Russian cannon fodder

Bettina Arndt

Never before has the world been so gripped with saving lives. We’ve survived Covid lockdowns imposed by governments claiming they’d keep us safe. Teams of burly footballers dropped to their knees because of Black Lives Matter. The presumption of innocence wilts under the strain of laws designed to keep women safe…

After all that posturing, it seems odd that we just watch as hundreds of thousands of young Russian men are rounded up for cannon fodder. Somehow concern about keeping them safe simply isn’t on the public agenda.

Their lives don’t matter. They are just ordinary men, members of a most despised minority group that finds itself at the very bottom of the intersectionality totem pole. To many they are the enemy – the bad guys – even though most of these young Russians haven’t a clue about where and why their lives are to be sacrificed. Their fate is simply to provide entertainment in the gripping war game capturing our media.

The Washington Post wrote recently about the ‘jack-in-the-box’ flaw in Russian tanks, referring to the way shells are stored in a ring beneath the turret. Ukrainian forces are now using drones to detonate above the turret triggering the ammo storage below, with the result that ‘the explosion instantaneously vaporises the crew’. The turret is blown sky high – that’s the jack-in-the-box. Vaporised men and bits of tank.

The article ends with a quote from Robert E Hamilton, a professor at the US Army War College, saying that the US military is aware that if one of their tanks is destroyed and the crew survives, they can always replace the tank: ‘You can make another tank more quickly than you can train another crew.’

He says Russia has no such concerns about a properly-trained crew, ‘The people are as expendable as the machine.’

People? Well, he’s really talking about men. Men and boys. Many of the 300,000 new conscripts are teenagers – boys who are given no choice. ‘You’re standing there asking yourself whether you should go and fight and die there or spend 20 years in prison,’ says Mikhail, a Moscow man protesting the draft who was interviewed by the Japan Times.

Reluctant men and boys, sometimes with no prior military experience, are given little systematic training with inept leaders and inadequate equipment. They are facing a highly motivated, extremely well-armed, and very innovative foe in the Ukrainians. The result is akin to a death sentence.

Last week we heard about the war-wrecked Ukrainian town of Lyman where Russian forces hastily departed to avoid getting encircled by the advancing Ukrainian troops. ‘Not all the Russians made it out. Burning Russian vehicles and sprawled bodies of dead Russian soldiers remain on the roadsides outside the city,’ wrote a Wall St Journal reporter.

He mentioned seeing the remains of seven Russian vehicles caught in a recent Ukrainian ambush. ‘Nine bodies of young Russian soldiers lay on the roadsides, two hugging each other in unnatural contortions, another, his skin waxlike pale, lying on his back with his fists clenched. Nearby, amid antitank mines and other ordnance, a severed hand was perched on the asphalt, a wedding ring on one of the three remaining fingers.’

No wonder so many conscripts are desperate to escape. We’ve all seen images of long queues at the borders, thousands seeking to escape to neighbouring countries, at least those willing to have them. Many countries are closing their borders. ‘Those running because they don’t want to fulfil a duty imposed by their own government, they don’t meet the criteria for humanitarian visa,’ was Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky’s firm comment.

Interestingly, there has been much media interest in stories suggesting that the conscription was targeted, with ethnic minorities disproportionately at risk. Naturally, the ABC leapt on the suggestion that the draft is targeting Crimean Tatars, a Muslim minority group that makes up a small proportion of Crimea’s population. Minorities are a far more acceptable group to champion than the ordinary Russian blokes who comprise the major victims of this unfolding human tragedy.

Martin Jones, a professor of international human rights law at the University of York has written in The Conversation suggesting that, politically and legally, the conscripts must be given protection:

‘While border states are worried about the mass influx of young Russian men, there are a range of practical reasons for other countries to provide Russians fleeing conscription with protection. Most obviously, providing sanctuary abroad undermines Russia’s ability to raise an army to continue its fight in Ukraine. It also further strengthens the Russian expatriate community and its opposition to the invasion.’

And it surely is more logical for the West to allow entry to these men rather than having to supply more high-tech weapons to kill them in Ukraine.

According to Professor Jones, the war ticks a number of boxes required for legal protection of conscripts which include catering to conscientious objection, avoiding internationally condemned acts, and conscription that is ‘extra-legal, discriminatory or results in inhuman treatment’.

With rare bravery, he takes up the point about discrimination: ‘When it comes to conscription, we have also yet to fully resolve the blatant sexism embedded in the Russian (and more widespread) practice of conscripting only men.’

