The whole climate scare campaign is a Con on the same scale as the Covid scare campaign.

The world is finally waking up to it. https://t.co/bpzJA1bM7O

— Liz Gunn (@LizGunnNZ) October 18, 2026

by Andrew Korybko

Russia could legally transfer ownership of its frozen assets to the US, which would then be returned to Russia in exchange for US stakes in its energy industry that could also deter Ukrainian attacks against it, but Trump will first have to obtain what would then be the US’ frozen funds from Europe.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski dramatically declared during the Warsaw Security Forum that Russia’s frozen assets in Europe would only be returned “over our dead bodies”. This coincided with a report by the Financial Times alleging that “US floats unfreezing some Russian assets to restart Ukraine peace talks”. Trump’s Special Envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner supposedly suggested the week prior “for them to be moved into a new special-purpose financial vehicle overseen by Washington.”

Despite the Europeans’ opposition, this could still be achieved with creative energy diplomacy. It was explained in April 2025 “How Gas Pipelines & Seized Russian Assets Could Give The US Lots Of Leverage Over The EU”. Russia could transfer legal ownership of its frozen assets in Europe to the US, whether in whole or in part, as payment for large-scale purchases of Boeing jets like was reportedly discussed back then and/or for the US to return the funds to Russia for stakes in its pipelines and/or energy companies.

All three quid pro quos are attractive to Trump 2.0, especially the last two, as the US moves forward with its long-negotiated resource-centric strategic partnership with Russia as proven by their diesel deal whose significance in this context was explained here. The latest news about the US seeking a stake in Nord Stream, which could later include stakes in Yamal and/or Brotherhood, coincides with a separate report about its plans for a grand energy deal as part of a compromise for ending the Ukrainian Conflict.

The gist is that Russian pipeline exports to Europe could resume for stimulating the bloc’s declining economy, which reduces its market’s ability to purchase US goods and services, so long as the US has stakes in these projects exerting enduring influence over post-war Russian-EU ties. These stakes could be achieved through the return of Russia’s frozen funds in Europe if Russia transfers legal ownership of them, whether in whole or in part, to the US for then returning them to Russia in exchange.

Likewise, Zelensky’s continued attacks against Russia’s energy infrastructure in defiance of Trump’s demands to stop could be deterred by US stakes in its major energy companies, or the US could then justify cutting off arms and intel to Ukraine for attacking what would then be the US’ literal investments. The conflict would likely end soon thereafter either way. In pursuit of this endgame, however, the US must have the political will to coerce the EU into releasing Russia’s hypothetically transferred funds.

For instance, the threat of imposing crippling tariffs and/or withdrawing a significant share of US forces from Europe would be enough to get the bloc to release what then legally be considered the US’ funds, after which they could finance large-scale Russian purchases from the US and/or US stakes in Russia’s energy industry. The EU is in bad economic shape, and its elites are pathologically afraid of Russia, so the combination of the aforesaid threats should suffice for getting the bloc to do Trump’s bidding.

The most extreme scenario of the US cutting Ukraine off completely if Zelensky defies Trump’s demands to stop attacking what would then be the US’ literal investments in Russia’s energy industry paired with crippling tariffs on the EU and the massive withdrawal of US forces from Europe is unsustainable. Ukraine would quickly collapse and the EU would then follow in its own way. All that Trump has to do is muster the political will to implement such threats and the Ukrainian Conflict will end soon thereafter.

from Centrist

New Zealand families earning more than $200,000 a year say mortgage payments, groceries and other household costs are leaving little room for savings.

A Sunday Star-Times investigation found even high-income households cutting back on travel, shopping and family visits to make ends meet.

A Hutt Valley couple earning up to $240,000 shop second-hand and avoid unnecessary travel, while a Hawke’s Bay father earning $220,000 says his family struggles to save.

“I thought when I was growing up, if I was earning the amount of money that I’m earning now, that I wouldn’t have any complaints and that life would be comfortable,” he said.

The experiences reflect broader findings from the University of Otago’s latest New Zealand Consumer Lifestyles report.

The survey classified 27% of respondents as financially struggling, up from 16.5% in 2020. Those in this group were commonly middle-income earners, with relatively high rates of university education, full-time employment and homeownership with a mortgage.

Across all respondents, 40% reported difficulty paying for essentials, while 52% had gone without something they would normally purchase to cover necessary expenses.

Economist Shamubeel Eaqub cautioned that income alone gives an incomplete picture of financial security. Household size, housing costs and location make a substantial difference. A family of five earning $150,000, for example, has roughly the same income-adjusted living standard as a single person earning $60,000.

