overclass and the swollen federal bureaucrac)rnit controls is the abandonment ofrnraeial manipulation and a policy of simplernnondiscrimination, without preferences.rnNondiscrimination bv the state isrnunobjectionable, but Lind wants nationalrnoutlawing of all discrimination, publicrnand private, on grounds of race, gender,rnand sexual preference. That policy, ofrncourse, would simply intrude the nationalrnstate into the management and “radicalrnreconstruction” of independent socialrninstitutions and private firms, andrnwould represent a massive enhancementrnof the overclass state.rnThe “national democracy” he envisionsrnas the political ideal of Trans-rnAmerica would also invoK e replacing thernpresent system of congressional representationrnwith proportional representation,rnwhich, he hopes, would diminish thernpower of largely European-Americanrnparts of the country (e.g., small Westernrnstates) in favor of the power of those underrnnon-European influence (the Northeastrnand those peripheral states wherernimmigration has had a major impact).rnEconomically, while he rightly urges restrictionsrnon corporate expatriation, hernalso endorses “unsubtle, crude, old-fashionedrnredistribution of wealth, throughrntaxation and public spending” as well asrnrestrictions on campaign finances andrnpractices, abolition of “legacy preferences”rnat even private universities (whichrnhe sees as merely extensions of the state),rnand the effeeti’e abolition of professionalrnlicensing and credentialling. Not all ofrnthese ideas are bad, but Lind’s proposalrnis a liberal version of national socialism,rn”radical reconstruction” of society andrnredistribution of wealth bv the centralrnstate, not for the purpose of fulfillingrnuniersal rights but for the ostensiblerngoal of strengthening the nation. AsrnJohn Lukacs and I have noted, the synthesisrnof nationalism and socialism is thernstrongest political force of this century;rnLind is trying to keep the synthesis alivernfor the next century, and to reformulaternit for the political left.rnBut one practical problem with his visionrnof Trans-America is that there is nornrealistic prospect for it to evolve. Itrnseems to depend on a supposititiousrncoalition of the nonwhite underclassrnwith the white middle and v’orking classesrnthat the overclass is dispossessing, andrnnot only on a coalition but on intermarriagernamong the races. Since it is culturernand language that are important to Lind,rnand since he is obliious to race even as arnsubjective mode of consciousness, it neverrnoccurs to him that the emergence inrnthe last 30 years of a nonwhite racial consciousnessrnpromises not only to preventrnany such national coalition but een tornaggravate antagonisms, as nonwhites becomernthe majorit’ and continue to invokern”white racism” as the onlv explanationrnfor their own failures.rnLind is correct in his criticism andrnrejection of both the antinationalrn”democratic universalism” of the neoconservativesrnand the antivvhite as well asrnantinational multiculturalism of the left.rnand he is correct that a real American nationrnexists and has existed since at leastrnthe time of the War for hidependenee.rnBut that nation—and the culture andrnlanguage that define it—are simply inseparablernfrom the people that createdrnthem and transmitted them, and if massrnimmigration and low white fertility continuernfor much longer, that people willrncease to exist and the nation they createdrnwill die vith them. The overclass bears arnlarge part of the responsibility for thatrnprotracted murder of the nation, butrnLind’s analysis of the overclass missesrnmost of what it is doing and how andrnwhy it is doing it. What he offers thatrnclass is a form of nationalism that in nornway threatens its basic interests and power,rna formula by which it could continuernits manipulation of the country bv donningrnnationalist garb even as it persists inrnmanaging the decline and eventual disappearancernof the nation and its people.rnIn the end, Lind’s book is, even if unintentionally,rna fraud. While it purports tornbe the charter for revolution against thernoverclass, it is in fact a tract for the furtherrnentrenchment and increase of overclassrnpower. As he tells us, followingrnMachiavelli, the overclass “has specializedrnin ruling by fraud,” b- using antinationalrnand antiwhite forces for the furtherancernof its own power, and if thernruling class is as wise as it is cunning, itrnwill make good use of this book whosernauthor has already proved himself so eagerrnto be useful to it.rnLIBERAL ARTSrnREADING, WRITING, AND . . .rnAccording to a United Press story last October, two teachers at Eerett Middle School in San Francisco liad their teaching licenses revokedrnafter hosting a presentation bv lesbian guest speakers vho showed students liow to use sex toys and perform homosexual intercourse.rnIn an effort to restore the licenses, the school administrators may file an appeal to overturn the state’s decision. “Gail Kaufman,rna spokeswoman for the San Francisco Unified School District, said the district was shocked by the ruling.”rnIn a related story, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported in September that Concerned Women for America has asked its members tornwrite to their congressmen demanding that support be terminated for the National Education Association, which has officially endorsedrnthe concept of a national Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual History Month. The concept comes from Rodney Wilson, a St. Louis highrnschool teacher, and was endorsed by the NEA because, in tlic words of its Missouri director, “surveys show a majority of Americans believerncliildren should be taught tolerance.”rn30/CHRONICLESrnrnrn