BLEATING AND BLAMING

Conservatives have surrendered the media and the arts to the reactionaries and are paying a high cost in the common man's weltanschauung. The Conservative base has also lost ground in the ongoing culture wars in the arena of education; in fact I think the radical left-wing sympathisers and unions have already captured the academic high-ground.
Of course the left-wing luvvies deny that this is the case because their 'bible' (Alinsky's; Rules For Radicals*) exhorts them to use this very method to allay the fears of the common man.
As for the truth of the matter consider the following example and make your own mind up:

Former ABC presenter Helen Razer asks Professor Stuart Macintyre to help bag Colebatch’s book attacking the sabotage of Australia’s war effort by communist-infiltrated unions:

Macintyre, an academic who works within the margins of evidence, is far less inclined than Carlton, a journalist whose mood becomes freer with every tweet, to call the award for Australia’s Secret War a numb act of pure ideology.

Missing from Razer’s interview is this highly relevant fact:  Macintyre was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Communist Party of Australia, and at least six of his books are about Marxism and communism, including his paen to the party - The Reds: The Communist Party of Australia, from Origins to Illegality. Why wasn’t that disclosed?
Razer continues, using Macintyre to bag the idea that the Left hog academic positions and impose an intellectual orthodoxy in universities:

Macintyre puts it smoothly when he says, “The Right thinks there is this absolute orthodoxy within universities and historical scholarship.” “And in a sense it projects its own expectation of how matters are decided”.

This is grotesquely hypocritical. Razer fails to note Macintyre’s own role in one of the most shameful and sinister cases of the silencing of conservative academics. Keith Windschuttle describes the persecution of our greatest historian, Geoffrey Blainey:

Moreover, Macintyre himself played a prominent role in a notorious case of academic persecution ... This was the successful campaign that put an end to the academic career of one of Australia’s greatest historians.
On May 19, 1984, the Age newspaper published a letter signed by twenty-four staff members of the Department of History at the University of Melbourne. The letter dissociated its authors from public views recently expressed by Geoffrey Blainey, the Ernest Scott Professor of History and head of that department. Blainey, the signatories claimed, had framed a debate over government immigration policy in such terms that would invite others to “incite feelings of racial hatred”:
“As historians at the University of Melbourne we wish to dissociate ourselves entirely from the widely-publicised attacks which Professor Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent member of our profession, and a professor in our department, has recently made on the Government’s immigration policy with regard to Asians. Professor Blainey speaks and writes on this issue as an individual and not as a representative of historians at this university.
“We are particularly aware of the dangers of trying to channel debate on immigration policy into consideration of the suitability of certain ethnic and national groups as immigrants. We are also aware, from many historical precedents, that raising such an issue in racial terms (however much it is couched in the language of reason) becomes an invitation to less responsible groups to incite feelings of racial hatred. Framing debate in such racial terms can become a potent weapon to rouse public fears and prejudices and to direct hostility at certain groups in our society.
“We do not wish to limit debate and discussion by Professor Blainey or anyone else on such issues of public concern. But to raise discussion of immigration in terms of race will inevitably draw in and encourage racist groups to come forward and claim legitimacy from what has been said.
“Signed by Ian Robertson [Renaissance historian, chairman of the department] and 23 others”
Two weeks later, at the start of the next teaching term, a group of students at the University of Melbourne picketed Blainey’s lectures and demonstrated against him. Although university security personnel locked the doors to the building concerned, they were unable to prevent the demonstrators gaining entry. Blainey was forced to cancel the lecture and others he planned to give. After that, university security concerns made it impossible for Blainey to speak at any public function on campus. All his scheduled talks at the university for the rest of the year were cancelled. Even towards the end of 1984, when the Students’ Representative Council invited him to give a lecture, the Vice-Chancellor prohibited it on grounds of security.
After members of his family were subject to threats of violence, Blainey removed his name and address from the public telephone book and a friend organised private security to guard his home. The university installed a special machine to inspect all incoming mail. The most disturbing incident, not publicised at the time by police for fear of provoking copycats, occurred when someone planted a real bomb on the lawn of another person named Blainey who lived close to Monash University. The immediate consequence of all this was that Blainey, easily Australia’s best and most prolific living historian, was effectively silenced from speaking at his own university. He reverted to an administrative role as Dean of Arts and did not lecture again in the history department until 1987. This violation of academic freedom, clearly the worst in Australian history, provoked no protest at all from the university’s academic staff association, nor from the university council, let along his own departmental colleagues. In 1988, Blainey resigned from the university. Once he was gone, Stuart Macintyre, one of the signatories of the original letter, succeeded to the now vacant Ernest Scott Chair of History.

How dare Razer not refer to this when quoting this same Macintyre denying a culture of Leftist orthodoxy in universities? [A.B. 11.12.14]

The conservatives in Australia, of which I am one, need to take some very swift and perhaps even radical action against these reactionary's of the left if anything of value is to remain in this country. We are at war as the above actions describe. Don't choose Chamberlain, be a Churchill.

Cut the ABC to the bone, cancel it outright if necessary because the need for a tax-payer funded, neo-Marxist propaganda arm is of no benefit to a 'free society'. Cut funding to the universities and make them compete on a level playing ground, radically trim the various bureaucracies, boot out ALL green carpet-baggers, stimulate the economy by CUTTING HANDOUTS AND TAXES, not the other way around. These are but a few suggestions to begin with. Such actions are not going to generate any more bile from the luvvies than the pitiful current cuts already are, and they might, just might, restore some hope to the despairing conservative voters who voted this current shower into office.

Unfortunately I fear that the current crop of politicians are all merely subtle shades of the same red colour (with a few exceptions).

Dare I predict that unless the tax paying, family oriented, freedom loving, seekers of natural justice, egalitarian, silent majority of Australia stand up and demand some bold and forthright action on the part of this so-called 'conservative' government....then the end of Australia as most want it or know it is closer than you think.

PS Many of these welded-on Labor luvvies are going to get a major shock if/when they actually get what they say they want. Then we are going to hear bleating and blaming on a scale never before imagined much less expected.

*http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals