If Germans won’t fight for Germany, who will?

Germany’s craps on about gender ideology, but only young men will be required to serve.

There are three things that really annoy me about the situation in Germany. First, the necessary apologies for the atrocities of the second world war have morphed into a kind of stupor where any talk of defence is somehow connected with there being ‘a different way’ to deal with dictators like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jingping. Of all people, Germans should know that an appeaser is easy pickings.

Writing in the Unfiltered newsletter, Alexandra Marshall had this to say:

Michael de Percy is still in Germany where the government has resurrected national service and conscription. At the moment, it is still a voluntary system for fighting-age males, but it was made clear that this could easily turn into something more compulsory if the situation deteriorates with Russia. Germany’s men have come out onto the streets to protest this move, rejecting not only conscription but the entire concept of war itself. This leads Michael to ask if they have been completely brainwashed by Woke...

In the Morning Double Shot newsletter, Terry Barnes wrote:

Michael de Percy is in Germany, but he never stops filing. Today, he observes how Germans have turned their backs on their history – the good as well as the bad – have gone utterly woke, and have become appeasers (of Putin) rather than the warriors of Europe. In short, they’re an effete and decadent lot, and will be fed to the wolves should Putin’s Russia turn on Nato. No wonder Donald Trump has had enough of the Europeans! Let’s take a leaf from Noel Coward’s book, and be beastly to the Germans.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, If Germans won’t fight for Germany, who will?

Young German men are protesting against conscription as the threat of war in Europe stirs.

"I couldn’t be sure whether the broadcaster had hand-picked interviewees or whether young German men have been completely brain-washed by Woke ideology."

If Germany and indeed the world… pic.twitter.com/WoctAwvLAP

— The Spectator Australia (@SpectatorOz) December 10, 2025

Comms Minister Anika Wells rejects the premise of liberal democracy

Australia deserves better than this, but the fourth estate, the ABC aside, is starting to see the light.

If only I could have witnessed Minister Wells in person, I might have confirmed my ‘reject the premise’ thesis empirically.

What does ‘rejecting the premise’ mean?

In Labor parlance, ‘rejecting the premise’ means ‘okay, you may think that you caught me fibbing, but I’m from the government and therefore you’re wrong’.

In the Morning Double Shot newsletter, Terry Barnes wrote:

Heute ist Der Tag. Today is The Day. The day when, if you’re under 16, you become an outlaw if you venture onto legally-proscribed social media platforms. Proscribed, that is, by an egregious American who is Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, and spruiked by embattled communications minister, Anika Wells who, as Michael de Percy points out all the way from Hamburg, can’t answer basic questions about how it will work in practice, whether it will work, and is it an affront to liberal democracy (her answer: ‘I reject the premise of the question(s)’. Our answers: we still don’t know; it won’t; and it is). However well-meaning it may be, this ban is wrong, and that it is being enforced zealously by a Septic who surely was brought up on the First Amendment, is even more appalling. But it is here, and we predict it will fail. The only question is how long it will take for its spruikers – on both sides of politics (don’t forget Peter Dutton was the first on this bandwagon) – to realise it’s a flop.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, Comms Minister Anika Wells rejects the premise of liberal democracy.

On the eve of the Labor’s draconian digital identity laws banning under 16s from accessing social media (and by what I consider to be deliberate extension, introducing a Digital ID system) Labor’s Communications Minister, Anika Wells, took a leaf out of Chris Bowen’s court jester… pic.twitter.com/KkOuUmsIuT

— The Spectator Australia (@SpectatorOz) December 7, 2025

ACT government flirts hard with socialism

The socialist ACT Government prioritises central government planning over individual rights.

The ACT government has passed new laws that remove third-party appeals for public and community housing projects, a move designed to speed up construction by eliminating community input on development approvals. This decision strips residents of their ability to challenge government-backed housing initiatives through the usual legal channels, placing full control in the hands of the state.

Such a policy is socialist in intent because it prioritises central government planning over individual rights and local concerns. In a socialist system, the state dictates resource allocation without regard for private property interests or community objections, and this ban mirrors that approach by silencing dissent against state-directed housing.The ACT government’s action treats residents as obstacles to be removed rather than stakeholders to be consulted.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, ACT government flirts hard with socialism.

By banning appeals for community housing projects, the government undermines the principles of accountability and transparency that define Australian governance.… pic.twitter.com/m0DshumSan

— The Spectator Australia (@SpectatorOz) December 4, 2025