A break from the exasperating and usually negative world of politics!

The list of participants with maps is here (pdf), samples of work are here

by Andrew Korybko

US-backed NATO, Pakistan, and the “Asian/Containment Crescent” of Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines are poised to respectively face off against Russia, India, and China across this century.

The US is sending mixed signals about the Sino–Russo Entente, which was strengthened by the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline deal, after Trump said in September that he’s “not concerned” about it while Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed that he ordered him to “re-establish deterrence” against them. As was argued here, “Trump 2.0’s Eurasian Balancing Act Has Failed” largely as a result of this development, which importantly involved India’s tacit approval amidst its rapprochement with China.

Far from remaining divided, principally as regards China and India with all the complications that their continued rivalry would entail for Russia’s own balancing act, Eurasia’s three most powerful civilization-states are increasingly coming together to revive their dormant Russia-India-China (RIC) format. This platform is significant on its own but it’s also crucially the core of BRICS and the SCO, which play complementary roles in gradually transforming global governance as explained here.

These RIC-accelerated multipolar processes can’t be countered through direct military force, however, but the way in which the Pentagon might try to slow everything down is through provoking arms races. NATO’s, Pakistan’s, and the “Asian/Containment Crescent’s” (Japan-Taiwan-Philippines) US-backed military buildups (partial in Pakistan’s case) could help achieve this vis-à-vis Russia, India, and China as could reinforced US military presences (or a formal return in Pakistan’s case) in each.

Likewise, the “Golden Dome”, intermediate-range missile deployments in their regions, and more militarization of outer space can place additional pressure on Russia and China to this end, though these moves could also backfire by enhancing those two’s military-technical coordination too. To be clear, Russia and China aren’t allies that would go to war for one another, but their shared military-security and strategic interests raise the chances that they’ll provide support for the other during wartime.

China has thus far eschewed sending military-technical aid to Russia due to its complex interdependence with the West, but Trump’s tariff war, his accusation that President Xi Jinping is “conspiring” against the US, and the Pentagon’s plans for the “Asian/Containment Crescent” might prompt a recalculation. In a similar spirit, Russia might become comfortable sharing cutting-edge military-technical knowledge with China to counterbalance US moves in Japan, which could extend to their shared North Korean ally too.

Although the lion’s share of Pakistan’s military-technical equipment comes from China, the US might break into this market if Chinese exports decrease due to the Sino-Indo rapprochement, which could also lead to a decrease in American exports to India and the need to replace them with exports to Pakistan. Russia might even regain its traditional role as India’s top supplier by far if exports to it spike in response to more US exports to Pakistan in a de facto revival of the region’s Old Cold War-era military dynamics.

All of these strategic dynamics set the stage for a security dilemma between the Eurasian Rimland (NATO, Pakistan, and the “Asian/Containment Crescent”) and the Eurasian Heartland (RIC) instigated by the US in order to “re-establish deterrence” vis-à-vis the Sino-Russo Entente. The purpose is to pressure one of them or their shared Indian partner into capitulating to the US so as to then more effectively divide-and-rule the supercontinent. This hegemonic plot will define Eurasia’s 21^st-century geopolitics.

He was a key member of our editorial group with all the qualities which made him an excellent contribtor — legally savvy, astute, perceptive, insightful and he knew how to take apart some of KCDC’s nuttier plans, to the annoyance of the last mayor, council boss Mr Maxwell and the present mayor.

Christopher was also a good satirist and humorist, and the aforementioned were also the subjects of that, again to their annoyance.

To some extent his skills have been compensated by those on the CRK committee, but we still miss Christopher.

by Matua Kahurangi

If you’ve followed me for a while, you’ll know my go-to line on immigration: we need more nurses and doctors, not more Uber drivers and curry chefs. But after watching last week’s mega-strike protests, I’m starting to think we’re importing the wrong kind of “skilled” workers altogether.

The NZ Herald interviewed a nurse named Shini Kallumkathuraoliyl. I could barely understand anything of what she said. I caught the word “Starship,” and judging by her scrubs, she likely works at Starship Hospital. This isn’t personal, but her English was appalling. If I, sitting at home, couldn’t make sense of her, how on earth would a sick child in her care? How would parents feel being handed medical advice they can’t even decipher?

This is a failure of Immigration New Zealand. Nursing is on the Green List, supposedly a “highly skilled” category that gives fast-track residency. But where’s the skill if patients can’t understand a word being said to them? Communication isn’t optional in healthcare, it’s as critical as knowing how to use a defibrillator. Immigration NZ keeps waving people through as if ticking a form is all that matters.

Read more

This one’s actually scary…

I was briefed by the policy team about Labour’s so-called “targeted” Capital Gains Tax announced yesterday morning.

At first glance, it might look mild. But as every good accountant knows – the devil’s in the detail. And this one’s a real shocker.

Nicola Willis has rightly described Chris Hipkins’s announcement as “A dangerous policy that puts New Zealand’s economy at risk.” 

The Taxpayers’ Union has no option but to fight it.

No country ever got richer by taxing itself harder

Since 2017, Government spending has ballooned from 27.7 percent of the economy to 32.5 percent today. That’s $65.4 billion in extra spending per year – or $26,089 per household more, this year alone.

