Real creeper plants would take a while to cover it, however.

By John Robertson

An argument for historical proportion, global context, and intellectual honesty.

By 2025, New Zealand’s public discourse hardened into something resembling a ritual: colonisation is invoked, rehearsed, and recycled with near-religious regularity, as if repeating the word itself constitutes historical insight. What began decades ago as a necessary reckoning has metastasized into a narrow, obsessive framework that treats colonisation not as a universal human process, but as a uniquely modern moral crime—conveniently stripped of global context, scale, and historical precedent. This is not serious history. It is ideological repetition dressed up as moral sophistication.

Here is the inconvenient, immovable fact that refuses to go away: every society on Earth has been colonised, conquered, absorbed, displaced, or overwritten. Europe was carved up repeatedly—Roman expansion erased entire cultures; later invasions by Goths, Huns, Vikings, and Ottomans dismantled and rebuilt the continent by force. Asia’s borders were forged through dynastic conquest, mass migrations, and brutal imperial expansion; Mongol campaigns alone killed millions and reordered half the known world. Africa’s pre-colonial kingdoms expanded violently at one another’s expense, absorbing land, people, and resources long before European arrival. The Americas were dominated by empires that conquered and subjugated neighboring peoples centuries before Europeans entered the picture. New Zealand is no exception: Māori settlement involved displacement, warfare, and territorial consolidation well before British administration layered another system of power on top. None of this is controversial—it is basic historical literacy.

Yet modern New Zealand politics, media, and institutional culture behave as though history conveniently begins in the 1800s and ends with perpetual grievance. Parliamentary debates return to colonisation like a stuck record. Public broadcasters frame contemporary issues through the same moral lens, regardless of relevance. Local councils, policy documents, and educational materials repeat the same narrow narrative until it calcifies into orthodoxy. The result is a historical monoculture—one story endlessly retold, while the rest of human history is quietly ignored because it complicates the moral theatre. This isn’t education; it’s narrative enforcement.

The deeper problem is not that colonisation is discussed, but that it is discussed selectively, emotionally, and without proportion. Colonisation is treated as a singular stain rather than a structural force that shaped every civilization on Earth. This selective fixation produces a warped worldview in which history is flattened into villains and victims, present politics are moralised beyond recognition, and complexity is treated as betrayal. It also breeds exhaustion—because societies cannot function indefinitely on recycled outrage and truncated history.

Acknowledging colonisation as universal does not excuse injustice; it destroys the fantasy that history can be morally simplified. Civilisations are built on conquest, collapse, adaptation, and inheritance. Borders are scars. Nations are palimpsests. Every society lives atop layers of prior displacement, whether it admits it or not. New Zealand does itself no favors by pretending otherwise. A mature country confronts the full, brutal sweep of history—not just the chapters that flatter its current political mood. Until that happens, the conversation will remain loud, repetitive, and fundamentally dishonest.

The Trump administration makes clear it has had enough generally of European countries on a death wish.

by Rachel Blevins

Trump, Zelensky talks All Theatre as Kiev launches 91 Kamikaze Drones at Putin’s residence | Chay Bowes interview

Russia is vowing that it will respond, and its response will NOT be diplomatic, after Kiev targeted Putin’s state residence in the Novgorod Region with 91 long-range kamikaze drones. The attempted attack came hours after Trump and Zelensky met for in-person talks in Miami.

Irish Journalist Chay Bowes noted that while Trump claimed to be 95% of the way to a deal to end the war in Ukraine, the remaining 5% is filled with provisions Russia won’t accept.

Not only is Russia not slowing down on the battlefield, but the pressure is on for Moscow to achieve all of its goals because: “Once bitten, twice shy, and NO deal is better than a BAD deal, when it comes to Ukraine.”

Follow Chay Bowes on X, and check out his channel on YouTube

SOURCE LINKS:

29 Dec. 2025 – Ukraine launched 91 kamikaze drones at Putin’s state residence – Lavrov

29 Dec. 2025 – Trump ‘shocked’ by Ukrainian attack on Putin’s residence – Kremlin

28 Dec. 2025 – Trump says Ukraine and Russia are ‘closer than ever’ to peace after talks with Zelensky

29 Dec. 2025 – Zelensky: 15-year US security guarantee part of peace proposal

29 Dec. 2025 – Kremlin says Ukraine should withdraw troops from Donbas, and a Putin-Trump call expected soon

29 Dec. 2025 – Response to Kiev’s attack on Putin’s residence will not be diplomatic – Moscow

by Andrew Korybko

The Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and intel agents that infiltrated their societies under the cover of refugees might carry out acts of terrorism against them, which could be averted by closer cooperation between their security services, but they still remain divided by Ukraine to its geopolitical benefit.

