Thursday, February 28, 2013

Hollywood’s Shameful Slandering of Two Dead New Zealand Heroes

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 Americans altogether.       

“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. 
I hope the movies flops.



Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd chasing Money in our Oceans not Whales

Worldwide shark populations are dwindling. 

Basking sharks, once prevalent around the Canterbury coastline are now a rarity.   

Because sharks come top of the food chain the Great Whites and Makos etc have relatively small population sizes and are much more vulnerable to overfishing.  

Many sharks are killed, deliberately and accidentally for their fins which end up as soup up in Asia.  

Meanwhile in the Southern Oceans an eco-pirate flotilla is fighting Japanese whalers. 

These also end up on the tables of Asian restaurants but all the neutral stats indicate whale populations are generally growing.   

So why don’t the likes of Greenpeace, Sea Shepherds of the world get out in the local oceans just 10 miles from the coast of N.Z and protect sharks and not whales?     

That’s because it’s not in their financial interests to save sharks. 

Sharks are feared creatures whilst cuddly whales are the eco-poster centrefolds.  

Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd groups have painted themselves into a corner, made ‘whales’ their bread and butter, money pit.    

Both groups are morally bankrupt.  

They are now no longer neutral in their desire to save animals. 

There IS currently a greater need to save dwindling shark populations rather than whales and who are they out chasing in the middle of no-where?  

The money that’s what!  

They only want to save creatures like whales, pandas and giant apes that will attract funds for them to keep their jobs.  


Friday, February 15, 2013

Greenpeace in New Zealand is little more than a McDonalds Franchise for Hippies

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 wage?  

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 my permission?  

How much does Greenpeace NZ have in the bank, investments as at today?    
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. 



Thursday, February 14, 2013

This is my sort of Papal Protest!

Protests of this nature are deserving of our support and mutual admiration.  

If Oxfam had of had their way, you and I would be conversing in German.

                                            UNOFFICAL HISTORY OF OXFAM
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 Richard Milford.  

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.  

Hitler didn’t.  

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 on them.  

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 in German.  

Footnote: The Song below rather appropriately translates as ‘House of Lies’



"If one person has an imaginary friend, they're crazy, if many people have the same imaginary friend it's religion"

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Greenpeace Wants Billions to Starve

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 enough!  

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: Genetic Engineering.

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 by stating….

"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’ herring.  

On this one Greenpeace is seriously fucked-up, in-fact dangerously so.

Greenpeace wants to doom billions to starve simply because their beliefs state ‘Mother Nature will triumph over Science’

Vacuous prattle won’t feed starving children.    

Science can and will - given the chance.   

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

What do Ex-Popes do for a crust?

Travel the world like Cliff Richard playing reunion gigs to increasing older audiences? 

Take personal confessions at a hundred bucks a throw? 

Help Richard Dawkins on his next book?  

Go find the Nazi gold you and your comrades hid at the bottom of lake down the road?   

Become a star prosecution witness in priest abuse cases?  

Bring-out a Christmas Album?   

Do a semi-nude Calendar?  

Or just take time out to enjoy ones-self?  

Indulge a little.   



Sunday, February 10, 2013


“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 2013)  

Frankly what you are reading here from Oxfam N.Z is a load of shit.  

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 life.

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.       


Like the sport of cricket Amnesty International is largely a Commonwealth affair.

Its historic leadership looks more like The International Cricket Board rather than a global group with the self-bestowed arbitration on human-rights round the planet.  

From its very formation by peaceniks in the early sixties Amnesty International has rallied against democratically elected governments, treatment of their peoples.

Avoided the hard issues of the day and taken pleasure pissing in its own pants.     

Amnesty’s number one target is The United States but it also has strong anti-Semitic undertones.

Thus Israel comes in number two for its attentions.

After the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah Amnesty strongly crticised the Israeli military claiming they waged an indiscriminate and disproportionate war targeting civilians.

Nothing was said about the rockets and artillery being randomly lobbed into Israel that led to the invasion in the first place.

Hezbollah is 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.   

And where 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!

Amnesty International is openly critical of the newly elected Afghanistan government over the treatment of Taliban prisoners.

What about that other great destabilising force in the world: North Korea?

Until last year’s report Amnesty International has been all but silent on North Korea.

In-fact it has released more press reports against human rights concerns in South Korea!   

South Korea is actually sixth on Amnesty’s list of leading human right abusers.  

