Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Books, Criticism & Writing >

Direct Action and Invasion

Page: (1)2

00:02 / 04.07.06

I've recently read Direct Action by John Weiseman (novel) and Invasion (not a novel) by Michelle Malkin.

07:41 / 04.07.06

Thats nice dear.

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:23 / 04.07.06

Or, to put it another way. What are they about? What are they like? Why would it be interesting to read them?

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:47 / 06.07.06

This Michelle Malkin sounds like she has some "interesting" ideas, ideas which might possibly inform our understanding of Dragon's posts in the Head Shop and Switchboard thus far. The full title of the book referred to is Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores, and it is apparently "A shocking new study of America's misguided border policies [that] reveals that the U.S. welcomes criminals, terrorists, and other "undesirables," leading to an abuse of the system and other disastrous effects." - although I suspect the term "study" is used very loosely here. Malkin's other works include In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Radical Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror and Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild. Well done all involved.

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:51 / 06.07.06

Direct Action, meanwhile, is apparently "a primer on how the War on Terror needs to be fought effectively" - and here was me thinking it looked like a load of macho sub-Clancy wankity wank!

Kiltartan Cross

12:56 / 06.07.06

Yes, she does seem a little zany. "I have a lot of respect for Ann Coulter" sums it up nicely.

01:15 / 07.07.06

The author of the book, Direct Action by John Weisman actually makes fun of Clancy. In the novel, he talks about why the CIA is broken (my wording) due to the lack of leadership, there, as well as the odd ideas of people who seem to think we don't need HUMINT. These same people also are queasy about how the CIA cultivates agents, because many of them are not exactly angels... And, if you read any of his articles, which appear, here. His book, Direct Action, reflects what he writes in the above-mentioned articles.

Michelle Malkin writes convincingly about why our border enforcement is broken. She gives dates, names names, and reports events, showing how and why things are not working as they should be. It will open your eyes.

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:11 / 07.07.06

Open your own eyes, Dragon. No one is 'illegal'.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

18:38 / 07.07.06

Wow. What's up next, kids? A thread praising the literary merit of that classic The Turner Diaries, or maybe Richard Littlejohn's insightful To Hell In A Handcart?

08:10 / 09.07.06

Call it what you want to, Flyboy.

21:36 / 09.07.06

Michelle Malkin is monsterous. [citations to come later, after I can get over my own stuttering]

02:10 / 11.07.06

I think even if you don't particularly like her, you can get something out of the book. It pretty much got my ire up (as much as anybody can, at least...)

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:30 / 11.07.06

What did it make you feel angry about, Dragon? Those filthy illegal immigrants, by any chance?

15:21 / 11.07.06

The crooked people working for the INS is what made me mad.

All Acting Regiment

13:14 / 12.07.06

Can you give us some quotes, Dragster? I haven't been able to find this book to read and thus make comment on it.

And on an unrelated side-note, isn't it interesting that when pressed over an attitude, people are always like, "oh, I've not got a problem with the foreigners, it's Our System that's wrong because it lets them in", which obviously exonerates them from any kind of racism or xenophobia: the mud's fine io long as it stays outside, they just don't want any getting in their house is all...

21:15 / 12.07.06

One short story (Invasion; pp 156-157):

John Shandorf was a supervisory asylum officer at the INS's New York City office in Queens. Second in command at the asylum office, he was responsible for ensuring that his subordinates processed applications fairly and accurately. After hours, investigators found, Shandorf made mincemeat of the laws he was sworn to uphold.
Between 1996 and 1998, according to prosecutors, Shandorf directed three separate bribery schemes. Acomplices would identify aliens with pending asylum requests or would lure Albanian and Yugoslavian nationals as recruits, who paid a fee of between $3000 and $4000 to guarantee asylum approvals. Officials said Shandorf would then use his access to INS computer systems to change his subordinates' asylum assessments from disapproval to approval.
In February 2000, Shandorf received a twenty-one month prison term and three years' supervised release for bribery.

I'm not sure how much I can get by with, here. Ya'll let me know.

Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER

11:14 / 13.07.06

Right...and this excerpt tells us what, exactly? That US immigration controls are so skewed that people are willing to pay very large sums of money to corrupt officials to get in?
Apparently "The crooked people working for the INS is what made me mad.", but what element of their behaviour is it that makes you quite so cross? Because it seems to me that although their behaviour seems rather self-serving and exploitative, it's not half as self-serving and exploitative as US border policy.

Moreover, it might be worthwhile looking at the language Malkin's using here - "aliens", and "Albanian and Yugoslavian Nationals" - not "people". Are you beginning to see the problem here? What does Malkin gain from totally dehumanising people attempting to enter the US, and why is the corruption of some members of the INS so terrible?