Last March I wrote about Ukraine’s decision to force men to stay and fight while women and children were hastily shipped off, out of harm’s way. Suddenly, after decades of feminist demands for women to be allowed to take their rightful place alongside men in the services, we reverted to old-fashioned chivalry which demands only men are disposable. I called out the hypocrisy of blinkered media coverage celebrating the courage of the very few women who chose to remain and fight, whilst ignoring fit, healthy, single women fleeing across the borders.

At that time there were reportedly 32,000 women in the Ukrainian military, a very small percentage of the 17 million women in the relevant age group. Similarly, Russian women only make up 4.26 per cent of total active-duty forces and they are not permitted in frontline combat roles. With so few women in active service, it is hardly surprising these traditional countries choose to conscript solely men.

It’s worth remembering that the Russian conscription is simply the latest example of disposable, innocent young men being drafted into war, a key factor that has enabled military aggression throughout history, allowing ruthless political leaders to impose atrocities on the world.

Finally, in some more egalitarian countries, tough questions are now being asked. Norway introduced gender-neutral conscription in 2013, but similar countries lag behind. British journalist Anna Hollingsworth, who grew up in Finland, bought into a debate about the gendered conscription practices in that country, slamming them as ‘an outdated, sexist, and human rights-violating structure’.

She wrote:

‘From a gender equality perspective, men-only conscription shouts out blatant sexism… There is absolutely no reason why only men should be drafted, and politicians consistently fail to give one. In everyday conversations, though, reasons are found in everything from women serving their duty to their country by giving birth, and boys growing into men in the army – it is not uncommon to regard military service as a male rite of passage. It is as if the topic of conscription causes all conversation to undergo a bizarre time warp where all the gender equality established elsewhere in society evaporates.’

There’s a legal battle taking place in America over the male-only draft, originally led by the late Marc Angelucci, the brave men’s rights lawyer who was murdered in July 2020.

I interviewed Marc the previous year, and he talked about his important work which included running cases for the National Coalition for Men (NCFM) challenging the male draft. They’d had some big wins, with the Southern District court determining that the male-only draft was unconstitutional, but that was overturned at appeal.

After Marc’s death, the American Civil Liberties Union came on board, representing the NCFM. The Supreme Court agreed the male draft law may be unconstitutional and outdated but kicked the can down the road and said they wouldn’t decide the issue, leaving it up to Congress to change the law. Congress, of course, did nothing, and the discriminatory law remains which requires men to register for the draft in order to be allowed to vote, get a driver’s license, obtain federal or state loans, grants or scholarships, or retain citizenship.

Slow progress indeed for the men of America. But it sure beats being vaporised in a jack-in-the-box.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/10/russian-cannon-fodder/

****************************************************

What our progressive overclass has wrought

Progressives at the zenith of privilege and power have steered US civil rights, education, and welfare policies almost exclusively for fifty years. What does the nation have to show for it?

Recent answers include federalized transgender protections, academic collapse, and the expansion of a dependent, often disreputable underclass for whom permanent government-based custodial care is the only feasible option. Food Stamps, Medicaid, Section Eight, and other public income support evidently sap incentive and enterprise, but what’s the alternative now for the structurally unemployable?

Anti-white indoctrination is rife in tax-funded schools. Price inflation and declining social mobility haunt the millennial generation’s future. The promotion of sexual curiosities, unpoliced urban crime, a porous southern border, and rampant hard-drug addiction cum homelessness seem inescapable and expected. Is this progress?

In next month’s elections, the Democratic Party is asking younger voters and everyone else to validate the nation’s wretched state of affairs. It asks all Americans to “do more” to affirm the impossible and shore up failed theories of social justice. But the midterms can only begin to bust the voracious administrative state. The nation’s interlocking ideological directorate has such a grip on minds and hearts that the demos might not possess the legal machinery or even desire to dismantle its project.

In many cases, voters have no good candidate choices. Brands AOC and Dr. Oz — how many voters even know their full names? — make a pair for the times. Los Angeles’s would-be mayor Karen Bass and Washington senator Patty Murray are not offering fresh ideas to halt anti-white defamation or curb the power of public employee unions. David McCormick is not on the Pennsylvania ballot, a leading indicator of electoral quality-fail. The Republicans go rough-tuff down-market. The beau monde clings to Pelosi-inspired designer masks and perpetual rainbow theater.

The status quo party is Democratic, and look what’s happened over the last three years. Defunding the police. Releasing dangerous prisoners. District attorneys greenlighting crime. Gathering votes from government clients and public employee unions to keep Leviathan gassed up. Downtowns buzzing with zombies and speed freaks amid “for lease” signs.

The opposition, Joe Biden’s speechwriters declare, represents “an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” Trump and the GOP, why I’d rather die, Ladies Bountiful in Lululemon exclaim merrily over drinks at the beach club, smiling to the south-of-the-border staff as if to say somos camaradas.

