There is nothing more despicable than disparaging a dead man
who can’t defend himself.
But writing an Oscar winning movie script to twist and
distort history for your own benefit is sick.
Argo is that movie.
Don’t go see Argo, feed the scum behind the movie.
The now dead individuals I’m referring are the then Kiwi
Ambassador to Iran Chris Beeby and his Secretary Richard Sewell.
The film incorrectly depicts New Zealand diplomats,
Australians and the British embassy as well, turning away the US diplomats.
So to get this right the role portrayed in the movie is Beeby
and his team at The N.Z Embassy in Tehran turned away the U.S hostages in their
hour of need - literally slammed the door in their faces.
This is a load of American propaganda – utter lies scripted into
the story to bolster America’s role in their rescue, write-out non North
“It's not an easy thing to do. You try to honour the truth
of the essence, the sort of basic truth of the story that you're telling."
is what the scum-bag Affleck has to say.
Hollywood’s lies are called “creative choices.”
Affleck is really proud of his Oscar winning that
shamelessly tramples over the integrity of others.
Make no bones about it Beeby and Sewell placed themselves at
great personal risk assisting the sheltering of the hostages.
Beeby even rented a flat so if their current location with
the Canadians was discovered they would have a new hidey-hole.
Rather than turning the American diplomats away as the movie
would like you to believe Beeby and team
visited the fugitives as they sheltered in a Canadian diplomat's home, played
chess and brought them New Zealand cheese to eat.
The night before the hostages were secreted away on a Swiss
Air flight The New Zealand Embassy emptied their booze cabinet so they could
have a going away party!
At the time Iran was New Zealand largest market for lamb.
Billions of dollars of trade were at stake had New Zealand’s
role in hiding the hostages been discovered.
Ben Affleck knows his film about the Iranian hostage crisis
of 1979-80 distorts the facts and slanders two dead men who should be acknowledged
as heroes in the hostage crisis and not falsely portrayed as cowards.
Make no bones about it saving whales and snails are big
business in New Zealand.
Greenpeace in New Zealand is not a charity.
Technically Greenpeace runs a Charitable Trust in N.Z after
that body lost a High Court appeal against the Charities Commission refusing to
recognise it as a charity back in 2010.
The commission raised the horny chest-nuts of Greenpeace’s
political and illegal activities.
So thus Greenpeace is a Charity in N.Z in name only, a self-bestowed
one at that.
In a good year Greenpeace rakes-in around NZD 10 million in
donations from guilt-ridden middle class Kiwis of which around 20% is bled-off to its head-office
in the Netherlands.
To a casual observer Greenpeace structure resembles a global
franchise – a very profitable one at that.
In 2010 ‘not for profit’ Greenpeace N.Z did in fact make a
tidy profit of NZD 1.8 million.
In 2011 they Greenpeace in N.Z said they had a bad year
financially and ‘only’ made NZD 550,000.
Greenpeace loves nothing better than attacking, sometimes
physically, rich evil Corporations, when on closer examination Greenpeace is little
more than a global corporation itself.
A McDonalds for die-dyed wearing hippies to gather around
and dance naked in the new moon baying to mother nature.
If only a few of Greenpeace’s Kiwi members who donate close
to 10 million a year would wipe away their guilt for a second and start asking…..
Why does Greenpeace in New Zealand need to make 20% per
annum on its earnings?
Am I happy having such a large chunk of my donation going offshore?
Is it true that Greenpeace’s local ‘door knocker’ that signed
me up was not a volunteer but a paid commission agent?
Is it true Greenpeace’s rabid Hare Krishna like Funding Team
I meet in town are all getting paid below what local Unions call a minimum liveable
I can’t see any published figures on the local web site, so how
much does Greenpeace’s head honcho and
the other management team in N.Z get paid? How does this compare to my income?
Is it true when you sign-up to a direct debit with Greenpeace
for a set minimum amount Greenpeace can automatically raise this amount without
How much does Greenpeace NZ have in the bank, investments as
Why am I so stupid signing-up with you guys when I could
have given this money that local group trying to reduce the stoats, feral cats in order to
increase native bird populations or the other one re-generating native fauna? I could do some real good I could see.
Here’s some sordid history of Oxfam wants hidden away,
re-written to suit their current persona as all round good guys.
Going back to its beginnings the main man behind the
formation of Oxfam was Theodore Richard Milford, technically Cannon Theodore
This Quaker dominated rabble of upper-class landed Englishmen
weren’t initially just interested in humanitarian aid; they also thought the
Allies should cease hostilities with Germany and sue for peace.
Complete ‘put up the white flag’ madness.
At the time, 1942, the Luftwaffe was raining bombs down on
their houses, aid ships torpedoed by U-Boats, their countrymen dying in their
hundreds every-day, but these trifling facts didn’t deter the Oxford Committee
for Famine Relief.
Many of the original members, drivers like Professor Gilbert
Murray were scared from seeing action in World War One and believed strongly in
the League of Nations cure-all diplomacy.
The first charitable act undertaken by Oxfam in the middle
of WW2 was partitioning MP’s to break an Allied blockade of Axis dominated
Greece much to the chagrin of the British Government, Churchill in particular. Their
concerns that the aid would fall into enemy hands was in-part realised.
Oxfam likes to paint their relief of Greece as a personal success
but they don’t tell you is the Greeks were starving because the occupying Axis
troops were plundering their resources.
They leave out the bit that Hitler and Mussolini ran the
very same dictatorships Oxfam wanted their Government to negotiate with, for
all intents and purposes surrender to.
And in another David Irvingesque re-write of historic record
concerning the Greek Famine of WW2 it was the Red Cross that brokered a deal so
food could be delivered, undertook the logistics – not Oxfam, they proselytised
and raised funds only.
No one running the Allied war campaign took a bunch of idle
rich peaceniks like Oxfam seriously.
Ironically Oxfam’s first true on-the-ground undertaking was
to supply aid to a defeated and devastated Germany, campaigning for post-war Britain’s
to reduce their rations and donate those reductions to Germans.
That’s right you read it right: Oxfam’s first shipment of
humanitarian aid went to Germany.
The atlases at Oxford and Cambridge in 1946 can’t have had Africa
As you would expect, these manoeuvrings by Oxfam just after
WW2 went down like a cup of cold sick amongst their countrymen.
Many of Oxfam’s original leadership also had links to the
ultra-pacifist group The Peace Pledge Union who like the majority of Oxfam’s
members were Conscientious Objectors during WW2. The PPU were against the
bombing of Germany cities and in favour of repatriating captured Axis
prisoners. In short: nutters some of which actually went to Germany to work in a twisted belief they could broker a peace by integrating into Nazi Germany.
Both Oxfam and The Peace Pledge Union were despised by the
majority of Brits as unpatriotic freeloaders, de-facto collaborators - which in
reality, given the times, they were.
If Oxfam had of had their way, you and I would be conversing
Footnote: The Song below rather appropriately translates as ‘House
Last year Bill Gates via his Gates Foundation gave USD 10
million to British scientists to sort-out a problem he hoped might help solve the
looming world food crisis.
By the way this is the same Bill Gates Oxfam recently launched
a hate campaign against claiming he and his ilk were simply not generous
95% of his wealth going to charity is not right & fair according
to the puritanical Oxfam, but back to the story.
Success of this research would potentially allow wheat,
rice, corn and other global food staples to be grown in even the poorest soils
of Africa, Asia and South America without the need for costly fertilisers,
greatly expanding world food production.
What an admirable undertaking, only the process involved in
developing more resilient plants incorporates the nemesis of eco-fascists like Greenpeace:
In little more of an admission that hard-line dogma trumps hard
pragmatism Greenpeace justified their position to see the end of this ground-breaking research
"If Mr Gates is serious about feeding the world's poor
and helping us establish sustainable farming practices that will heal the
environment and provide a future for humanity, he needs to look less towards GM
crops and more towards nature"
"GM technology isn't about feeding the world or
improving farmers' lives; it provides biotech and seed companies with the
opportunity to own patents over crops and nature. It is about control of the
global food system, and anyone who tells you different is lying."
In a tenuous link Greenpeace went to point out Gates has
shares in Monsanto.
But a minuet fraction of Gates investments, a complete ‘green’
On this one Greenpeace is seriously fucked-up, in-fact dangerously
Greenpeace wants to doom billions to starve simply because their
beliefs state ‘Mother Nature will triumph over Science’
“The world's 100 richest people earned a stunning total of
$240 billion in 2012 – enough money to end extreme poverty worldwide four times
over, Oxfam has revealed, adding that the global economic crisis is further
enriching the super-rich”
“The richest 1 percent has increased its income by 60
percent in the last 20 years with the financial crisis accelerating rather than
slowing the process,” while the income of the top 0.01 percent has seen even
greater growth, a new Oxfam report said. (Oxfam NZ, 20th January
Frankly what you are reading here from Oxfam N.Z is a load
Firstly in a stunning omission Oxfam forgot the trivial
matter of the taxes paid by this cabal of evil super-rich and their companies.
Taxes Oxfam conveniently avoids itself as a charity - a
charity willing to play politics every chance it gets.
What’s good for the goose is evidently not so for the
gander tax wise and it's tax we are talking about here.
In another gap in Oxfam’s political manoeuvres to raise
taxes in the west to give to despots in Africa, they forgot to mention the bit
about their own Chief Executive Barbara Stocking who earns a cool £109,100,
over NZ$200,000 a year.
