The above image is from the testimonials page of VetCBD, a medicinal cannabis product formulated specifically by veterinarians for conditions that might cause suffering to pets. All of the animals in the above image have been (according to their owners, at least) successfully treated with VetCBD.
Namely, it will tell you that that CBD oil, an extract of one of the cannabinoids in the cannabis plant, is known to have considerable medicinal value.
No Kiwi doctor will tell you such a thing – if you ask them about CBD oil they will reflexively groan, zombie-like, “Cannabis causes braaaaaaain damage!”
The website also lists a number of conditions that their product is believed to reduce the suffering associated with, in particular pain, anxiety, nausea and loss of appetite – in other words, the same things that human medicinal cannabis users use cannabis for.
Another way of putting this is: people in California treat their dogs with more compassion than New Zealand politicians and doctors treat their patients.
Yet another way of looking at is that medicinal cannabis users in New Zealand have cause to be envious of animals in more enlightened parts of the world.
But whereas animals in over twenty American states can access CBD oil out of compassion for their misery, adult human New Zealanders cannot legally access it, as we have been commanded to go without this medicine for the sake of higher profits.
Next time you think you are living in a free country, Kiwis, just remember that there are places in the world where they don’t even allow animals to suffer to the degree that your own politicians and doctors will allow you to suffer if you have a condition that can be alleviated by medicinal cannabis.
Some forward-thinking people are starting to discuss the idea of a universal basic income. This is the idea that the Government would make a small but weekly payment to each adult resident citizen, just enough to keep them alive but not enough for any luxuries or even any decencies.
Predictably, the idea that the Government might help the poor in some new fashion has resulted in cries of communism from those who expect to inherit large amounts of property.
But there are reasons to believe that bringing in a universal basic income, even if it was as little as the current unemployment benefit, would significantly raise the standard of living of the average New Zealander.
For instance, a universal basic income would, at a stroke, remove all the cruel things that people do to each other out of desperate poverty.
One might object here that they would not remove all the cruel things that people do to each other out of greed – and that’s true in some cases – but consider this.
Every great dictator or tyrant who convinced a mass of people to go against their better nature, and to later regret that they had done so, convinced those people by offering them money.
They just looked for desperately poor people. Poverty is control. That’s the way it has to be understood for the psychological reactions of people to the question of a universal basic income to be understood.
Hitler could not have achieved what he did without the Great Depression and the economic restrictions imposed on Germany as a consequence of the Versailles Treaty.
People like to make a big deal about Hitler’s rhetoric and oratory skills, but the naked fact is that the NSDAP paid men to serve in the military, and they could pay a lot of men for not much money because those men were all as poor as shit.
This is why getting the rich to give up some of the money they have extorted out of the poor through their control of the Police and of private property is not a simple matter of appealing to the simple fact that it would reduce the sum total of human suffering.
One must also take into account the loss of power this entails.
Think of all the women in history who were forced to accept the sexual advances of a man they didn’t like because they needed the money.
Think of all the men in history who have wound up doing violence to strangers because they were forced to be obedient to someone violent for the sake of money.
Think of all the kings and queens who were able to raise an army to invade some other peaceful place because the peasants of their kingdom had no access to the commons on account of enclosure, and therefore were forced to take the monarch’s silver or starve.
Think of all the times a parent who, on account of stress from worry about where the next meal was coming from, took a short-sighted decision in the heat of the moment and came to regret it.
Go back as far in history as you like. How many robberies, how many burglaries, how many thefts, how many assaults and murders could have been prevented had we merely seen to it that people didn’t need to go hungry, and did so with a similar effort to what we already put into punishing and protecting ourselves from robbers, burglars, thieves and murderers?
We’re not talking about an equal distribution of luxuries, or even decencies. A person living merely on a universal basic income will be too poor to afford much beyond food and shelter – but at least they will not be so poor that they will take violent actions out of desperation.
One might raise an objection to this on the grounds that, if people were willing to look after each other enough to introduce a universal basic income, they would have done so already and would not need coercion through Government taxation.
This objection is only reasonable up to a certain historical point. When the productivity of the average citizen has advanced to such a degree that simply by pressing a button they can cause machines and computers to produce a million dollars worth of goods, there’s no reason barring a sadistic need for control to cut non-machine-owners out of this cornucopia.
Of course, much of this discussion is academic in the case of New Zealand, which is 20 years behind the rest of the world in progress on questions like this and getting worse. Medicinal cannabis was legalised in California in 1996 and we are yet to even have a proper discussion about it, so we will likely be several decades behind the rest of the world on the basic income question too.
