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.  

 

 

 

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. 

  



 

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.