A Case Study in Zionist Methodology & Academic Corruption
In the above passages Van Leeuwen shows that while his trepidation about Bing had disappeared, both of his supervisors come across as anything but “most professional.” Van Leeuwen in a further entry laments the way in which the thesis is interfering with his social life and other interests, such as his involvement with the occult.[39]
Working at the bottle-store has kept me busy over the last couple of months, much to the detriment of everything else – but I have finally put my foot down and reduced my hours to something more manageable as so I can focus attention on what it is I should be attending to, namely my thesis.
So, my thesis. Well… I have a busy next few months ahead of me.
As it currently stands, I have written about 9000 first-draft words out of 35000 I need and I am supposed to submit it on the last day of Feb. Hands up if you think I can make it? Nah, I don’t think so either which is why I have asked for an extension. E-mailed my supervisor about it and she said she already had the forms there as she was expecting such a request. At least this time I have a legit reason since it took 2-3 months to get supervisors actually sorted out and topic agreed on, due to the controversial nature of the thesis. In that time I had between one and four supervisors assigned, and changed supervisory teams about half a dozen times. Needless to say the supervisors I ended up with are not the ones I started off with. Sooooo, anyhoo, I can look forward to handing it in end of Aprilish. This leaves me three months for 30,000 words. 10,000 a month. 3500 words a week, you might say…a walk in the proverbial park, you might say…but it aint quite that simply, because over the next three months I have other things looming on my horizon. Namely: Still working at the bottlestore. Training for part-time work being part of the University promotions staff (and possibly work there over the next few months) Tutoring a Religious Studies paper (and prepping for that) Teaching a Social and Moral Philosophy paper to senior high school kids (and having to get prepped for that). Starting my MPhil in Defence and Strategic studies and I will have one or two essays due in during those first couple of months (but fortunately, since its at another university, I’ll not have to work too hard since I am not anal about keeping my marks high and am more than happy to settle for B+s).
Head off to Magick Earth festival at the other end of this half of the country. See Evanescence in concert (and maybe Weird Al as well) Start the paper-chase to enrol in my PhD at the University of Queensland so I can start that in semester 2. Oh, and also get my management cert from the Liquor Licensing folk. On top of that I want to Start at the gym Return to martial arts training Start up a regular role-playing game evening and Learn the flute. Sleep? Bah, who needs it? Sleep is over rated. All hail the gods of tea, No Doze and Jump! … Oh Shit, which reminds me, I was supposed to go off jet-skiing with the boss this morning and I plumb fergot. Toodle pip[40]
Van Leeuwen next relates that if he ran out of time and was having problems with the thesis he could just make it up, and nobody would know, which is precisely what he did, despite later protestations to the contrary.
THESIS WATCH
Sorry to spam you guys, but I am finding this thesis watch thingy to be a great deal of help in keeping me focussed and achieving those little weekly achievements which are so good for keeping morale up. Thank you for your patience. Total words for thesis: 35,000 Due date: Being negotiated (April 30?) Chapter/sub-chapters completed in draft form: 3 Had a meeting with my supervisors last Wednesday, which was fine and cool, but as an upshot I had a distressing thought.
Up until then I had the idea that what I am writing about is so obscure and the source material is difficult to get hold of that if needed to, I could make shit up and bullshit my way through difficult bits and no one would be any the wiser. Morally bankrupt I know, but it was a comforter knowing I could pull that particular trick out of my hat if I needed to. However, then the thought poked me…that my thesis will be deposited in the library and (because our university is hooked up to a thesis-share system) it will also be electronically available from something like 30 universities. Geep
I don’t want to be known for dodgy bollocky thesis! Its okay to bluff my way past a couple of markers, but to have utter shite on permanent record at an institution of higher learning (or Waikato University) is tres unkewl. So, *sigh* I guess I will actually have to do the work. But not tonight. Heroes is on in about half an hour. Woot.[41]
From the above it appears that Van Leeuwen was still not going well. He was a very busy chap, with intrusions such as watching the Television series “Heroes,” and many other interferences in his scholarly routine. As was subsequently proven by both Mr Wilson and myself he did resort to “utter shite.” Other entries include banter with his cyber-friends on the “geekiness” of his best student[42] (while he was a tutor at Waikato), the geeky girls being the filthiest, and fantasizes about the breasts of his female students.[43]
Be Kwiet
Nexus, student newspaper of Waikato University, was kept informed of the enquiry by an inside source at the University. Editor Joshua Drummond could be relied upon to toe the line, and resort to childish smears, for which he was given a journalism award. It was via Nexus[44] that I heard of an intercession by Konrad Kwiet, Professor of Holocaust Studies, Sydney University. However, it was only in 2010 that I got to read Kwiet’s “Comment” and “Personal Opinion” sent to Crawford, aping Bing’s view that the Van Leeuwen thesis is laudable scholarship. Kwiet had supposedly been approached by Van Leeuwen, during Dr Sutton’s enquiry, for an outside assessment of his thesis. Given that Kwiet had also interceded in regard to the Kupka matter, along with other Zionist academics, one might be somewhat dubious as to whether this was just another jack-up by Bing with one of his comrades. In the Kupka affair, as with his opinions on the Van Leeuwen thesis, Kwiet offered nothing of a scholarly nature; just ad hominem quips and presumptions.
Kwiet had described Kupka’s views, allegedly expressed on the internet, as “garbage” and “cyber space junk.” He stated that Kupka is “pleased” to present himself as an “anti-Semite,” a “holocaust denier” and a “racist.” Kupka’s views are described by Kwiet as “stupid” and “arrogant.” Comparing Kwiet’s statements about Kupka with his statements about myself, he was merely offering a standardized retort.[45]
The introductory statement prefacing the four “scholarly opinions” on Kupka sates that the opinions were “obtained by Dr Douglas Pratt, Chairperson Department of Religious Studies and by Professor Dov Bing, Department of Political Science and Public Policy,” Waikato University.[46] It might be noted that Pratt was one of those involved in the Van Leeuwen fiasco as head of the religious studies department; and was among the gaggle that crawled off to the TEU. It might be asked how the Kupka matter was of any relevance to Pratt in his professional capacity?
After having read the opinions that Kwiet had sent to Dr Crawford on the Van Leeuwen thesis, I wrote to the learned “professor of holocaust studies” to try and get some sense out of him, as I had also tried with Prof. Veitch, the external examiner, and others. No hope, of course. Some of the questions I posed included:
1. You state that you had been asked by W R Van Leeuwen to comment on his thesis. Would it be fair to say that this was more a jack-up (if you’ll excuse the colloquialism) between thesis co-supervisor Dov Bing and yourself?
2. You acknowledge in your first paragraph that the working party enquiry recommended the “downgrading” of the thesis, and that the reasons for this are unknown to you.
a. Did it occur to you that the working party under Deputy Vice Chancellor Dr Doug Sutton might have found material in the thesis, or might have been in possession of evidence that proved the thesis did not – at the very least – merit first class honors?
b. Did you make any effort to read the thesis with a critical approach as to why there might have been allegations that it might be fraudulent?
c. Would it be fair to say that you had a preconception in favor of Van Leeuwen and bias against myself that formed the basis of your judgment, rather than that judgment being informed by a scholarly reading of the thesis?
3. You commend Van Leeuwen for his “extensive” use of literature, including a “plethora” of documents distributed that are in the public domain, and in e-mail communications. You commend Van Leeuwen for making “effective use” of the material in presenting “empirical evidence”.
a. Could you please provide me with any examples of the sources Van Leeuwen used, that you personally verified?
b. Do you, as someone who is engaged in examining and advising on academic dissertations, regard references that identify material as nothing more than “archives” as legitimate methodology? How did you verify any of these nebulous “archives”, given that I had difficulty locating the material cited, including that credited to myself, and have still not been able to locate some items?
c. Are you aware that the e-mail communications you refer to are those of Mr Graeme Wilson, who is acknowledged for his assistance by his former friend Van Leeuwen in the thesis (and is described by Vice Chancellor Crawford as “a knowledgeable expert”), and that Mr Wilson also lodged a complaint against Van Leeuwen, and unequivocally called Van Leeuwen a liar? …
Of a general nature:
1. Given that the NZ Education Act is supposed to provide for “public scrutiny” to ensure quality of scholarship, why should Mr Wilson and myself be denied that opportunity when we both reached the same conclusions, independently, as to the dishonesty of the thesis?
2. Do you regard threats from the Tertiary Education Union as an appropriate means of deciding the scholarly merits of a thesis?
3. Given that Van Leeuwen expressed in his “live journal” disquiet at having Dov Bing as a supervisor, on the grounds that Bing:
a. “Didn’t known what the f… he was talking about” when supposedly discussing the thesis with Van Leeuwen, and
b. Had harassed Joel Hayward, who was denied scholarly freedom, and Hans Kupka,
c. Do you regard Van Leeuwen as an “anti-Semite” and a “holocaust denier”?
4. When Van Leeuwen stated on his “live journal” that if he ran out of time for writing the thesis, which was clearly interrupting his social agenda, he could simply “make b.s. up” and nobody would be the wiser because of the “obscurity of the subjects”, did you at any time give pause for thought that just maybe he is a charlatan? …[47]
Naturally, my questions remain unanswered, and Kwiet can rationalise that he “does not debate with anti-Semites and holocaust deniers.”