Asians represent the fourth major wave of immigration to New Zealand, and, partially as a consequence, their voting patterns are the least well understood. What makes it especially difficult is that “Asian” covers a very large number of people, many of whom are very distinct from some of the others.
The most striking thing about Asian New Zealanders is their love of the ACT Party. The correlation between being Asian and voting ACT in 2014 was an extremely strong 0.85, which is enough to suggest that most ACT voters are Asians (note that it does not mean most Asians are ACT voters, because the population of Asians is many times higher than the number of ACT voters).
As is described elsewhere, the highly educated class tends to split into a right wing that votes ACT and a left wing that votes Green. If the correlation between voting ACT in 2014 and being Asian is so strong, one could predict that there were fewer educated Asians left to vote Green, and indeed the correlation between voting Green in 2014 and being Asian was 0.00.
Also because of the extremely strong ACT support, one could predict that there was little conservative sentiment left over for supporting the National Party. This is indeed the case – the correlation between being Asian and voting National in 2014 was 0.09. There was even less for the real Conservative Party, voting for which in 2014 had a correlation of -0.07 with being Asian.
The correlation between being Asian and voting Labour, by contrast, was 0.17. Some might be surprised by this, given that there are a large number of Asians attracted to the ACT Party. The explanation is that most of the ACT-voting Asians are from Far East Asia and the many from India, Thailand, Malaysia etc. are more likely to have social democratic sentiments.
Given that Maoris were the first wave of immigrants and Asians the most recent, it’s not really surprising that being Asian had a significant negative correlation with voting for any of the four Maori-heavy parties. Being Asian had a correlation of -0.23 with voting Internet MANA, one of -0.30 with voting Maori Party, one of -0.50 with voting Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party and one of -0.60 with voting New Zealand First.
This article is an excerpt from Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan, published by VJM Publishing in the winter of 2017.
On the face of it, it seems obvious that it should be illegal to mutilate a person without their consent in New Zealand. If the mutilation was done to a newborn baby without their consent, it seems even more obvious. But if the mutilation was part of a religious tradition intended to bind the child to a primitive male supremacist Middle Eastern cult, it’s fully legal.
We all know that the various cults of Abrahamism have the plebs of New Zealand wrapped around their little fingers, so much so that it’s only in recent decades that we have been able to stop them putting homosexuals in cages and from bashing their own kids, and we still haven’t been able to prevent them from doing the same to medicinal cannabis users.
Despite that, it’s obvious that the reasons people give for supporting male infant genital mutilation (or “circumcision” to use the religious terminology) are superstitious in nature, and that the decision to inflict the procedure upon an infant is not done with their best interests in mind.
The concept of cleanliness that a nomadic desert savage may have had 2,800 years ago is hardly the same as those of a modern nation with access to clean, fresh water and a ready supply of soap.
Getting mutilated for the sake of avoiding penile cancer, likewise, makes little sense when one considers the actual likelihood of that happening. It doesn’t make any more sense than chopping off your ears or lips for the sake of avoiding cancer, or gouging out an eyeball.
And the oft-touted idea that male infant genital mutilation could be a good thing because when the baby grows into a man he will “last longer” in bed is a bizarre and brutal enough sentiment that many women will shudder upon hearing it, especially those who feel that there’s more to lovemaking than just lying back and getting jackhammered.
The reality is that there are no benefits to the victim of male genital infant mutilation, as fits the otherwise widely-accepted general rule for cases of non-consensual physical mutilation of infants.
The major reason why this ritual continues, despite the denials, is religious. Jewish and Muslim groups were outraged when, in 2012, a court in Cologne deemed male infant genital mutilation to be equivalent to grievous bodily harm.
It has to be considered that the cult of Abrahamism still has a powerful grip on the minds of the weaker sort of New Zealander, which is why the last Labour Government ran out of political capital after it banned physical abuse as a behavioural correction mechanism on children.
Abrahamic puritanism still dominates our drug laws, which are now over twenty years behind where they are in places like California or the Netherlands that do not have societies riddled with religious fundamentalists.
Given that, it is impossible for Kiwis to expect that our politicians, whose cowardice is world-class, will do much about it.
If male infant genital mutilation is to be made illegal in New Zealand, it is best that it be done soon because of the degree of Stockholm Syndrome that the victims of this practice have with their mutilators.
It is well known that victims of male infant genital mutilation will passionately defend the practice as adults because the alternative is to face the shame of admitting that one has been mutilated with the consent of one’s parents. Few are capable of dealing with this magnitude of headfuck.
