Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc
VernonColeman.com

The basic principle of collectivism is that everything that is mine is mine and everything that was yours is also mine.

The unprincipled proponents of collectivism have successfully created a new, modern form of slavery whereby the mass of people are used, controlled and oppressed in a way which is no different to slavery. Collectivism is so closely related to communism and statism that there is no discernible difference. Collectivism is thoroughly elitist and oppressive and supported by commercial organisations and lobby groups such as the intellectually and emotionally barren World Economic Forum, whose members seem to regard themselves as being superior to the `masses’ and entitled to rule, and secretive conspiracy groups such as the Bilderbergers.

The basic principle of collectivism is that we should all work together as a team (this is why there are so many organisations and television programmes which promote the principles of team work).

Karl Marx believed that collectivism would provide citizens with freedom from oppression but he was completely wrong for collectivism has been adapted to give total power to the elite.

Ayn Rand realised that by using compliance and blind obedience as weapons the elite would take complete control over people’s lives. And that is exactly what has happened. The basic principle is that the individual must be sacrificed to the needs of the greatest number; the rights of the individual must be suppressed in order to protect and promote the rights of `the people’ and the State.

Constantin von Hoffmeister ('Articles')
Constantin von Hoffmeister ('Spiritual')
Eurosiberia (von Hoffmeister on Substack)

A splice of empire and Pacific power

The dog moves its body through the tail, the tail vibrates through the dog—an ancient metaphysical exchange of dominance, the primal grammar of power that every empire tattoos into its nerves. Trump’s voice slithered across the Pacific circuitry, an electric whisper to Takaichi Sanae, the new priestess-premier of Japan’s nationalist dreamworld. In this phone-call-as-ritual, he reminded her of the old Eurasian law: no tail declares war on the dragon unless the dog signals the hunt.

Before that, the American president had drifted, dripped, dissolved into conversation with Xi Jinping, whose words arrive like coded telegrams from a dynastic machine older than all Western ideologies. Beijing’s message, crystalline and metallic, thundered: Taiwan is sacred territory, an internal biome, a space where foreign militaristic hiccups from Tokyo shimmer like errors in a dying program. Takaichi, fierce in her revivalist vision, had proclaimed that Japan would leap into the Taiwan theater at the slightest flash of violence. Beijing heard this as a Conservative-Revolutionary ghost—the kind that speaks of lost empires and resurrected armadas. And Beijing answered in kind: fire in the tone, a dragon coiling around the old law of sovereignty.

International law, that fragile architecture inherited from shattered centuries, speaks the same: Taiwan is a matter of the inner kingdom, the core, the primal cell. No foreigner should touch it. The threat alone vibrates in Beijing’s sensors as an unwanted rupture.

Alexey Muratov
PolitNavigator

It all began with England, which only united with other kingdoms to form Great Britain in 1707. But England's own state power had always been weak. The state emerged in close symbiosis with what we consider deep power. And this power was stronger than the state. In addition, England was regularly flooded with waves of immigrants from the continent, who constantly changed the rules of the game. The Venetians, who often disrupted the order established in England, shaped the English crown to suit their own needs.

The English nobility's system of earning money since ancient times consisted of robbing the local population, much as described in the novel about Robin Hood. Therefore, it is quite obvious that when the nobility went to sea, robbery took on an international character. And a system of robbery will never cease to be robbery if that is how it originated. It is like Cain's mark on all Anglo-Saxons. Such is their historical tradition.

They are merchants and robbers who continue to engage in one form of robbery in Ukraine.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Zelensky might be next after Yermak was just taken down unless he complies with Trump’s demands for peace, in which case it’s not unforeseeable that he too could be formally implicated in this scandal as the catalyst for a US-backed regime change carried out in collusion with his domestic allies.

Zelensky’s warmongering grey cardinal Andrey Yermak, who formally serves as his Chief of Staff, submitted his resignation after his apartment was raided as part of the investigation into Ukraine’s $100 million energy graft scandal. Russian Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik believes that he was fired, however, to protect Zelensky as the walls close in on him amidst this investigation. Whatever the truth may be, Miroshnik might be onto something, which will be elaborated on throughout this analysis.