The author Mario Vargas Llosa once labeled our times the “civilization of the spectacle,” describing once solemn guardians and public figures abandoning time-honored duties to work their own media platforms and Q scores. “Hollywood values,” the New York Times’s columnist Maureen Dowd labeled this state of political affairs: “out-of-control egos, blatant materialism, a dog-eat-dog ethos, and a devotion to pretense.”

America’s progressive overclass is saturated in Goodthink. It shivers at right-wing domestic terrorism, pursues climate justice and mindfulness religiously, and insists that gender-affirming medicine is a long overdue public good. The overclass loves Black and Green with all its heart, almost as much as it loves running the show.

Confident and schooled in self-esteem, this overclass intends to redeem the unredeemable. It stands ready to redistribute moral value. It affects woke-light righteousness, making a fashion statement. Bright-eyed game changers have much work to do — and, ideally, lucrative careers — making over the nation’s churches, foundations, museums, and colleges for the yet to be converted and obstructive.

Long ago, headmasters, bishops, professors and literati advised today’s best and brightest — or their parents — to abandon tradition and rethink their privilege. Today’s elites largely lack the conceptual tools and institutional memory to recognize the consequences of their loss. With multi-billion-dollar endowments to play with, excellent sheep use “allyship” and intramural diversity machines to get ahead and win the game.

Mighty citizens of the world, the fabled masters of the universe, truth to tell, are highly provincial. The Bangkok Thai Cuisine in Oak Bluffs or Siam Orchid in Bar Harbor are as gritty and far-out as they want to go. The overclass is as compassionate and empathetic a people as you’ve ever met. Yet it firmly insists those experiencing food insecurity and anyone with heebie-jeebies and hallucinations steer clear of their own Pad Thai experience.

Legal and social barriers to bad behavior and exhibitionism no longer hold. Widely respected, firm perimeters of privacy vanish — or worse, are ridiculed — and the power to police demotic vice decays because the cretins want it, however dreadful it might be. Meanwhile, the crotch-sellers over at Endeavor and Disney demand First Amendment absolutism in matters of subversion, shutting down “hate speech” that could blow their moral putsch.

As the nation’s moral realm shifts from the scriptural and classical to the ascriptive, capitalist fun suppliers are freed to exploit former depravity. Big money in New York wants to dance with the stars cheek-to-cheek in Malibu. There’s status and wealth in financing dreck — and public taste allows it, in fact, craves more of it. Thought control through social media and an irresistible electronic kaleidoscope prove more powerful than what could be foreseen a generation ago. But reality is compelling. Nature is insistent.

The nation’s civic future lies in operational states and localities that actively choose to protect quality of life, property and children. Civic-minded and self-interested asset holders are setting their sights on well-managed, pleasant zones as far from the scaries, lawbreakers and tax parasites as possible. Welfare capitalism’s behavioral sinks are not going to disappear. But sooner or later, some jurisdictions will unapologetically sequester crazies in asylums, put criminals in penal institutions, and say no to troublemakers, freeloaders and drifters.

If Americans are lucky, such states, counties and towns will unfold and grow, albeit slowly and unevenly, through federalism, individual choice, secure elections and the rule of law. If they are not, a state of pandemonium will compel order through surveillance, fiat and force. Whatever the case, today’s woke-driven follies cannot stand the test of time.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/10/what-our-progressive-overclass-has-wrought/

************************************************

Trouble Brewing in US Housing Market as Mortgage Rates Hit 20-Year Highs

Mortgage rates hit their highest levels in 20 years this week with the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage averaging near 6.92 percent—up from 6.66 percent the week prior, according to Freddie Mac’s Primary Mortgage Market Survey.

It’s the highest average rate since April 2002. The 30-year fixed rate stood at about 3.05 percent one year ago.

“We continue to see a tale of two economies in the data,” Sam Khater, Freddie Mac’s chief economist, said in a report. “Strong job and wage growth are keeping consumers’ balance sheets positive, while lingering inflation, recession fears, and housing affordability are driving housing demand down precipitously.”

The report said the 15-year fixed-rate mortgage averaged about 6.09 percent, up from 5.90 percent a week ago. A year ago around this time, the 15-year rate averaged 2.30 percent, Freddie Mac stated.

And the five-year Treasury-indexed hybrid adjustable-rate mortgage, or ARM, averaged 5.81 percent, up from last week when it averaged 5.36 percent. The five-year ARM averaged 2.55 percent last year at this time, according to Freddie Mac.