So let’s examine Oxfam’s claims about the Scrooge McDucks
swimming in their vaults of money whilst millions starve.
It’s easy to drum up a list of the World’s Richest and see
what they do with their dosh.
If only more numb-skulls would do so rather than believing
the contemptible crap Oxfam spews out.
Let’s start with the world’s top ten rich-pricks:
1.)Carlos Slim: The world’s richest man just happens
to be the world’s largest philanthropist giving away approx two billion U.S a year. As best I can establish his generosity alone is four times Oxfams annual budget.
2.)Bill Gates: Is well on the way to donating 95%
of his wealth to charity.
3.)Amancio Ortega: Funds Spain’s largest charity.
4.)Warren Buffet: Is in the process of giving away
99% of his fortune to charity.
5.)Ingvar Kamprad: The company he founded IKEA has a long
tradition of community outreach and philanthropy, with each store encouraged to
support local causes, plus international sponsorship of UNICEF and others. His
family trust gives away a billion U.S a year whilst Kamprad himself leads a frugal
6.)Charles Koch: Received the William E. Simon
Prize for Philanthropic Leadership in 2011.
7.)David Koch: Funds one of the world’s largest
Cancer Research Centres named in his honour.
8.)Larry Edison: Has joined with Gates and Buffet pledging
to give away the vast majority of his fortune.
9.)Christy and Jim Walton: Christy holds the title
as the world’s greatest female philanthropist, a billion or so every year. The Walton
Family Foundation which controls the Wal-Mart fortune aims to give away at
least half to U.S Charities.
So take any of these examples and you’ll see Oxfam is
expedient with the truth.
The very same individuals that Oxfan has launched a hate
campaign against are in-fact extremely philanthropic.
Doubtless number 100 is the same as well.
Their charity dwarfs that of Oxfam which must hurt.
Millions around the globe are better off thanks to these rich
pricks Oxfam hates for being ultra-successful business people.
The ironic truth is the Super Rich do a lot more good making
the planet a better place than the jealous losers at Oxfam.
Nor did the super-rich didn’t become super-rich by giving
away money to wankers like Oxfam who can’t even work-out over-population is the
primary cause of global poverty.
sport of cricket Amnesty International is largely a Commonwealth affair.
historic leadership looks more like The International Cricket Board rather than a
global group with the self-bestowed arbitration on human-rights round the
very formation by peaceniks in the early sixties Amnesty International has
rallied against democratically elected governments, treatment of their peoples.
hard issues of the day and taken pleasure pissing in its own pants.
one target is The United States but it also has strong anti-Semitic undertones.
comes in number two for its attentions.
2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah Amnesty strongly crticised the Israeli military
claiming they waged an indiscriminate and disproportionate war targeting
said about the rockets and artillery being randomly lobbed into Israel that led
to the invasion in the first place.
after-all a terrorist group masquerading as a political party, not that you
would think it listening to Amnesty.
After the July
2012 terrorist attack by Hezbollah in Bulgaria that killed five tourists it is
likely the EU will en masse declare Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. Plenty of
countries already do so.
does Amnesty stand on The Taliban?
It places so-called
abuses by U.S supported troops in the same basket as those of The Taliban!
International is openly critical of the newly elected Afghanistan government
over the treatment of Taliban prisoners.
that other great destabilising force in the world: North Korea?
year’s report Amnesty International has been all but silent on North Korea.
has released more press reports against human rights concerns in South Korea!
is actually sixth on Amnesty’s list of leading human right abusers.
right, so-called abuses leveled upon the peoples of South Korea by its elected
government are greater than those suffered by say the citizens of North Korea, Chechnya,
Ivory Coast, Sudan etc.
least according to the ignoramuses at Amnesty International.
And if that
wasn’t a bad enough example of Amnesty International’s selective anti-Western sentiments
the group, as evidenced by the press releases issued, is more concerned about
what the British Government is up-to than the ones in Iran and Burma.
Amnesty International in New Zealand?
Amnesty in this country gave an award to a [quote] “unique New Zealander” who
openly supported the regime of Pol Pot and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.
that right: Amnesty International gave an award to a professed Trotskyist who
supported a regime who’s brutality against its own people is second to none in
the history of mankind.
prime-minister Rob Muldoon is said to have described the Lockes as the most
"notorious Communist family in New Zealand".
In 2011 just
two months after NZ SAS Corporal Doug Grant was murdered by Taliban insurgents
which on duty in Afghanistan Amnesty International in New Zealand was asking
the N.Z Government to look into the treatment of Taliban prisoners!
answer both questions succinctly – paranoid survivalist looneys.
who spend time and money going to the effort to build a bunker have mental
health issues of varying degrees.
of these people should rightfully be scared.
builders can ‘spin-out’ at any point.
builders are weird fuckers.
builders always come armed.
