Talk:Kerry Bolton/Archive 1

Various info that could be added
Once edited a publication called "Heretic".

This contains quite a few names to follow up on; LOC also contains an interview with Kerry Bolton, a New Zealand-based Satanist who is trying to popularize fascism inside pop culture with a series of small journals like Key of Alocer, The Nexus and The Flaming Sword. His essays have also appeared in The Black Flame and Filosofem. In one of his writings Bolton even calls the Futurist (and later Fascist) Filippo Marinetti a forerunner of "Industrial Culture". His publications also feature Moynihan, R. N. Taylor, Boyd Rice, Kadmon, and others like them.

In his interview in LOC, Bolton denounces Christianity in classic "right meets left" jargon as:

"One product of the Magian [i.e. Jewish-KC] infection of Western culture, the others being plutocracy, liberalism, globalism, egalitarianism. and so forth...Since the thrust of the present civilization in its phase of senility is towards a global plutocracy, with the plutocrats and globalists utilizing con-sumerism and multi-culturalism to break down the different nations and cultures and archetypes upon which they are based, it is fitting that 'new' forms of Satanism are emerging with a nativist heathen basis to challenge this globalism."

Bolton also leads an overtly fascist magical sect called the Black Order. The Black Order's New Zealand address is conveniently reprinted in an illustration in LOC. 

Links:
 * 
 * Post by Michael Aquino in which he mentions Bolton (in unfavourable terms) also: a related post
 * Satanism in NZ
 * Search for bolton, has links to stuff under the OLHP/OSV/OSA section

Groups:
 * Order of Nine Angles (ONA)
 * Ordo Sinistra Vivendi (OSV) founded by Bolton after leaving the ToS, renaming of OLHP?

This is a bit of a confusing web of ideas. porges 01:56, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be asssociated with the Adelaide Institute: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters/dissenters.htm According to a [ http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php?t=176847 post] on the Stormfront forums, he has worked with the Arktion Federation.

According to
 * Bolton claimed in a letter to the Evening Post (27th May 2000) that "The Holocaust allegation was contrived jointly by the World Jewish Congress and the Stalinist Jewish Anti-Facist Committee."
 * Bolton was former leader of the NZ Fascist Union.

Letter by Bolton on the NZNF forums:

Letter by Bolton to NZ Listener:

Press release by Bolton:

Other activities
This is from the " New Zealand National Front" article. We should include more about Bolton's writing/publishing activities in this article. Among the works that he wrote and published is a defense of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion against charges of fraud. -Willmcw 20:44, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * He is also active as a writer, as the owner of the Renaissance Press, and as publisher of The Nexus and other periodicals. Mr Bolton was also "national spokesman" for the political party called the Fascist Union back in the early 90's.

