Times and Alf’s Blog, a community internet newsletter servicing the Ekatahune rural back blocks, were the only media that referred to these postings.
The postings reveal that it was with trepidation that Van Leeuwen found he was stuck with Dov Bing as a co-supervisor. Bing had become proactive in defending Van Leeuwen’s thesis when Mr Wilson and myself exposed its fraudulent nature, and Van Leeuwen became a cause celebre at The New Zealand Jewish Chronicle. One wonders what they now really think of this goy? In the following entry Van Leeuwen expressed his worry over Bing and comments on the “hysteria” and “unfairness” that had surrounded the Hayward and Kupka issues. Van Leeuwen had written:
About six years ago Universities in NZ were hit by two ‘scandals’ which were tarred broadly with the brush of ‘holocaust denial’- Dr Joel Hayward was taken to task over his Masters thesis in which he said that there were problems with the standard and accepted version of the holocaust. He is not a holocaust denier, but a historian looking at a highly emotive topic. The second was Hans Joachim Kupka, who was a PhD candidate in German language here at Waikato. Kupka is a holocaust denier and neo-Nazi, but its important to note that he was enrolled in a language PhD, not in politics or history. To cut a long story short, both investigations had something of a hysterical air about them and I don’t believe that either investigation was conducted in an atmosphere of fairness and impartiality. Judge for yourself. Hayward’s perspective can be found at http://www.joelhayward.com and the official Waikato Uni report on the Kupka Case can be found at http://unipr.waikato.ac.nz/news/kupka_report/pdf/kupka-report.pdf.
My issue with Kupka is that he was enrolled in a language degree – fair enough if he was enrolled in history, politics, religion etc. We do have academic freedom and freedom of thought in this country – it is specifically enshrined in law (one of the few countries to have academic freedom legally protected – thanks Geoff Palmer!) so it’s a bugger to see it run roughshod over.
Both these experiences have made the NZ academic community a little bit sensitive, particularly at Waikato, about the topic. Last night I received an e-mail from my senior supervisor [Marg Coldham Fussell] suggesting that I take onboard a supervisor who had specialist knowledge ‘in this area’. The person suggested was a member of staff who was instrumental in the Hayward case and central in the Kupka case and is (or was) a senior member of the NZJC.[35] Why am I feeling a degree of unease? Lol In reply I offered two other suggestions for a fourth (!) supervisor. Its not a matter of having anything to hide, just that I think there was a degree of gross unfairness in the above cases and I don’t particularly want to be in a position of having to look over my shoulder and modify my research because of paranoia that may or may not be groundless. Anyway, it will be interesting to see where this leads. I am prob making a mountain of a molehill and all that, but still…[36]
When I had written something similar in regard to Bing he threatened me with a vexatious libel suit. Additionally, Van Leeuwen continuously called this writer a “holocaust denier” for having expressed similar opinions as himself in regard to the need for tolerance and freedom of enquiry. It is a red herring that Van Leeuwen relies upon to smear this writer and deflect attention away from himself. The final news media report on the matter appeared in 2009, and ends with Van Leeuwen trying to make the entire matter of his fraud one of this writer being a “holocaust denier” (sic):
I certainly don’t regret this coming out. As part of ongoing public awareness, the New Zealand public has to know about holocaust denial. I am quite happy it has come up.[37]
But the Van Leeuwen thesis does not have anything to do with “holocaust denial.” Van Leeuwen, was the only individual incessantly referring to this writer as a “holocaust denier,” as well as being a “neo-Nazi” and an “anti-Semite,” in order to deflect attention away from his own dishonesty. His own statements above would normally be sufficient to have him marked as a “holocaust denier” by Bing et al. But Bing had already shot his bolt and come out in defense of Van Leeuwen, and he could hardly backtrack. Van Leeuwen continues:
Well, yesterday I had a meeting with my second supervisor, one I have to say I was somewhat dreading. Marg, my primary supervisor, is cool. She knows me and knows how I work and does little more than ask the occasional question along the lines of “everything going well?” and leaves it at that. Maybe its because she is a laid back quasi-hippy still working on her own PhD.
Dov, on the other hand, is a professor of political science from the old school- but a cool guy. However, I haven’t had anything to show him, nor have I been in contact with him for months so when I bumped into him in the men’s toilets and he said he wanted to see me, I thought “gads, time to harden my buttocks and prepare for an arse kicking” So, at the appointed hour, I rock around to his office and with some degree of trepidation, knock and enter. We spent the next 1hr 28 mins in discussion, during which my thesis and its progress was raised on two occasions for a total of four minutes- and which he said things were going really well and he is very happy and well impressed with what I am doing. I’m sitting there thinking “What the fuck? How would you know how it’s going? I haven’t shown you anything fer Christ’s sake!” I confess I was somewhat confused and wondered if he had confused me with someone else. I can only assume he has been talking to other people and been getting a second hand opinion, but I did say I would send him through my conference papers and seminar notes so he should have some idea where I am heading with it all.
What did we spend the other 1 hr 24mins talking about, do I hear you ask? Well, we discussed Iran’s relationship with the UN, Iran’s relationship to Iraq, Iraq’s relationship to Israel, Israel’s relationship to just about everyone else, US domestic and foreign policy, holocaust deniers we had met, Jews in China, his great great grandfather in Japan, the Dutch military in Indonesia during WW2, his uncle who was in the Dutch military in Indonesia in WW2, a guy he met who knew his uncle who was in the Dutch military in WW2, the Dutch War records office and corrupt historians and bureaucrats, my father who was in Indonesia after WW2, my grandmother and her resistance work, Dutch civil honours, N Korea’s relationship to Iran, Israel and the bomb, Israel’s relationship to Palestine, the use of deterrent force and how the West never got the hang on it, justifiable massacre and just war theory. I am sure I missed some bits of the conversation out, but you get the picture. [38]