The U.S is
of course a bunker vortex.
has more bunkers per square mile than the beach at Normandy.
a bunker’ into google and unsurprisingly all the sites on the five pages I
bothered to go through all originated from the U.S.
companies that sell purpose built bunkers and will help you get the necessary
council permits etc.
people in Belgium, Australia, Taiwan etc don’t seem to share Americans
enthusiasm for encasing themselves underground in concrete, metal coffins
twiddling their thumbs awaiting the end of the earth as we know it.
on the streets of New Zealand, Germany and Japan don’t appear to worry about
government troops storming through their front doors, solar flares, nuclear holocausts
etc and prefer to go to the pub.
have the stunning ability to rationalise things, put them in context.
Example 1 :
It’s a nice day today.
(a.) go for a walk with the dog (b.) train my dog to attack with German command
Example 2: The
political party I didn’t vote for got into power.
(a.) accept that’s democracy at work (b.) find other discontented voters, work together
in cells to find-out everything we can
on our new leader to discredit him and then fixate about him sending tanks
& troops into our town.
Example 3: The government wants to restrict military
weapons to the military.
Should I (a.)
accept these weapons serve no recreational purpose and are lethal in the hands
of the mentally ill (b.) think the sky has fallen in, the Russians had invaded
and imposed their regime on us and bury the other ten rifles and ammo I have in
the local forest least they steal them as well.
One of the
most amusing, slightly warped things I discovered about bunker building in
America was each state had specific construction permits, rules etc.
As a social
experiment I rang my local Council here in Christchurch and asked where I could
find information about building a nuclear shelter in my backyard.
shoved from Department to Department and finally taken seriously I spoke to
some bloke who said in a suspicious tone something along the lines “We don’t
have anything specific for the purpose intended and we would need to see the
expecting he noted my phone number down and alerted a Health Dept psych team to
pay me a visit.
“How has Deer Velvet stood the test of time? The answer is
simple, it works and has no known side effects” [Silberhorns Web Site]
Southland Company Silberhorn has been selling a wide range
of deer velvet & herbal products for as long as I can remember.
Turn on any ‘old geezer’ radio station in New Zealand and
you’ll hear either golfer Sir Bob Charles (1963 British Open champion) or Sir Colin
Meads (famous All Black) promoting the virtues of ‘SportsVel’ a product which
in part comes from deer from Sir Bobs own farm.
Indeed Sir Bob claims to have used deer velvet for 25 years
and Sir Colin and wife Verna rave about its benefits on aged joints.
“TLC” is their well versed marketing spiel.
So what could be behind these anecdotal health benefits
linked to deer velvet?
Well it’s now been revealed deer velvet products, like that
marketed by Silberhorn, contain the 'insulin-like growth factor' IGF-1, which is on the World Anti-Doping Agency's 2013 prohibited list.
In short deer velvet contains an illegal muscle growth
Illegal to use for any sportsperson.
Banned full-stop everywhere but say Bulgaria.
In the U.S Fijian golfer Vijay Singh has just been ‘pinged’
for using a similar product.
A NFL footballer as well.
Promoters Sir Bob and Sir Colin are now aghast at this
development, pleading ignorance after the fact – a situation Meads is familiar
with having been the frontman for a failed finance company.
Silberhorns manufacturers have been less cagey, owner Ian
Carline confirming that the company's products did contain IGF-1, although he
had not been made aware until yesterday that it was a banned substance.
Carline tried to mitigate growth hormones turning-up in his
flagship product by claiming Silberhorn products contained naturally
occurring IGF-1 in small quantities.
Going down this track perhaps Carline should get on Oprah
Winfrey to plead his case just like the world’s best known drug cheat?
A growth hormone is a friggin’ growth hormone whether it comes
off a farm owned by a personality-dead millionaire golfer like Charles or out of a dodgy lab in Mexico.
If it doesn't have side-effects like your site is at pains to emphasise, then what's stopping punters taking ten times the standard dose?
Anyone with the internet or a phone, plus a a credit-card can buy this product and lets not forget it wasn't called SportsVel because it had a nice ring to it.
Silberhorns product is marketed towards sportspeople and the elderly.
Drug Free Sport New Zealand executive director Graeme Steele
said it didn't matter whether the substance was concentrated, natural or not.
Steeles statement is clear.
"If it's (IGF-10)
there then they shouldn't be taking it at all."
One interesting thing to also come-out of this deer-velvet
spray use is Carlines defiant, if not naïve, defence of his product given the
scientific evidence, controversy raging here & overseas.
The owner of Silberhorn wants New Zealanders to know….
"Our database is like a who's who in the rugby
industry, both current and former."
I'm sure The International Rugby Board will be chuffed getting hold of your client list.