In fact, it’s arguable that the entire purpose of the procedure is to massively traumatise the boy in order to make him submissive and more obedient to the demands of his religious elders (after all, this is what it most effectively achieves, whether this is admitted or not).
If we are to go as far as making it illegal to genitally mutilate infant boys without their consent, we may also need to allocate some funding for the psychological rehabilitation of adults who were mutilated by their parents, because we can anticipate that this particular redpill might not be easy to swallow.
The limited overs leg of the 2017 South Africa tour of New Zealand was a close-fought contest that ended in South Africa’s favour. As the limited overs game is New Zealand’s strong suit, that means that the South Africans will take the ascendancy into the three-match Test series beginning tomorrow in Dunedin.
South Africa are ranked No. 3 in the world and the Black Caps No. 5. This might not be a large gap but the market is much more confident of a South Africa win. The Proteas are paying only $2.24 on BetFair to win the First Test, compared to the Black Caps paying $3.70 and the Draw $3.60.
Since then, the Black Caps have demolished both Pakistan and Bangladesh at home. Although South Africa will be tougher than either of those two Asian sides in New Zealand conditions, the Black Caps’ home advantage should make this series more interesting than the previous encounter in South Africa last August.
If one makes the assumption that Tom Latham’s poor recent ODI form will not carry over into the Test arena, then the Black Caps top order looks as solid as it ever has been.
They will have the highest ranked Test batsman on display for either side, in Kane Williamson at 4th. His returns in the past year have been good but mediocre by his high standards and he would like to play a defining innings against the South Africans.
Ross Taylor at 15th and Tom Latham at 26th, with Jeet Raval looking solid in his limited opportunities so far, make it a respectable, if far from intimidating, Black Caps top order.
They will not be favoured to dominate the South African bowling attack, though, even in the absence of Dale Steyn. The 21-year old Kagiso Rabada had barely had time to find his feet but has already risen to 5th in the Test bowling rankings, with two five-wicket hauls in only 14 Tests.
He will likely open the bowling with Vernon Philander, who averages 21.40 with the ball over 40 Tests. In terms of bowling average, at least, it will be easily the most formidable opening bowling pair the Black Caps have faced since their last series against South Africa.
They also have Morne Morkel, whose height and bounce pose a threat that New Zealand batsmen rarely face, and an almost total unknown in left-arm orthodox Keshav Maharaj.
The Black Caps have no real bowling spearheads but are capable of sustained pressure. Neil Wagner, Trent Boult and Tim Southee occupy positions 11 to 13 on the Test bowling rankings table.
These three bowlers have proven themselves capable of hunting as a pack, and the variety of Wagner’s left-arm bouncer barrage, Boult’s left-arm swing and Southee’s right-arm seam should make it difficult for the South African batsmen to settle. It will also be interesting to see if Mitchell Santner can usefully transfer his tight ODI bowling into the Test arena.
The South African Test batting unit might not be as terrifying as it is in ODIs but it still poses a threat. They do not have AB de Villiers for this series but both of Hashim Amla and Quentin de Kock are ranked in the top 10 and either could play a matchwinning knock.
The Black Caps bowlers will back their bowling plans against the other batsmen like Faf du Plessis, Stephen Cook, Dean Elgar, JP Duminy and Temba Bavuma. None of the batsmen in South Africa’s second tier pose a particular threat but all are very good players. Even if the Black Caps pick up a string of wickets somewhere they will always have to work hard to get the rest.
A heavyweight South Africa side without their best two players and playing in foreign conditions over three Tests against a middle-of-the-pack Black Caps side hungry to make the top tier promises to be highly competitive cricket. This column is guessing the most likely outcome to be a two-one win to South Africa or a one-all draw.
The Parliamentary Profiles contain information on all manner of religions. Even though India and China are much closer to the New Zealand than the Middle East is, the Middle Eastern religions have a much higher profile here than the Oriental ones.
The vast majority of Kiwi Buddhists are Asians, despite the number of Kiwis of European descent that the reader may have met claiming to be Buddhists. Being a Buddhist in New Zealand has an extremely strong correlation, of 0.87, with being born in North East Asia.
This third factor of being Asian explains why Buddhists love the ACT Party. Being Buddhist has a correlation of 0.85 with voting for ACT in 2014, although there is nothing obvious in Buddhist doctrine that would lead a person towards supporting the ACT Party.
