[csaa-forum] Windschuttling

[Danny Butt]

(with links at 
http://www.dannybutt.net/weblog/2005/03/31/windschuttling/ )

It doesn't take long being back in Australia to find some of our finest
academic minds again preoccupied with The Australian and Keith
Windschuttle's "Tutorials in Terrorism". I see that Keith's need to prove
his superiority over people by making shit up about them is going global.
The Internet has truly revolutionised Keith's practice. He can use the
potential visit of an overseas political figure like Toni Negri as a
springboard to reproducing US conservative wire service reports on Ward
Churchill. No need to read their books, even! Or is Keith worried that his
strip-mining of Australian racial prejudice has exhausted even The
Australian's ability to get a story out of it? The Australian, heroically,
will not let the facts get in the way of providing "balanced" coverage of
academic matters, and Keith is always ready to provide "the other side of
the story" to those who are biased by their knowledge of what they're
talking about.

It's admirable (and surprising!) that Negri has taken the time to correct
the errors in Windschuttle's characterisation of him, in the letter Brett
Neilson has circulated. However, let's be realistic about how interested The
Australian is in clearing Negri's name. Then there wouldn't be a story!

Now, last time I suggested on csaa-forum that arguing with The Australian
about Cultural Studies was a questionable use of time for young scholars, I
was characterised as taking some position of not believing in a broader
public culture. Far from true! I just think that The Australian is not only
ideologically partisan to the point of ridicule, it has no interest in the
kinds of arguments in the academy (with my respect to the people on this
list who bravely advance those arguments within those pages anyway).

If you start taking it seriously, over time your brain cells go a bit soft,
and it starts sounding plausible when Greg Sheridan makes repeated
ridiculous comments this week against the "academic and quasi-academic
institutions'" hegemony on foreign policy commentary that is "out of touch
with Australian people and the Government." (Tellingly, the online version
is accompanied by a close-up of a US flag - WTF?) Hmm, yes, *scratching
beard*. Those people specialising in foreign policy obviously know far too
many foreigners to be trusted. Or the UN oil-for-food report ends up on the
front page two days in a row, and you start talking about it, while the
US-lied-about-WMD report showed up twice on page 5, so it never quite hits
the water cooler.

Remember, as Lachlan Murdoch put it in his Andrew Olle lecture, News Corp's
media is " a forum for opinions, emotions and shared convictions that
strengthen us all when we need strength most." " Will we stand with our
national leaders, on both sides of parliament, as they seek to bring justice
to the cowards that murdered our countrymen and women? Or will we allow
ourselves to be misused as a forum for division, effectively undermining
community strength and cohesion when our country needs those qualities
most?" Yes, he's asking you, Negri! Are you with us or against us? We know
where Keith is.

So you misunderstand! My point is not to ignore Windschuttle and The
Australian, but to not project the ideals of the reality-based community
onto them, with our meddlesome divisions and cowardly undermining. Rather
than arguing politely, we must meet Windschuttle in the spirit with which he
goes about his work: prejudicial, over-the-top, and focussed on the man and
not the ball. Of course, compared to Bolt, Windschuttle is perhaps even
easier to develop strategies against, so here are a couple party-starters.
Remember, being a nice guy didn't get Henry Reynolds anywhere.

1) In his newly syndicating vein, Windschuttle must be up for that great
Australian tradition, the hoax. I would suggest a fake conservative
think-tank located under a .org domain and hosted in the U.S. There are so
many real ones indistinguishable from parody that he'll never know. Surely
someone in the US could host a phone line for it and give him a call. Given
Windschuttle's relentless self-aggrandisement, I'm sure he'd bite on a
report highlighting the "important and unassailable contribution" Keith has
made to uncovering the left-wing bias in Australian Universities,
particularly certain "falsehoods around Australian history". Pepper the
report with lies. Wait until he uses them in his next self-published
masterwork on "The death of the Australian academy" before revealing the
hoax.

2) I don't think Windschuttle has actually talked to a person-of-colour (let
alone an aboriginal person) so there must be a fetishistic dynamic at work
here for him to be so uptight about race. I'm sure there's an opportunity
here for a cute non-white agent provocateur (with a cast-iron constitution,
unusual taste, and/or great commitment to the cause) to get Windschuttle
saying something *very* dodgy on tape. A bit of the old Justin Harrison
treatment would follow. For a good performer, the 60 Minutes advance alone
would clear the HECS debt. In fact, I'm sure Windschuttle is the type of guy
to have blackmail fantasies, it would be his dream come true. No, I don't
enjoy thinking about Windschuttle having sex either. But desperate times
etc.

Quite honestly, I have to wonder what Keith's going to get into a flap about
next. Aboriginal Australians, Native Amercians, aging Italian Marxists...
perhaps the disability studies community should be getting worried.


--
http://www.dannybutt.net
adventures in cultural politics (weblog) - http://weblog.dannybutt.net