00:45 / 16.07.06

Of course they are people, just people who happened to be Albanian nationals and so forth. I see nothing dehumanizing about that, anymore than my being described as an American citizen. I think you may be projecting a bit. Have you considered that "Albanian and Yugoslavian Nationals" might be proud to be called that?

Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER

16:08 / 16.07.06

Ahem. You? Have just said that you have no problem being described as an American citizen. Great. Hurray. I'm positively ecstatic for you. However, there is a difference between "citizen" and "national" (especially as, although this is a bit more tenuous, "citizen" implies individuation whereas "national" makes you sound like you're a property of a country). The problem here is mostly that these people are being described in this way without their consent. Moreover, why, exactly, is their nationality so pressingly vital to Malkin? And again, even if they're proud to be identified as "nationals" rather than "citizens" (or even, controversially as "people"), I bet you my liver they're probably not too happy to be lumped together as "aliens"*. My point, dear Dragon, is that Malkin's use of loaded and dehumanising language betrays her reactionary agenda, and I'm really not sure you can deny that. Moreover, there's been nothing that can even loosely be described as "Yugoslavia" since 2003, so I'm wondering how up-to-date this work of incisive genius almost worthy of Ann Coulter is, precisely.

*Although obviously I feel a bit uncomfortable speaking for others like this.

03:24 / 17.07.06

Moreover, there's been nothing that can even loosely be described as "Yugoslavia" since 2003, so I'm wondering how up-to-date this work of incisive genius almost worthy of Ann Coulter is, precisely.
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a federal state consisting of the republics of Serbia and Montenegro that existed from 1992 to 2003, when it was reconstituted as a looser State Union of Serbia and Montenegro.

Since the book was written a few years ago, predating the division of that country, I wouldn't attack Malkin for that.

However, there is a difference between "citizen" and "national" (especially as, although this is a bit more tenuous, "citizen" implies individuation whereas "national" makes you sound like you're a property of a country). The problem here is mostly that these people are being described in this way without their consent.

Are there any definitions here that you would quibble over?

Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER

11:55 / 17.07.06

Since the book was written a few years ago, predating the division of that country, I wouldn't attack Malkin for that.

Fair enough- should have probably looked up the publication date for that one.

However, can you not see (despite the overlapping definitions) that the implications of the differing words "citizen" and "national" are quite important here. One word implies legitimacy, a set of rights and is mostly used as a noun, whereas the other implies nothing but country of origin and is most often used as an adjective. In much the same grammatical way as "illegal", actually. It strikes me that Malkin prefers the latter construction in her descriptions of people wanting to enter the United States because it reduces them to properties rather than people - so she can see immigration as an "Invasion" of terrifying "Yugoslav Nationals" rather than as a group of people with individual interests, needs &c.

Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER

11:58 / 17.07.06

Also, "quibble"? Slightly loaded word there - maybe try "dispute", or maybe even acknowledge that words have connotations outside their Google Dictionary definition.

14:10 / 17.07.06

Seems to me a better fit, then, to use "national" instead of "citizen," based upon your perceived connotations of the words, for people who break laws without regard to what either of us think about it. Of course, we can both agree that they are both "people with needs". Likewise, people who are "illegals" are doing illegal things without regard for your or my approval. I would agree it doesn't make sense to call them "immigrants" or "illegal immigrants" because they are not entering legally and because "immigration" implies legitamacy of action. Yet, it seems to be the accepted terminology whether it makes sense or not. I doubt the terminology does any serious feather-ruffling of these "illegals."

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:31 / 17.07.06

Likewise, people who are "illegals" are doing illegal things without regard for your or my approval.

Ah, yes. Just like it makes sense to call people "blacks" because they are doing black things. That's how it works.

Dragon, do you have a high school diploma? Square thing, gilt edges, framed in your mum's house, can't miss it...

14:55 / 17.07.06

I would agree it doesn't make sense to call them "immigrants" or "illegal immigrants" because they are not entering legally and because "immigration" implies legitamacy of action.

The whole "illegal" thing before the word "immigration" kind of negates that... Unless, of course, you've no human sympathy for them anyway, and then any word that helps in their dehumanising is an asset!

Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER

15:13 / 17.07.06

Seems to me a better fit, then, to use "national" instead of "citizen," based upon your perceived connotations of the words, for people who break laws without regard to what either of us think about it. Of course, we can both agree that they are both "people with needs". Likewise, people who are "illegals" are doing illegal things without regard for your or my approval. I would agree it doesn't make sense to call them "immigrants" or "illegal immigrants" because they are not entering legally and because "immigration" implies legitamacy of action. Yet, it seems to be the accepted terminology whether it makes sense or not.