Renters generally remain more financially vulnerable than homeowners, with Eaqub noting that 53% of renters fall within the bottom two income quintiles.

Salvation Army foodbank team leader Joel Williams said increasing numbers of working people, including homeowners and those juggling multiple jobs, were seeking food assistance.

“We’re essentially subsidising a broken system that’s no longer serving the people,” he said.

The Otago survey also found 48% of respondents believed New Zealanders needed to leave the country to get ahead financially, compared with 28% in 2020.

And if the Left bloc gains power it will be worse — taxes will go up and new taxes introduced.

I’ve just come out of an emergency board meeting, and I am seriously worried.

It is perhaps the greatest assault on legal online speech rights in New Zealand’s history.

Labour has called it the “Digital Duty of Care”, but a more accurate name would be the “internet police”.

They want to set up a new government watchdog for the internet, with the power to investigate, enforce and fine legal speech.

Facebook, YouTube, X: every platform you use would be legally required to “protect Kiwis from harmful content”.

This isn’t an under-16 ban. It covers every adult in the country and every post you make.

The police can only act when you break the law. Labour’s internet police won’t need you to break any law at all.

I need your urgent support so we can fight it. Fight Labour’s “Internet Police” policy

What counts as harmful?
Labour won’t tell us.

But this policy doesn’t just relate to “illegal” speech. It relates to speech which is legal but deemed “harmful”, and the watchdog gets to decide what that means later. But they’ve told us where they got the idea. They say they’re copying Australia.

And Australia’s first draft gave the minister the power to decide what counts as harm. It was only dropped after warnings it could be used for political censorship.

Geoffrey, in Australia they had to be talked out of letting a politician decide what’s harmful online. And now Labour wants to copy it!

And get this. Labour’s own flier says: “The aim is to prevent harm in the first place.”

“Prevent harm” sounds awfully like the Minority Report…
Right now, you can say what you like online, and if you break the law, you answer for it afterwards. Labour wants to flip that. Your post could be blocked or deleted before anyone even sees it, just in case someone decides it’s “harmful”. There’s a name for that. It’s called prior restraint, and it’s one of the oldest forms of censorship there is.

The internet police won’t come for you directly. They’ll make the platforms do it for them.

The platforms get fined for leaving “harmful” content up and nothing for taking it down. So anything risky or contentious goes.

A mum questioning puberty blockers, a blunt post about immigration or a sermon on marriage.

All gone before anyone reads them, and not one of them breaks any law.
Help us fight Labour’s online censorshipWe’ve seen this lot in action before.
It wasn’t that long ago that Chris Hipkins was a regular at “the podium of truth”, where his government told New Zealanders that unless you heard it from them, it wasn’t the truth.


Now he wants to go a whole lot further, by handing the government and its new watchdog the power to decide what’s “harmful” online. You couldn’t make this up!!

We know exactly what “harmful” will end up meaning: anyone who challenges orthodoxy or shares a dissenting opinion on a contested political or social issue.

And I know a lot of our supporters have real concerns about kids on social media. I’m a mum, and so do I.

But this is not an under-16 ban. It has serious effects on adult speech and goes way beyond affecting children, and Labour hasn’t put any limit on how far it reaches into adults’ lives. Letting you switch off the algorithm is fine. That’s your choice. Building a regulator to decide what adults can say is not.

And Labour want to move fast. Hipkins has promised to get the online safety law moving within his first 100 days. Chippy is racing to follow Albanese, despite the abject failure of the Australian model. And once the internet police exist, every future government gets the keys.

This is the big one. It is the most serious threat to free speech in New Zealand I’ve seen in this job.

If Labour gets in and does this, we will lose our right to speak freely online. And if we don’t have freedom of speech online, we don’t have freedom of speech at all.

Support the Union fighting back

Can you back us?
Most voters have no idea this is coming, because all they’ve heard is “protecting kids”.

We’re going to change that. We’re throwing our whole organisation at this for the next three weeks, putting the truth in front of voters on the very platforms Labour wants to police. It has to happen before 7 November, because after that it’s too late.

Every dollar goes into campaigning and targeted ads so voters know what’s coming. If you can, please chip in today.

Best wishes,

Jillaine Heather

Executive Director | Free Speech Union

• Top-left: Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally party in France.
• Top-right: Katie Hopkins, British media personality and political commentator.
• Bottom-left: Alice Weidel, co-leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
• Bottom-right: Eva Vlaardingerbroek, Dutch conservative political influencer and commentator

They are all despised by the Leftists/Globalists, naturally.