It was earlier assessed that “Ukraine’s Corruption Scandal Might Pave The Way For Peace If It Takes Yermak Down” since “his downfall could undo the already shaky alliance between the armed forces, the oligarchs, the secret police, and parliament that keeps Zelensky in power.” Zelensky held off on getting rid of him for that reason, which emboldened Yermak to declare on his behalf that Ukraine won’t cede any territory to Russia, thus spoiling one of the main proposals in the US’ draft peace framework.

Shortly thereafter, Yermak’s apartment was raided with the participation of the two US-funded entities leading this graft investigation, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Had Zelensky accepted the principles contained in the aforesaid framework, particularly the 26th one about how “all parties involved in this conflict will receive amnesty for their actions during the war”, Yermak might have been able to ride off into the sunset.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The British might be egging this on to provoke a crisis for ruining the renascent Russian-US “New Détente”, but even if this fails, Continental Europe would still be weakened if the US stands down when Russian retaliates and this could advance their interests too.

It was assessed in October that “NATO’s Three-Pronged Response To The Latest Russian Scare Raises The Risk Of A Larger War”. The bloc was by that point considering arming surveillance drones, streamlining the rules of engagement for fighter pilots, and holding NATO exercises right on the Russian border. All three are still in the cards, but recent reports from Politico and the Financial Times suggest that a hitherto unthinkable policy is now being discussed, which could be much more dangerous than them.

The first reported that “Allies from Denmark to the Czech Republic already allow offensive cyber operations” against Russia by their national security services, which set the backdrop against which Latvia’s Foreign Minister and interestingly Italy’s Defense Minister are agitating for more “proactiveness”. The second then quoted Chair of the NATO Military Committee Giuseppe Cavo Dragone as arguing that hypothetical “pre-emptive (cyber) strike[s]” could be considered a “defensive action” by the bloc.

Dragone clarified, however, that “It is further away from our normal way of thinking and behaviour.” Nevertheless, the importance of these recent reports is that they suggest that some NATO members might either unilaterally launch such “pre-emptive strikes” against Russia or do so in a new ‘coalition of the willing’, either of which would spike the risk of Russian retaliation that could catalyze a new potentially uncontrollable escalation cycle. It’s therefore best for them not to do this at all.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Indians are among the most Russian-friendly people in the world as proven by credible surveys, and unlike Central Asian Muslims, they harbor no historical grievances (whether objectively existing or subjectively perceived) that could be manipulated by foreign forces to weaponize them against Russia.

Putin will visit India late next week to meet with Modi for their annual summit, the first time that the Russian leader will travel to India since the special operation began, his last one being in December 2021. Aleksei Zakharov, a Fellow at India’s esteemed Observer Research Foundation, published a detailed article about how “Key Policy Outcomes Expected at the India-Russia Summit”. It’s an excellent read, but it omits mention of their large-scale labor migration talks, which might lead to a deal next week.

Air Marshal Anil Chopra (Retired), the former Director-General of the Center for Air Power Studies in New Delhi, published an intriguing piece about this at RT in early November. He noted how both countries representatives “discussed potential collaboration on social and labor issues”, contextualizing their conversation by adding that Russia “plans to recruit up to 1 million foreign workers – including from India. The Russian Labor Ministry estimates the shortfall could expand to 3.1 million workers by 2030.”

He makes a lot of compelling arguments about how India could help resolve this dimension of “Russia’s demography problem”, but what’s left out is how its labor migrants pose less of a security risk than Russia’s traditional ones from Central Asia. Conor Gallagher touched upon this in early November in his extensively detailed analysis about the US’ evolving strategy towards that region. From this point here near the end for the next several paragraphs, he describes Russia’s new approach towards migration.

Not only is Russia “getting rid of 700,000-plus migrants, mostly Central Asians, a process which was jumpstarted by the terrorist attack on Crocus City Hall in outer Moscow in March 2024”, but “the Concept of State Migration Policy for 2026-2030…focuses not on increasing the population through Central Asian citizens, but on strengthening control, digitalization, and the task of attracting only those migrants who share the ‘traditional spiritual and moral values’ of Russian society.”