Poland and the other EU countries like Hungary that host Ukrainian refugees are poised to face more trouble from them after the conflict ends. As of February 2025, official police data showed that Ukrainians committed more crimes in Poland than any other foreigners. Some have also been accused of carrying out national security ones on behalf of Russia, which Russia denied while its media has instead suggested that they’re either anti-Polish ultra-nationalists (fascists) or Ukrainian intel agents.

Whatever the truth may be, former President Andrzej Duda warned in an interview with the Financial Times in early 2025 that “Ukraine’s Traumatized Troops Could Pose A Security Threat To All Of Europe”. Last fall, “The Ukrainian Ambassador To Poland Admitted That His Co-Ethnics Don’t Want To Assimilate” just before one of his country’s prominent online outlets predicted that “An Ethnic Ukrainian Lobby Might Soon Take Shape In The Polish Sejm”, which could altogether pose serious threats to Poland.

Instead of trying to thwart them, Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski encouraged Ukrainians to “knock out” the Druzhba pipeline supplying Hungary and Slovakia with Russian oil, thus earning him the nickname “Osama Bin Sikorski” from Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. As explained in the preceding hyperlinked analysis, this could backfire on Poland by inciting terrorism against it by those ultra-nationalists who lay claim to its southeastern parts where many Orthodox East Slavs used to live.

Circling back to his post, some of the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and/or intel agents that infiltrated the EU under the cover of refugees could attack Druzhba infrastructure in Hungary, knowing that they could then receive sanctuary in Poland just like the Nord Stream suspect that it refused to extradite to Germany. Although Poland and Hungary have a millennium of shared history and almost 700 years of friendship, Poland’s ruling duopoly nowadays despises Hungary for its pragmatic policy towards Russia.

Taking a cue from Sikorski, they might therefore turn a blind eye towards these “refugees” planning such an attack from their territory and/or plotting Color Revolution unrest in Hungary ahead of spring’s next parliamentary elections. About that scenario, Sikorski’s Hungarian counterpart Peter Szijjarto warned in mid-August that the EU could lead this effort, which came a day after Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service warned about the role that Ukrainians could play in advancing regime change there.

The EU, Ukraine, and Poland all want Viktor Orban out, the goal of which could be furthered by “refugees” (ultra-nationalists and/or intel agents) sabotaging the Druzhba pipeline within Hungary ahead of the next elections and then the economic consequences sparking large-scale preplanned protests. To be clear, none of this might materialize, but the point is that such a scenario is nonetheless credible for the reasons that were explained. Hungarian counter-intelligence would naturally do well to remain alert.

Closer coordination between the Polish and Hungarian security services for thwarting these threats from Ukrainian “refugees” is unlikely due to liberal-globalist Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s and new conservative President Karol Nawrocki’s shared hatred of his pragmatic policy towards Russia. A rapprochement between them through the Visegrad Group is therefore unrealistic, thus leaving their countries vulnerable to these hybrid threats and keeping them divided to Ukraine’s geopolitical benefit.

As bad as they are, it’s unlikely NZTA would do this in NZ… but nutty ideas seem to appeal to public bureaucrats.

by Matua Kahurangi

New Zealand’s next general election is shaping up to be unlike any that has come before. While political parties continue to focus on policy announcements and campaign strategy, a quieter but potentially far more disruptive force is emerging in the background: highly realistic AI-generated video

Advances in artificial intelligence over the past year have produced video models capable of generating footage that, to many viewers, is almost indistinguishable from real life. What was once the domain of obvious deepfakes and clumsy animations has rapidly evolved into something far more convincing. The implications for political discourse, satire, and public trust are significant. The issue intersects directly with a debate already underway in Parliament.

In 2024, Green Party MP Kahurangi Carter had her Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill pulled from the ballot. At the time, she argued that “Satire is more than a joke — it’s also a way of making sense of a world that can sometimes feel dark and heavy.” She also said, “This Bill is designed to provide space for creators, artists, commentators, and everyday Kiwis to poke a little fun without breaking the law – or the bank.”

While the bill did not proceed, the ideas behind it remain relevant, particularly as technology races ahead of the legal frameworks designed to regulate speech and media.