But instead of tightening its belt, Labour wants to reach even deeper into your pocket.

If Chris Hipkins truly cared about productivity, he’d be cutting waste, not inventing new taxes on inflation.

Make no mistake, Labour’s proposal isn’t about ‘fairness’ or ‘rebalancing’, it’s a tax on patience, on thrift, and on every New Zealander trying to build something for their future.

Taxing inflation is fundamentally unfair

Even if your property hasn’t actually gone up in real value, Labour’s proposed new tax treats inflation as profit – and slaps a 28 percent tax on it. That’s not taxing gains, it’s taxing the cost of living.

And here’s the kicker: only last month Labour were floating the idea of raising the Reserve Bank’s inflation target. Now we know why: They want higher inflation – so they can tax it!

Every extra dollar of inflation means a bigger “paper gain” on property, and a bigger tax bill for Hipkins to spend. It’s cynical, it’s manipulative, and it punishes every Kiwi who’s worked hard to save or invest for the long term.

If you think this tax won’t hit you – Chris Hipkins has a bridge to sell you! 

Almost every Kiwi who owns shares in a New Zealand corporate (including through KiwiSaver) owns property for a business and will therefore feel the pain.

And it’s not just the big end of town. The local garage, the fish-and-chip shop, or the family manufacturer sells up or moves to expand – Hipkins will take 28 percent of the gain, even if the only ‘gain’ is inflation.

You read that right, Chris Hipkins’s proposed new tax taxes inflationary gains as if they were profit!

But it’s even worse than that. 

• If you’ve got a home office or a workshop on your lifestyle block – Hipkins is coming for you with a 28% capital gains tax.
• If you head overseas or move into a rest home and it takes a while to sell your house – Hipkins is coming for you with a 28% capital gains tax.
• If your family owns a bach and changes who’s on the title – Hipkins is coming for you with a 28% capital gains tax — even if no money changes hands!

As you can see, this isn’t just a capital gains tax or a “Bach Tax”. It’s a Back-door Tax on every KiwiSaver.

An unprincipled tax grab designed to fool farmers into a false sense of security

Take farmers for example: Labour say ‘productive farmland’ is excluded from the new regime, but all other industrial and productive land is hit by the 28% tax! So the land underneath the sawmill, or under the engineering company is definitely taxed. So too might be the packhouse, the hothouse, and even the cowshed! Labour are being very sneaky in their failure to say where they draw the line.

Meanwhile, Labour and Chris Hipkins say this tax is about promoting investment! Yeah right…

Labour’s Capital Gains Tax makes New Zealand poorer

The Taxpayers’ Union has called this out for what it is: “A tax on inflation disguised as fairness.”

This policy punishes saving, freezes investment, and drives capital offshore. It’s politics dressed up as productivity.

Once this so-called “small, targeted tax” exists, history tells us it will grow — to the family home, inheritances, even a death duty. Today’s “Lite CGT” becomes tomorrow’s “Full Cream Capital Gains.”

Ensure the Taxpayers’ Union stops Labour — again

The team at the Taxpayers’ Union have stopped a Capital Gains Tax before and we can stop it again – but only if you back us.

Your support funds the hard-hitting research, the advertising, and the nationwide campaign to expose this Unfair Tax for what it is.

If we don’t act now, Labour will sneak this past before voters even realise what’s hit them.

Every dollar will go toward ensuring Kiwis know the truth: you can’t tax a country into prosperity.

We must step up and push back against Hipkins and his friends in the media promoting new taxes. If they hoodwink the public, even more young Kiwis will head offshore. 

That’s why I’m asking for your support.

Jordan Williams Executive Director New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

by Phil Beuning

David Attenborough turned 99 a little while ago. The man who’s spent a lifetime fear mongering that the world’s about to end… only for his own to be ending sooner. Ironic, really.

We all know the voice. Soothing, grave, and full of wonder. But behind the slow-motion lizards and tragic violins is a carefully crafted narrative. A steady drip of climate messaging framed as education but like most things on TV it’s soaked in agenda. And for years, Attenborough has been the BBC’s number one golden mouthpiece for environmental fear and behavioural control.

His nature programmes, like Planet Earth, admittedly have some stunning footage, but let’s not forget the fakery. Footage filmed in zoos passed off as wild. Scenes stitched together to create drama. Polar bears, apparently stranded, carefully staged to provoke emotion and manipulate people into thinking the planet is dying and needs to be ‘saved’ by unelected elites pushing global control.

Now compare that to David Bellamy. A real environmentalist. Straight-talking, principled, and impossible to buy. He was challenging the climate cult years ago, alone. He was refreshingly unscripted, without spin, and had no billionaire backers, unlike Attenborough. He just had the facts and the balls to say them, but because of that, they buried his career… And then they buried him.

Attenborough sold the apocalypse while Bellamy exposed the sales pitch… and one got sanctified, whilst the other got silenced. So forgive me if I don’t shed a tear when the curtain finally falls on Attenborough… Bellamy never got an encore. #Agenda2030#sustainability