Probably also because of the third factor of being Asian and an immigrant, there was a correlation of -0.66 between being Buddhist and voting for New Zealand First.
Of the other three major parties, Buddhists are indifferent. None of the correlations between being Buddhist and voting National in 2014 (0.15), voting Labour in 2014 (0.08) and voting Green in 2014 (0.12) were significant. This might suggest that Buddhist immigrants to New Zealand have generally peacefully integrated.
There were significant negative correlations between being Buddhist and voting for the other three Maori-heavy parties. With voting Internet MANA in 2014 it was -0.26, with voting Maori Party in 2014 it was -0.33 and with voting Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party it was -0.52.
Perhaps most fittingly, Buddhists were perfectly indifferent to the idea of voting in general – the correlation between being Buddhist and turnout rate in 2014 was 0.00.
Hindus followed the general pattern of demographic groups that have a high proportion of immigrants voting ACT out of a lack of solidarity with other Kiwis – the correlation between being Hindu and voting ACT was 0.50.
This absence of solidarity is not something that we can say is a general rule for all Hindus – the correlation between being Hindu and voting Labour in 2014 was 0.47. This might reflect that many Hindus are from Fiji and therefore will be attracted to Labour in the same way that other Pacific Islanders are.
Probably reflecting that many of them are immigrants, there were significant negative correlations between being Hindu and voting for three of the four Maori-heavy parties in 2014.
With voting for New Zealand First it was -0.40, with voting Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party it was -0.40, and with voting for the Maori Party it was -0.24. Only for voting Internet MANA in 2014 was the correlation with being Hindu not significant – and it was still -0.19.
If the Hindu left likes Labour and the Hindu right likes ACT, we can predict two things: a negative correlation with being Hindu and voting both Green and National in 2014. Indeed, the correlation for the former is -0.09 and for the latter it is -0.13.
Perhaps reflecting a minor degree of disenfranchisement, there is a negative but not significant correlation between turnout rate in 2014 and being Hindu: this was -0.17.
Muslims were very similar to Hindus on most counts, probably reflecting the third factor of a shared South Asian origin. The correlation between being Muslim and voting for a particular political party was identical to the Hindu one in the case of both voting ACT (0.50) and voting Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party (-0.40). In the case of the others it was very similar.
It was more positive in the case of Labour (0.51), Green (-0.05), Maori Party (-0.23) and Internet MANA (-0.16). It was more negative in the case of National (-0.17), Conservative (-0.16) and New Zealand First (-0.46).
Taken together, this group of correlations suggest that Muslims are generally in the same voting bloc as Hindus, but they have slightly more leftist sympathies. The correlation between turnout rate in 2014 and being Muslim (-0.21) is also slightly more strongly negative than the correlation with being Hindu. This may reflect that Pakistan is a considerably less wealthy nation than India.
The voting patterns of Jews reflected two things: that they are generally in high socioeconomic categories and that they have very, very little nationalist sentiment towards New Zealand. These factors are reflected in the correlations between being Jewish and voting Green, ACT or New Zealand First.
Like other highly-educated demographics, Jews appear to eschew the everyday Labour-National paradigm. The correlation between voting Green in 2014 and being Jewish was 0.43, and the correlation between voting ACT in 2014 and being Jewish was 0.42. These two correlations reflect that there is also a moderate positive correlation between being Jewish and being born overseas.
Being Jewish was negatively correlated with voting for any of the parties that traditionally appeal to less educated people. The correlation with being Jewish and voting Labour in 2014 was -0.25, and with voting Conservative in 2014 it was -0.15.
If globalist sentiments are so widespread among Jews, then it comes as little surprise that being Jewish is negatively correlated with the four Maori-heavy parties, and especially so for New Zealand First, voting for which in 2014 had a correlation of -0.57 with being Jewish. For voting Internet MANA it was -0.15, for voting Maori Party it was -0.18 and for voting Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party it was -0.31.
Reflecting a low degree of disenfranchisement, mostly on account of that many Jews are highly educated and work as professionals, there was a correlation of 0.30 between being Jewish and turnout rate in 2014.
This article is an excerpt from Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan, published by VJM Publishing in the winter of 2017.
The symbol of Lucifer is of an angel who descends from some higher place to bring enlightenment to the beings in the darkness below. In some forms, like in his incarnation as Prometheus, this is done out of a love for humanity. In others, like his incarnation as Satan, this is entirely accidental. This essay will argue that – despite what appears to be commonly believed – there always will be a need for Luciferianism this century.
Asking what value Luciferianism has to the modern world can be answered by looking at the people who fear it. One can soon notice that they are the same kind of people who have always feared it.