It comes as homebuyer demand remains at a 22-year low, according to a Mortgage Bankers Association survey for the week ending Oct. 7. It decreased 2 percent from a week prior, and that is down 39 percent from a year ago.

“Application volumes for both refinancing and home purchases declined and continue to fall further behind last year’s record levels. The news that job growth and wage growth continued in September is positive for the housing market, as higher incomes support housing demand. However, it also pushed off the possibility of any near-term pivot from the Federal Reserve on its plans for additional rate hikes,” said Mike Fratantoni, the organization’s chief economist.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trouble-brewing-in-us-housing-market-as-mortgage-rates-hit-20-year-highs_4794496.html

***********************************************

The three-part test Australians could be forced to take to prove they are Aboriginal

How rapidly things can change! Andrrew Bolt was successfully prosecuted for saying this stuff. But the change may not be as great as it seems. The verdict in Bolt's case was from far-Left Jewish judge Mordecai Bromberg. As a Jew, Bromberg should have excused himself from a case about racism. His feelings were understandable but feelings are not judicial

Indigenous leaders say employers, schools, universities and housing authorities need to make Australians take a three-part test to prove whether they are Aboriginal or not.

The call comes amid a massive 25 per cent increase in Australians who identify as indigenous over the past five years, and follows the University of Sydney and NSW TAFEs tightening requirements for students who describe themselves as having a First Nations background.

Nathan Moran, the chief executive of the Sydney-based Metropolitan Aboriginal Land Council, told Daily Mail Australia that people have been abusing the system for at least 25 years - which he described as open fraud.

Mr Moran called on organisations to adopt the Commonwealth's three-part identity test to deter Australians from falsely identifying as indigenous.

Of the 'frauds' he believes are self-identifying as indigenous, Mr Moran said: 'It makes me sick to my stomach.

'The sad and unfortunate reality is that people have used self-identification to receive jobs, housing and scholarships they're not entitled to which are meant for the indigenous.

'The indigenous birth rates don't match up with the population increase.'

The three-part test for proving Aboriginality

An Aboriginal person (includes Torres Strait Islanders) means a person who:

1.Is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia

2.Identifies as such an Aboriginal person

3. Is accepted by the Aboriginal community as an Aboriginal person

Mr Moran called on organisations and government authorities to enforce the three-part test rather than relying on statutory declarations - pieces of paper where they legally swear they are indigenous.

The test requires Australians to identify as an Aboriginal person, be able to prove they are a member of the race, and be accepted by the Aboriginal community.

A person can prove they are accepted by an Aboriginal community by providing a letter from their local Aboriginal Land Council or a registered Aboriginal community organisation.

Mr Moran said it's time to 'end the statutory declaration and apply the laws they're compelled to enforce'. 'They have a right to ask individuals who identify as Aboriginal for confirmation of that claim and who they received that confirmation from,' he said.

The Metropolitan Aboriginal Land Council recently complained to the Independent Commission Against Corruption about the number of students at the University of Sydney identifying as indigenous using statutory declarations.

The university has since announced plans to revamp its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Status Policy by getting rid of stat decs, as Mr Moran said.

Students will have to supply a 'letter of identity' and complete the Commonwealth three-part identity test.

Students will also be asked to confirm their identity either by a letter from their land council or a sealed letter signed by a delegate of the Aboriginal Medical Service or the Aboriginal Legal Service. TAFE NSW is also now developing a Confirmation of Aboriginality Policy following similar concerns.

Mr Moran isn't the only Aboriginal land council leader raising concerns about the recent Census data. Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania chairman Michael Mansell recently claimed 'poor white people' were falsely identifying as indigenous in a move he called 'identity seeking'.

'The people who are ticking the box to say they are Aboriginal, their demographic is poor white people who pretty much are disenfranchised,' Mr Mansell said.

'They don't attribute any value to their identity as a poor white person in Tasmania, so they are searching to attach themselves to something that has greater value and I think many of those people believe that's in being Aboriginal.'

However not everyone agrees.

University of Sydney's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research director Professor Jakelin Troy claimed the latest Census data showing increased numbers of indigenous people represents the 'real' demographics of the nation.

'Freedom of self identification and self expression is a basic human right. Interfering in the efforts of invaded & colonised peoples to assert identity is just continuing invasion & colonisation,' she tweeted.

Professor Troy has expressed concerns about the crackdown argued self-identification was accepted at many international research institutions.

'It's a response to a push from some parts of Aboriginal Australia, but not all of us,' she told the Sydney Morning Herald.

'I personally think universities shouldn't really be dictating to Aboriginal people about identity. I don't think anyone should be.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11298237/Metropolitan-Aboriginal-Land-Council-calls-three-test.html

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************