That’s 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.          

Well at 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.   

What about Amnesty International in New Zealand?

Last year 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.  

You read 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.

Former 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!  

Amnesty backed the messed-up Vince Siemer.   

Persistently claims to anyone that cares to listen that New Zealand is lagging behind with indigenous rights - something that could not be more far from the truth. 

Told The United Nations last year that New Zealand is continuing to discriminate against Maori through the Marine and Coastal Area Act.

As evidenced by its activities in New Zealand Amnesty International clearly has an extreme left-wing political agenda, yet likes to portray itself as being politically neutral?!   

But, what effect do any of these reports/proclamations pouring forth from their plush English headquarters have on making the world a better place?  

What coverage does Amnesty get in say The Tehran Times?  

Who got Amnesty's award in The Ivory Coast last year?  

Does The North Korean National News Agency run a lead article on its report into slave labour in the country?  

The repressive regime in Somalia, do they give a flying-fuck what some toffee nosed public educated Pom from Amnesty has to say?

That logical and only conclusion one can make about Amnesty International is they are pissing in the wind.


Wednesday, February 6, 2013


Why the hell does anyone need a bunker? 

Who the hell builds a bunker in their backyards 

Let me answer both questions succinctly – paranoid survivalist looneys. 

Individuals who spend time and money going to the effort to build a bunker have mental health issues of varying degrees.  

Neighbours of these people should rightfully be scared. 

Bunker builders can ‘spin-out’ at any point. 

Bunker builders are weird fuckers.  

Bunker builders always come armed.  

The U.S is of course a bunker vortex.

Rural America has more bunkers per square mile than the beach at Normandy. 

Type-in ‘Build a bunker’ into google and unsurprisingly all the sites on the five pages I bothered to go through all originated from the U.S.      

There are companies that sell purpose built bunkers and will help you get the necessary council permits etc.  

Evidently 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.   

The people 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.  

Non-Americans have the stunning ability to rationalise things, put them in context.      

Example 1 : It’s a nice day today. 

Should I (a.) go for a walk with the dog (b.) train my dog to attack with German command words?

Example 2: The political party I didn’t vote for got into power.  

Should I (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. 

After being 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 plans”  

I’m fully expecting he noted my phone number down and alerted a Health Dept psych team to pay me a visit.      

Gotta go, there’s someone knocking on my door.   




Sunday, February 3, 2013

New Zealand would be better off with more Asians and less Catholics

I am sorry on reflection I can’t think of any Catholics I know that didn’t vote National?

Catholics are by nature inherently cloistered and conservative.

Conservative political parties learn not to upset their demographic, that’s why they never do anything significant whilst in power.  

New Zealand still borrows $250 million a week to stay afloat under National, the same as Labour.  

It is little surprise therefore to read in Saturdays Press the private Christchurch Catholic boys school St Bedes has five old boys on Nationals front-bench.

National has always been the party of choice for Papists

If you’ve ever wondered why you can’t go to the garden-shop at Easter, same-sex marriage legislation is moving at snails-pace you now know why.

One thing Catholics don’t believe in is a true sectarian society, one where all peoples get along together.

They would like to model every N.Z School like St Bedes – as long as they were all Catholic.    

Historically the moment the first Catholics arrived in New Zealand they went to great lengths to separate themselves from the mainstream.

Cripes on the West Coast of the South Island Catholics even set-up their own cemeteries.

Catholics in New Zealand have largely never wanted their kids mixing with other children.

They don’t even want them to play sport in the same teams as other faiths, or lack of them.

That’s why they set-up their own sporting club, Marist, so they can remain an aloof grouping.   

They don’t want to marry outsiders and when a heathen coupling is on the cards they will do their dandiest to convert the auslander.   

The grand irony in all of this is people in New Zealand openly criticise Asians as failing to integrate, wanting to retain their own culture.

Those bloody Chinese don’t even play rugby!

But here’s the bully…..

Despite their large numbers the Chinese don’t have their own schools
Asians haven’t seen fit to start their own exclusive national sporting body

The Chinese have been in New Zealand for as long as any race or religion.    

New Zealand would frankly be better off with more Asians and less Catholics.   


Friday, February 1, 2013

Are some All Blacks De-Facto Drug Cheats?

“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 supplement.

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 na├»ve, 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."  

Really Ian?
I'm sure The International Rugby Board will be chuffed getting hold of your client list.