Testing the boundaries

Over recent weeks, I have been researching and testing a range of AI video models. These tools are not cheap. Accessing high-end models requires paid subscriptions, usage credits, and ongoing experimentation. This work has largely been undertaken during annual leave, and it has been made possible in part by support from my paying subscribers — so thank you.

The results have been striking.

The realism of some AI-generated footage is such that even attentive viewers can struggle to determine whether a video depicts a real event or a synthetic one. Facial expressions, lighting, movement, and audio cues are increasingly natural. In a fast-moving social media environment, context is easily lost, and viewers are often left to make snap judgments based on what appears on their screen.

This raises an obvious question. If satire is legally protected as commentary and critique, what happens when satirical content looks real enough to be taken at face value?

Under existing interpretations, a piece of AI-generated political satire may not make explicit claims or accusations. It may simply present a scenario, a moment, or a point of view. Yet once that content is shared beyond its original audience, it can take on a life of its own. Viewers may not know it is satire. Others may not care.

Technology of this kind is politically neutral. It can be used to criticise the government, the opposition, or anyone in public life. Once these tools are widely accessible, control over their use becomes diffuse and unpredictable

A political and legal firestorm is building after former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly moved to pursue what could become one of the largest fraud cases in modern history—an alleged $1.3 billion indictment tied to Covid-era health initiatives involving Bill Gates. The claims, still unfolding, have ignited fierce debate across political, legal, and public health circles, raising serious questions about accountability, trust, and power during one of the most chaotic periods in recent history.

At the center of the controversy is the allegation that Gates, through organizations linked to his global health efforts, knowingly supported or profited from a COVID-related treatment that internal critics allegedly believed would not work as promised. Bondi’s move, according to sources familiar with the matter, is framed as a response to what she describes as deliberate deception during a time when governments and citizens alike were desperate for solutions.

The accusation does not claim that Gates personally developed a “cure,” but rather that his influence, funding power, and public messaging played a critical role in pushing certain interventions forward despite warnings and unanswered questions. Supporters of the investigation argue that when billions of dollars and millions of lives are involved, even the most powerful figures must face scrutiny.

Bondi, known for her aggressive legal style and high-profile cases, has not been subtle in her rhetoric. In recent appearances, she has suggested that the pandemic created a “perfect storm” where fear, urgency, and political pressure may have overridden normal safeguards. “If decisions were made knowing the truth was being concealed,” she reportedly stated, “then the public deserves answers—no matter how influential the individual involved may be.”

Critics of Gates have long accused him of wielding outsized influence over global health policy through philanthropy rather than democratic accountability. During the pandemic, his foundation became one of the most visible private players, funding research, advising governments, and shaping public narratives about vaccines and treatments. To supporters, this was leadership during a crisis. To detractors, it was unchecked power.

Gates and representatives of his foundation have consistently rejected claims of wrongdoing. In past responses to similar accusations, Gates has emphasized that all funding decisions were guided by scientific consensus available at the time and that adapting to new data is a normal part of public health response. No formal criminal charges have been filed as of now, and Gates has not been found liable for fraud in any court related to COVID measures.

Legal experts caution that seeking a $1.3 billion fraud indictment is an extraordinary step that would require substantial evidence. Fraud cases hinge not only on outcomes but on intent—proving that decision-makers knowingly misled others for financial or personal gain. That bar is high, especially in a fast-moving global emergency where information changed week by week.

Still, the mere possibility of such a case has reignited public anger over how the pandemic was handled. Many families continue to grapple with economic loss, health complications, and lingering distrust toward institutions that promised certainty in uncertain times. For them, the investigation represents a chance for transparency—perhaps even closure.

Social media reaction has been swift and deeply divided. Some hail Bondi as a whistleblower finally willing to challenge elite figures who they believe were never held accountable. Others warn that politicizing pandemic decisions could discourage future innovation and cooperation during crises. The debate has become less about one individual and more about whether global health leadership should ever rest in private hands.

If the case moves forward, it could have sweeping implications. It may reshape how philanthropic organizations operate, how governments partner with private foundations, and how emergency health decisions are communicated to the public. Even without charges, the scrutiny alone signals a shift: the era of unquestioned authority in global health may be ending.

For now, the world watches and waits. What happens next will depend on evidence, legal standards, and whether these explosive claims can withstand the intense scrutiny they are sure to face. Regardless of the outcome, the controversy has already reopened wounds from a period many would rather forget—and forced a renewed conversation about trust, truth, and accountability when it matters most.