They are the benighted, those who quiver in fear at the light because they know that it illuminates something within themselves that they are ashamed of, something that would make them appear undignified to those who look on and judge.
These people have a reason to oppose Lucifer because their power comes from the gossamer shadows of lies that they cast on the rest of humanity. Lies about God, about human nature, about the world, about the future. Politicians and priests.
Anyone who, like Lucifer, brings light to people is the enemy of anyone who controls those people with lies.
If one goes back far enough, it is possible to imagine a situation where there were a number of primitive ape-men watching a burning tree that had been struck by lightning or similar. The natural reaction of all animals, like it was for us, is to be afraid of fire, and so they would have kept back from it.
But one of those ape-men would have carried within him the spirit of Lucifer, and he would have gone forward (striding or creeping, it doesn’t matter) and approached the fire without fear, eventually learning to tame it. Such an ape-man (it could just as well have been an ape-woman) would have been responsible for the development of firecraft and therefore, eventually, of civilisation.
So it can be said that, were it not for Lucifer or one like him, we would all be eating raw meat still, cowering in the shadows.
So much for the past. Because the age we live in now is extremely materialistic, even a metaphor such as Lucifer will often be dismissed as a religious delusion. The very idea that Lucifer represents a courageous rejection of stagnant dogma is often itself considered part of the cultural baggage of religion.
The mastery of fire was so long ago that it’s almost irrelevant, says the materialist. Now, we have mastered almost all of reality: we have sent a man to the Moon, we have built atomic bombs and power plants, we have built computers powerful enough to simulate weather.
The truth is that our modern material advances are the yang to the yin of spiritual enfeeblement. As Tyler Durden told us in Fight Club: “Our great war is a spiritual war.”
Even if all of the problems in the world had been solved and we were living in utopia, there would still be a need for Lucifer to come in and to break up the lazy, complacent lies that we would be telling each other, lies that would risk us falling back into an animal state.
After all, we know that nothing lasts, that yang falls into yin before yang reasserts itself.
Lucifer represents the spirit of anyone who asks questions to authority. For example, who will question the cozy idea that our current time and place is the most morally and philosophically advanced of all times and of all places, and that our current crop of leaders have everything under control, and in doing so protect us from the stagnation that creeps in to every successful society? Only Lucifer.
Therefore, Luciferianism has the potential to protect us from the arrogance or hubris that inevitably destroys a culture once it has started to believe its own bullshit.
Lucifer will always live on in the spirit of anyone willing to give the middle finger to an authority figure spouting lies or fearmongering. It doesn’t matter if there lies come from the left or the right, or from anywhere else.
Go back far enough and there would have been a cowardly faux shaman telling someone else not to go too close to the fire under any circumstances, for it simply could not be mastered – and there would have been one who chose not to believe him.
Whenever lies and untruths start to act as chains weighing down the soul of a people – family, tribe, nation, race, species doesn’t matter – there will be a need for people to summon the spirit of Lucifer to burn them away.
Ever since Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the Republican Party Presidential nomination, comparisons between him and Adolf Hitler have been spewing out of the mouths of talking heads in the mainstream media. But as even the superficial analysis presented in this essay will make clear, Trump and Hitler are two very, very different men.
Of course, it isn’t easy to get to the truth about either of them – Adolf Hitler is the single most lied about individual in all of history, and Donald Trump is the most lied about individual of our time.
But even so, even if we limit our analysis only to those facts that are accepted by basically everyone, both pro and anti-Hitler and pro and anti-Trump, we can see that they have little in common.
Let’s start at the beginning. At age 25, Hitler had just moved to Germany and was about to enlist in the German Army to fight in World War One, in which he was wounded and received an Iron Cross for bravery.
At age 25, Trump had just inherited control of his family real estate and construction firm. Before then he had obtained four student deferments to avoid being drafted to fight in the Vietnam war.
At age 30, Hitler had just joined the German Workers’ Party, which was the forerunner to the NSDAP. He was elected leader of the party two years later at the age of 32.
At age 31, Trump married the first of his three wives, a Czech model named Ivana.
When Trump was 35 years old, his older brother Fred died of alcoholism, an event which caused Donald to swear off all drugs, but in particular alcohol and cigarettes.
When Hitler was 34 years old, he led an attempt to overthrow the Weimar Republic Government with armed force, an event remembered as the Beer Hall Putsch.
