Yep...I think Foxy does have a point. I've never believed the media to be other than a means of generating advertizing revenue and promoting particular political causes.

But the thing is... this works both ways. I would hardly be balanced to regard this as a phenomenon of the 'Right' interests alone..... as I see it.. both sides are represented well by the Fairfax/Newscorp divide.

But back to Burke.... here is something he is reported to have said:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/9/hijacking-terrorism-studies/page:3

"Burke denies any ultimate legitimacy to sovereign nation-states, and denies that they have any right to preserve their security, defend themselves from attack, police their borders, or pursue their national interests, when these might impinge upon “the Other”."

Source "Bendle" :)

Well.. that would surely equip our senior military officers wouldn't it? "National Borders are illegitimate"

If that doesn't freak people out.. try this: Burke (according to Bendle)

Overall, Australian national values and our way of life are merely “vast ideological abstractions”, and claims about “fundamental freedoms” just reveal a “narcissistic performance of self in which ‘Australia’ is represented as pure and good”, and as falsely superior to “the religion of Islam”.

errr... yeah.

I wonder of Burke has heard of "We are us.. they are them"... and it's not about 'superior' but.. simply 'difference'.

Porky's understanding of postmodernism and Neo-Marxism is right up there with his understanding of more traditional areas of academic study like history and anthropology.

I first knew Merv Bendle when he was employed as a sociology lecturer, before he jumped on the 'culture wars' bandwagon, called himself a historian and started publishing the neconservative twaddle which has lately given him his 15 minutes of notoriety. Unfortunately, his conversion to wingnut shill hasn't improved the quality of his output.

Those who suggest that this is just an academic storm in a teacup are mostly correct - except that I think that Foxy's correct about the current unholy alliance between the NeoCon Monthly (i.e. Quadrant) and the Murdoch rags actually works to bring such unseemly spats to the attention of a public that, like Porky, doesn't really have a clue about what the boffins are arguing about.

"Postmodernism" was already on the nose in the humanities and social sciences when I left academia nearly a decade ago, so it's quite amusing to observe the self-righteous indignation about its influence that seems to obsess second-rate academics like Bendle and the editorial staff of The Australian.

Polly filler

Here we go! Here we go! Polly logic. You confirm that Bendle said that Burke said something by quoting Bendle saying that Burke said what Bendle said Burke said.

And at the same time you confirm again your double standards: "I've never believed the media to be other than a means of generating advertizing revenue and promoting particular political causes." But didn't you quote the media in your initial post on this thread?

Why don't you quote directly from Burke himself? I know it's difficult in the case of the ABC's Religion Report or QuadRANT neither of which gave Burke no right of reply but gave Bendle total freedom to say what he liked about Burke.

All that to one side. What's the fear? That the alleged opinions of one academic (out of many teaching our future military leaders ) will have such an impact on them that our nation's security will be imperilled.

Should we sack all alleged 'left-wing' academics from our universities? Or only those teach in sensitive areas like law, medicine, commerce, science, social sciences, philosophy and foreign languages?

After all, we know that all university students are incapable of assessing for themselves the quality of ideas that are introduced to them. They are just empty vessels just waiting to filled up with all manner of weird ideas.

"I first knew Merv Bendle when he was employed as a sociology lecturer"

You mean Bendle used to be a postmodern Marxist too?

I don't generally hold with litigious solutions, but Burke should sue Bendle. One of these days somebody who's been as seriously misrepresented as Burke is being in this case will take it to the courts. Quadrant would be a much thinner publication as a result, but that's no bad thing

Foxy

A most excellent and informative post, which has spared me from much backtracking into the details behind Polly's latest scare.

Thank you

Actually.... the point of the thread was not so much to say "Bendle Good"/ "Burke bad"

But to ask the question "Critical Terrorism studies"..what is it?

Perhaps more focus on this, rather than the personalities involved would be more edifying for us all.

If it is as Bendle says...then it is indeed a cause for concern.

If it is not...then what is it?

This is not a 'let me now show who I KNOW' stage for the likes of CJ or.. 'How Postmodernism is on the nose" (Spikey)

nope... none of those.. it's WHAT IS... "critical terrrorism study"

Bendle makes some fairly chunky claims..and they are based on quotes of Burke.. So.. it might come back to whether he has rightly interpreted Burke?

Here is a pearl of Burke wisdom (source http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news301.html)

[His book, which is being launched as part of Adelaide University's Nation/States conference, shows how Australia's obsession with security is the dark thread running through its history -- an obsession in which 'our' security always depends on the insecurity and suffering of another.

The issues covered in the book include boat people, asylum seekers, East Timor, White Australia, Vietnam and the "War against Aborigines", and deals with current issues such as the Tampa crisis and Australia's policy on refugees.

Dr Burke argues that "security has dominated and distorted Australia's foreign policy and national life, from Cook's first voyage to the Asian crisis". Against this corrosive tradition, he advocates a generous and non-coercive form of responsibility for a global existence.]

Key words "None coercive/Global existence" and thus.. he proves Bendle absolutely correct about him.

The idea of 'non coercive' in a diverse world of political and religious ideas is ludicrous. I noble goal yes..but practically absurd.

"Non Coercive" - Darfor, Uganda(LRA), Rwanda..... and so it goes on.

If this is the tripe our defense force graduates will be fed, God help Australia..because our military won't be able.

Please note.. I've focused on the actual topic.."what is it"