Malkin and the conspiracy theorists

Aiiieeee!!! The New World Order is on the loose again! Run for your lives!

You see, old far-right conspiracies aren't just being trotted out in defense of global warming. They're also playing a big role in the immigration debate -- though, of course, we already knew this.

The latest iteration, unsurprisingly, is coming from the Malkin corner of the Bizarro Universe -- specifically, Juan Mann at Malkin's immigration blog recently had this to say:

The root of the evil: our apparent forced march toward a "comprehensive" New World Order of regional and ultimately global government, where nation-busting mass immigration is just one part of the process.

Though hardly a recent development, the excellent recent work by Jerome R. Corsi exposing the North American Union, the Amero currency, the NAFTA Superhighway—and its Texas highway segment which is already underway—leaves little doubt that the collectivist, internationalist agenda of America's ruling elite continues full steam ahead whether the public likes it or not.

He then goes on to glowingly cite the late Sam Francis as a prophet of the problem -- because, you see, Francis understood that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were actually caused by mass immigration.

Ahem.

Yes, that Sam Francis:

The 1990s saw Francis radicalized to the point where he is today the chief editor for a leading white supremacist hate group, the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC)*. That tie was initiated in 1993, when Francis published his first column in the CCC's tabloid, Citizens Informer, complaining that the media ignored whites murdered by blacks while police brutality victim Rodney King, characterized as a black criminal, was celebrated.

The next year, Francis made his first appearance at a conference of American Renaissance*, a magazine devoted to eugenics (the "science" of breeding better human beings) and allegedly race-based characteristics (such as IQ levels, sexual aggressiveness and propensity to criminality). In June 1994, Francis praised the CCC in a Times column for "planting seeds that may eventually bear greater fruit" than the Republican Party (the "Stupid Party," in Francis' phrase).

Ultimately, Francis was fired from the Times in 1995 after conservative author Dinesh D'Souza quoted Francis' 1994 speech at the American Renaissance conference and described him as embodying the "new spirit of white bigotry." Since then, Francis has appeared at every biannual American Renaissance conference and written for the magazine.

In 1999, Francis joined the CCC's Citizens Informer as co-editor with Chris Temple, an adherent of the anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology who has since left the job. In that post, he has stacked the publication with immigrant-bashers and refocused the increasingly strident CCC on opposition to non-white immigration. [Ed. note: Temple first came to public notice as a spokesman for Identity churches in northern Idaho.]

Yes, the same Sam Francis who once wrote:

The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.

The same Sam Francis who had a conniption over that Monday Night Football stunt with Terrell Owens and the Desperate Housewife, not because of the nudity but because of the miscegenation:

The point was not just to hurl a pie in the face of morals and good taste but also of white racial and cultural identity. The message of the ad was that white women are eager to have sex with black men, that they should be eager, and that black men should take them up on it.

Of course, we already knew that neither Mann nor Malkin have any compunction about playing footsie with -- indeed, openly admiring -- white supremacists; after all, they both write for the SPLC-designated hate group VDare. Mann's post links directly to "more" on the story at VDare.

Mann even goes on to extoll the virtues of mass deportation:

So not only has there been a quiet rigging of the nationwide expedited removal provisions by successive administrations, but now the much-celebrated H.R. 4437 "enforcement" bill actually destroys the possibility of there ever being nationwide summary removal (outside of border areas).

And without the summary removal of illegal aliens—sending them packing without years of immigration litigation — there will be no real immigration law enforcement in this country . . . because no one will be leaving anytime soon.

Just so everyone understands: there will be no "summary removal" of illegal aliens without, as at least an intermediary step, mass incarceration. This point, however, is one the Malkinites seem eager to evade, as evidenced by Malkin herself in her recent appearance on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show, when O'Reilly tagged Malkin with this question:

O'Reilly: Michelle, do you think there will be any compromise on the immigration bill, or do you still want to kick down doors and drag little kids out and throw them across the border?

Malkin: I wish you would stop characterizing my position that way. My position, my position, seriously, is that we need to enforce the law, and deport people who are breaking it. And I don't think that there is any compromise on that. ...

What Malkin and the rest seem to want to gloss over is that it will be impossible to deport the 11 million or people who are "breaking the law" without kicking down doors and dragging little kids and throwing them across the border.

Or, perhaps more notably, it won't be possible without creating mass detention facilities capable of processing them all for deportation. After all, even illegal immigrants are given due process under our system of laws -- even though the nativists, of course, would like us to think otherwise.

But the reappearance of the hoary "New World Order" conspiracy theory on Malkin's own blog raises the question, once again, about what Malkin said on another Bill O'Reilly program:

In fact -- again, I think that this is something that the mainstream media does not recognize. It is in fact conservatives who are very outspoken in condemning fringe people, and people who are extremists on the right side of the aisle.

And in her book Unhinged:

And while the Left's knee-jerk response to these stories will doubtlessly be to trot out well-worn examples of unseemly behavior on the right -- Dick Cheney swearing, or mean-spirited conservatives' Internet jibes about Democrats -- the truth is that it's conservatives themselves who blow the whistle on their bad boys and go after the real extremism on their side of the aisle.

And this:

And while conservatives zealously police their own ranks to exclude extremists and conspiracy theories, extremism and conspiracy theories have become the driving force of the Democrat Party.

So, if the right "goes after" its extremists, and excludes the "conspiracy theories," why does Malkin tolerate them on one of her own blogs? Or does the right chase out its racist nutballs by extolling them as heroes?

This couldn't have anything to do with Malkin's well-established fondness for conspiracy theories herself, could it?

[Hat tip to Ryan at Malkin(s)watch.]