What if...?
What if, however, the material that is cited as being unreferenced and "negative" actually comes from intimate personal knowledge of the person in question, having known that person for a number of years. If this was provided to someone else, then the original person in question would be the "source" and "reference" on their own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.1.163.77 (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Call for deletion of article or removal of unsourced claims
"Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." This article is slowly gaining unsourced material again which is in violation of Wikipedia's policies as quoted. For example, "It [Order of the Left Hand Path] was intended to be an activist front promoting an "occult-fascist axis" by mobilising political groups and youth culture elements such as industrial music." The stated aims are apparently available online www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Order-of-the-Left-Hand-Path), so I would suggest third party references would be needed to keep this (and other claims). I would still like to see a reason for Mr Bolton's notability for Encyclopedia inclusion. For example the Order of the Left Hand path entry was deleted due to lack of notability (an Order based around a 'zine is hardly worth including and where are the third party verifications for lodges ever having existed?). Mr Bolton has never been an MP or leader of the National Front, nor it would seem a chief ideologue. I find it bizarre that some people have a fascination with him and see fit that this fascination should be turned into an Encyclopedia entry. Is Mr Bolton listed in any NZ Bibliographic books, or in any printed Encyclopedias? There are only 8 references. 3 are from one book alone, and 2 are to Mr Bolton's own catalogue (book catalogues would hardly seem to suggest notability?). The link to the 'Society of the Dark Lily' is broken as is the 'Dreamers of the Dark - Exposed' which would seem to indicate that even those with a fascination in Mr Bolton aren't interested enough to keep this page up to date. Editors, please take note, and take action. Request vote for article deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.139.53 (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unsourced material should be removed. Most of the material here is derived from a couple of reliable sources, such as Black Sun and Lucifer Rising. The subject is described in reliable sources as a leader within his niche. Being a subject of those works, the author of numerous books pamphlets, an active publisher, and a leading member of political groups all help to confer notability. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Will Beback, you seem to have a vested interest in keeping the article online, perhaps you could remove the unreferenced material as you seem to know which is referenced and which isn't? You claim that his publishing efforts (self publishing from my research) make him notable. How is this? Which politicl groups is he a leading member of, and what are the credible sources for this? If you are going to claim the above books as reliable then I suggest we add in the claims from Roel van Leeuwen's thesis on Kerry Bolton, as it meets the following requirements: "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." The thesis was awarded a Masters degree with honours, was supervised by Dov Bing, a professor of Political Studies, and vetted by two leading Academics in the capacity of external assessors. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.139.53 (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no "vested interest" in this article. I've never met the man, I've never read any of his works, and I have no financial connection to him. He is notable because he founded parties and notable journals, and is otherwise a leader in his field, according to sources. Has the thesis in question been published? If so it may qualify as a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I found this article about the thesis, which says it was published, but which also mentions complaints from the subject. Though the thesis was apparently removed from the library, it was not repudiated or withdrawn and the reviewing professors say they still support its findings. It's a close call. What material from the thesis did you want to use? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * van Leeuwen's thesis has been restored to the University of Waikato's library shelves. This entry and the comments on it are a shameful exercise in amateur "research". To take one example, Bolton has in fact published Holocaust denial literature if he has not in fact written anything explicitly in that vein. In my judgment calling Ernst Zundel a "human rights activist" makes Bolton enough of a fellow-traveler to the deniers that he may as well be one. The fact that this entry does not list van Leeuwen's work as "reliable"--it is available freely on the internet but not listed at all here--when van Leeuwen in fact not only provides an ample bibliography but also procured the archives of Bolton's old print material from two decades ago shows just how seriously wikipedia, the FoxNews of the Encyclopedia world, takes its editorial standards. Once again, wikipedia passes off evasions and fictions as fact. 152.17.54.233 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)another communist grad student
 * The inclusion of a bibliography and links to the authors online catalogue looks to me more like a commercial venture in online marketing which is all to common on Wikipedia. Self-published books are hardly likely to be authoritive on topics, otherwise I am sure there must be requests from publishing companies to reprint them? What notable "parties" and "journals" has he founded. I only came across mention of Bolton in recent newspaper article regarding the thesis by someone from Waikato University. It seems dubious that he is a notable New Zealander. As mentioned already his "notable" Order of the Left Hand Path was not notable by Wikipedia standards, yet it is mentioned in various "respectable" books. I would still like to see some evidence of notability, such as mentions of what his parties have achieved, links with activites his party members have undertaken, membership numbers (presumably the parties number more than 1 or 2 people according to the published a reliable sources). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.139.53 (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is standard operating procedure to list works written by a subject, even if those works would not be suitable sources for WP articles. I doubt that scholars write theses about non-notable people. Regarding the "Order of the Left Hand Path", it was deleted because of a lack of reliable sources that could be used as references. If more sources are found then the article could be restored. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * An editor added a {verify} tag to the article. Most of the assertions in the article are sourced. Could the editor who added the tag please specify which assertions need verification? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there is no discussion or explication of these tags I'm going to remove them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Official site/blog
Wikipedia articles usually have a link to the "official sites" or blogs of their subjects. Does satanismnz: Satanism In New Zealand belong to Bolton? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'Why Bother?' page seems to suggest that it isn't. John Nevard (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll have to suspend my disbelief that a third-party could take so much interest in the matter. If the blog had been acknowledged as belonging to the subject then we could've used it as a source for the article. As a 3rd-party blog, it doesn't even merit inclusion in the external links. Anyway, if there are acknowledged, "official" websites belonging to the subject then we should add those too. I suppose the Rennaissance Press might count. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I was under the impression that most of his fellow travellers down under had become tired of him. I can certainly see how he would want to disavow authorship for fear of an actual serious libel case against him. John Nevard (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Adelaide
An editor deleted this text: An Adelaide newsletter says: An organization newsletter is sufficient source for the membership of its board, I would think.  Will Beback   talk    21:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ''He is a associate of the Adelaide Institute.
 * We welcome on board our new New Zealand Associate, Mr Kerry Bolton, who has for many years covered the New Zealand scene. He has in particular closely watched the Hayward and Kupka academic scandal that so outraged the New Zealand Jewish community, and more so those who cherish defending the hallmark of our civilization’s crowning glory: objective knowledge with truth as its guiding light. The hurt feelings that the Hayward and Kupka affairs generated ring hollow because they have been elevated above the academic ideal of free and unfettered research. In New Zealand the ‘Holocaust’ is firmly off-limits to critical analysis. The anti-Revisionists have embedded it within their deep-felt resentment against anyone who values truth above all. Interestingly, it is only a small minority who feels threatened by fearless Revisionists.
 * Do you regard holocaust deniers as a reliable source? Andjam (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That source is at least very close to falling under WP:SELFPUB, and I personally don't have a problem with it, although I note it says "on board", not "on the board". Many of the subject's tracks on that website seem to have been moved or deleted recently, as I'm getting lots of 404 errors for relevant links found via Google. Here's one still in Google's cache that clearly meets the SELFPUB criteria, in my view: a letter titled "Mr Kerry Bolton, New Zealand Associate of Adelaide Institute Speaks Up", dated 22 July 2003, is included in issue 200 of their newsletter. -- Avenue (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP
I have removed two pieces of information, I'm requesting stronger sourcing. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see above. Could you be more specific about the problems you see with the sourcing of the material you removed?    Will Beback    talk    22:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any discussion of why Gavin Baddeley is an insufficient source, so I'm going to restore that material. If there's a reason why it isn't reliable then let's talk about it.   Will Beback    talk    02:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Library catalogue as secondary source?
Does a library catalogue count as a secondary source? I could see many non-notable authors who use vanity presses liking that idea. Andjam (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't even see the need for a secondary source for the authrs own publications. Is there a reason to doubt that he wrote and published the books?   Will Beback    talk    19:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree; it seems unlikely that the subject would be challenging the fact that he wrote these. We're not trying to establish his notability of the books, just indicating the extent and nature of his writings. -- Avenue (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)