I doubt the terminology does any serious feather-ruffling of these "illegals."

Um. How many "illegals" do you know, then? Have you asked them? Have any of the disturbing right-wing ideologues you seem to favour asked them?

Likewise, people who are "illegals" are doing illegal things without regard for your or my approval.

Is that just people entering the country illegally, or people who commit other crimes? Do you therefore consider people who infringe drugs legislation "illegals" as well? If not, why not?

Moreover, I don't understand the "without regard for your or my approval". How would people wanting to enter the country go about seeking your approval, and why would they want or need to do so? In my case (although I'm not a US citizen), anyone falling foul of the US's rather nasty border laws probably has my approval. I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at here.

Finally, I think you'll find that immigration is the act of relocating to another country or region, rather than something defined by local laws. Unless you want to "quibble" about that as well.

15:46 / 17.07.06

Yes I have a high school diploma, having graduated at the ripe old age of seventeen, as well as a bachelors degree. You?

More later.

00:28 / 18.07.06

You're being baited, Dragon. Don't bite. Stick to the facts, and be prepared to defend your conclusions.

Haus: Be nice. Failing that, be sweet.

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

09:52 / 18.07.06

I'll second that, Dragon may not agree with the views of the many of the people on the board here but he's making his points in a reasonable manner. If you disagree with him do so with a decent argument rather than sarcasm.

Regrettable Juvenilia

10:21 / 18.07.06

he's making his points in a reasonable manner

Yes, his first post in particular was exemplary, exactly the way in which people should make their points on Barbelith, I mean it's not like anyone else had to look up what the books were about and post descriptions of them here in order for anyone to know what he was COCKING ON ABOUT.

Jesus.

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

12:15 / 18.07.06

My apologies, you're absolutly right Fly since his initial post Dragon has done nothing to warrant anything other than sarcasm. This thread will be improved immensely by merely taking the piss rather than actually talking about the books or more interestingly the topics that arise from them. That's what the book section on Barbelith is for isn't it? Because between Dragon's initial admittedly poor post and your's and Haus's post I'm backing Dragon's for being a lot more relevant to the thread, the section and the whole fucking forum.

Dragon I notice that Invasion talks about harbouring and inviting terrorists into America. What does the author mean by that? Also would you yourself reccomend stricter border controls as a means to combat terrorism? (I realise that terrorist is a problematic here, in the first case I'm talking about the author's definition of terrorism in the second Dragon's own definition of terrorism).

I'm also interested to know what people think of the idea of outsourceing information gathering for national security purposes to private business concerns? Good idea? Bad? Something that's alway been with us? Open to abuse?

Kiltartan Cross

12:34 / 18.07.06

I don't agree with the prognosis of Irresistable Islam, Dragon - I believe that people forecasting this kind of thing don't usually treat Islam as a diverse enough force, but as a monoculture instead - the theoretical Umma - which isn't especially close to reality. I also believe that various things which are assumed in these models to be flat trends - for instance, immigration rates, declining birthrates - are actually more complicated, self-limiting variables which are affected by interconnected feedback loops plus a healthy influence from random events. In other words, that it's not reasonable to say "the population is falling by such-and-such a year, therefore in twenty years time it will have fallen by such-and-such times twenty"; whatever happens, it is unlikely to be so simplistic, and is probably beyond prediction at all; considering the influence that a single major random event can have on the course of world affairs, attempting to predict future trends is doomed to fail. Psychohistory is - and always was - a myth.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:22 / 18.07.06

I'm also interested to know what people think of the idea of outsourceing information gathering for national security purposes to private business concerns? Good idea? Bad? Something that's alway been with us? Open to abuse?

Off-topic, I think. In fact, given that Dragon doesn't appear to want to talk about either of these books, and nobody else appears to have read them, I'm not sure what this thread is doing in Books.

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

13:45 / 18.07.06

Off topic? It seemed like the thread was opening up a bit to take into account issues arising from Dragon's initial topic. Largely brought on by both you and Flyboy's sterling work pre-sarcasm.

Anyway, whatever.

I've found the immigration thread now anyway.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:59 / 18.07.06

Excellent.

I think one problem with this thread is that it is holding discussion on the broad discussion of immigration, which hopefully can be migrated to the Head Shop, and is also about two different books, one of which is a work of fiction written by a creator of fictitious intrigues... AND THE OTHER OF WHICH IS DIRECT ACTION!

Ahem. Sorry.

So - can we make this thread for discussing Michelle Malkin, life and works, and maybe start another thread about the modern action novel, including the work of John Weiseman?

Page: (1)2