In NZ we could nominate Nicole McKee and Casey Costello of ACT and NZ First respectively.

by Lorna Smythe

France is burning and I have to say, watching some of the footage coming out of there today, the hypocrisy is absolutely staggering.

Paris. Marseille. Lyon. Rennes. Toulouse. Angers.

Buildings attacked, cars burning, shops smashed and looted, police and security forces attacked.

Marseille City Hall built in 1653 has been stormed and vandalised, priceless artefacts smashed into pieces. A municipal police station attacked. Lyon’s tourist office set on fire. A fire outside the doors of Cathédrale Sainte-Marie-Majeure.

And they are firing firework mortars at police in Paris, Marseille and Lyon.

Over 270 have been arrested.

Yet it’s people like me who are routinely called “far right” for having an opinion.

Question immigration. Far right.

Talk about borders. Far right.

Raise concerns about integration. Far right.

Say something the left doesn’t like. Far right.

Apparently that is extremism.

But cover your face, dress in black, attack police, smash up public buildings, loot shops and fire mortars at officers and suddenly everyone becomes terribly careful about labels.

Well, here’s the problem.

The French authorities themselves are calling out the ultra-left.

Not me.

France’s Interior Ministry says there has been a “very strong mobilisation” of the ultra-left and has described what is happening in parts of the country as “violent and targeted operations”.

So let’s stop dancing around it.

There is far-left violence on the streets of France.

There are Palestinian flags throughout some of these demonstrations too.

And before anyone tells me that’s something somebody has made up on X, AFP journalists are providing live video and photographic evidence that Palestinian flags are being carried by these violent thugs who are destroying their towns and cities and attacking police and security services.

This doesn’t mean that everyone protesting today is far left. There are ordinary French people out protesting about the cost of living, wages, schools and public services. They have been protesting peacefully in other areas of these towns but their cause has been hijacked by the far-left.

We can’t pretend this isn’t happening just because it makes for an uncomfortable picture.

Then there is the chant from the far-left:

“Louis XVI, Louis XVI, we beheaded him. Macron, Macron, we can do it again.”

They are literally invoking the beheading of Louis XVI and saying they can do it again to the President of France.

That chant isn’t new either. It has been heard at radical-left demonstrations in France before.

Now tell me something.

If this were the far right, would anyone be struggling to find the words?

Masked far-right groups attacking police across several major cities.

Far-right extremists firing mortars at officers.

Buildings on fire.

Shops looted.

A town hall stormed.

A police station attacked.

And crowds chanting about doing to the President what was done to Louis XVI.

It would be called far-right extremism from morning until night.

Every newspaper would have it in the headline. Every television studio would be discussing radicalisation. Politicians would be lining up to condemn it.

And rightly so.

That’s the bit that matters.

I am not asking for the far right to be excused.

I’m asking why the far left should be.

Because I am sick to the back teeth of watching “far right” thrown around at ordinary people who have never burned a building, never attacked a police officer, never fired anything at anybody and never threatened anyone’s life.

Our words are apparently dangerous.

Our concerns are apparently dangerous.

Question government policy and you’re an extremist.

Question immigration and somebody will eventually call you far right.

But actual political extremists put masks over their faces, attack police and burn their way through cities and we’re treated to endless discussion about their “grievances”. It’s just a ‘clash’ with police, nothing more.

No.

You don’t get to have it both ways.

If dangerous rhetoric matters, then chanting about beheading a President matters.

If political violence matters, then it matters whether it comes from the right or the left.

And if ideology is relevant every single time somebody on the right commits violence, don’t suddenly tell me ideology has nothing to do with it when France’s own authorities are pointing directly at the ultra-left.

Then there is Macron.

Yesterday, while all of this was looming, Emmanuel Macron was in Brussels appealing for “calm”.

Today France is dealing with serious disorder across city after city.

It appears that he still has not returned, while his country burns.

Where is the leadership while this is happening?

A country cannot have police being attacked with firework mortars, public buildings burning, shops being looted and its town halls being stormed and pretend this is just another Saturday of “protest”.

France has a problem.

And part of that problem is far-left political violence.

Those aren’t even words anyone can accuse me of dreaming up.

France’s own authorities are saying ultra-left.

So perhaps the next time somebody feels like casually throwing “far right” at people like me because they don’t like what we’ve said, they should have another look at the streets of France today.

Because if peacefully expressing an opinion makes people like me extremists, what the hell does this make them?