The coup attempt failed with the deaths of 16 Hitler supporters and four German Police officers, and Hitler was arrested and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
Already it is clear that the lives of these two men are on very different paths. Trump appears – from any perspective – to fit the mold of every other playboy prince or President who was born into immense wealth and privilege and decided to parlay it into a shot at power – like George W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, et al.
Hitler spent the eventual nine months of his imprisonment writing his manifesto – Mein Kampf (My Struggle) – which formed the philosophical foundations of his efforts to apply his energies to the world.
By age 45, the political movement that Hitler had built had won a democratic election and put him in power as the Chancellor of Germany, and he had already begun to pass measures that would limit the capacity of the German people to take back the power they had granted him.
Trump, for his part, was busy divorcing his first wife and shacking up with his second, the actress with which he was having an affair.
By age 50, of course, things were radically different: Hitler had given orders for the German Army to invade Poland, an event which would trigger British and French reprisals and ignite the European Theatre of World War Two.
At age 50 Trump was also locked in battle – but in the courtroom against rival Atlantic City casino owners. It was already clear that Hitler would not have brooked such resistance at age 50. His domestic opponents had long since been liquidated.
At age 55, Hitler was on the brink of death, only kept going by frequent doses of methamphetamine. This makes him quite the contrast on the drug enhancement front with Trump, who has apparently never smoked cannabis or even tobacco.
And at an age when Adolf Hitler was long since dead at his own hand, his attempt to rid the world of Jewry having led to his own destruction, Trump was happy to see his daughter not only marry a Jew but convert to their religion, prompting him to state “I have a Jewish daughter, and I am very honored by that.”
Somehow it’s hard to imagine Hitler saying such a thing.
By this age, of course, Trump had not even come close to political power. And as we cannot read the future, the comparisons must end there.
It’s apparent even from this short look at things that the two men are nothing alike. Hitler was an extremely intense and original thinker with the willpower of a demon, and who was willing to remake the entire world in his image. Trump is a wealthy playboy who just coasted along on his family wealth, like many before him.
In fact, it’s well possible that Hitler would have despised Trump for his willingness to schmooze up to corruption for money. Such an analysis must wait for another time.
There seems to be a paradigm shift going on in the world of international cricket at the moment. The rise of T20 cricket and international T20 leagues has revolutionised viewing patterns and brought tens of millions of new fans to the game.
This essay suggests a change that, although it should be welcome, is a bit more humble: making a ODI tri-nations involving Australia, South Africa and New Zealand into a regular fixture.
It hasn’t been feasible to suggest such a thing previously because the Black Caps have not previously been up to the extremely high standards set by South Africa and Australia (apart from South Africa’s generally poor showing in Cricket World Cups).
But now it seems like the Black Caps can hold their own against both of those other sides in ODIs, and will be able to for the forseeable future, making a tri-nations a legitimate contest.
There are many strong parallels between this idea and the already proven successful concept of doing exactly the same thing in rugby.
For one, there are very close cultural links between the three countries. All three are children of the British Empire, all play cricket, rugby, hockey, all speak English etc. For decades there has been considerable immigration between the three countries.
That was the logic that led to the advent of the Tri Nations rugby tournament. This proved to be a roaring success, as there was a consistent demand to see a regular, high-quality, competitive tournament.
The Chappell-Hadlee ODI series cup played between Australia and New Zealand has also been a success, with the name of the tournament becoming a byword for close and exciting games. This would naturally fall under the ambit of this tri-nations in the same way the Bledisloe Cup fell under the ambit of the rugby Tri Nations.
The current South Africa-Black Caps ODI series has become a seesaw grudge match because of the excellence of both sides and because of feelings of unfinished business around South Africa’s loss in the CWC semifinal at Eden Park in 2015.
And cricket fans around the world know that Australia versus South Africa is the matchup most likely to pose the greatest test of skill now and in the near future at least.
So all three ingredients in this mix are high-grade.
There is already a precedent for this kind of thing – the Australians regularly play ODI tri-series with two visiting teams (or even Australia A), and there has even been one iteration when the visiting teams were South Africa and New Zealand – and it was by all accounts an excellent series (but not for Steve Waugh, who was replaced by Ricky Ponting as ODI captain in the wake of Australia’s defeat).
If Australia were to host it permanently or semi-permanently on the grounds that they would get by far the best crowds, they could arrange to play either New Zealand or South Africa in a Test series either before or after the tri-nations, smoothing the logistic arrangements.
With international cricket undergoing many changes at the moment, it’s possible that a regular fixture like this might gain in popularity as it develops a history and established rivalry.