merely regurgitating left-wing efforts tornsmear it as “pseudo-science” and “neo-rnNazi.” In any case, it is hard to see anythingrn”Darwinian” about books thatrnnever invoke biology or genetics; whilerntheir timid reception by neoconservatism,rnonce the left denounced them,rndemonstrates how neoconservatives continuernto slobber when the left rings itsrnbells, not how hell-bent they are on reversingrnall that the left has constructed.rnLind is even farther out to sea in hisrndiatribe against Pat Robertson’s bookrnThe New World Order, which he claims isrna thinly disguised anti-Semitic tract. Irnconfess to not having read Robertson’srnwork, and have no disposition to defendrnit, but while Lind may be correct in arguingrnthat The New World Order offers arnsimplistic and unsubstantiated conspiracyrntheory of history centered on “Europeanrnbankers” as the moving agentsrnbehind the “New World Order,” hernnowhere produces a single quotationrnfrom it to support his claim that Robertson’srnconspiracy theory is directedrnagainst Jews. It seems true that Robertsonrn(or his ghostwriter) made use of variousrnbooks that are explicitly anti-rnSemitic and repeat various Jewish conspiracyrntheories that have floated aroundrnon the European and American rightrnand left for centuries, but the many passagesrnfrom Robertson’s own book thatrnLind adduces, so far from identifying thernRothschilds or the Warburgs as Jewish,rnroutinely refer to them as “Germanrnbankers” or “E^uropean powers.” Lindrnhimself acknowledges this without offeringrna glimmer of its significance.rn”Throughout The New World Order, as Irnshall show in further detail below,” hernpuffs, “Robertson uses ‘German’ or ‘European’rnwhere his anti-Semitic sourcesrnhave ‘Jewish.'” The point is that Robertsonrnseems deliberately to avoid identifyingrnthe villains of his conspiracy theory asrnJews. To him the point is not their Jewish,rnGerman, or European background,rnbut rather their banking connections.rnNevertheless, Lind does raise a compellingrnquestion about the treatment ofrnRobertson by such paladins of the Establishmentrnright as William F. Buckley, Jr.,rnand Norman Podhoretz, who stronglyrndefend Robertson against Lind’s accusations.rnBuckley and Podhoretz have neverrnfailed to denounce and purge even thern”A powerful mind”rnThe Vision ofrnRichardrnWeaverrnJoseph Scotchie, editorrnOrder from your bookstore or direct from tliernpublisher Call 908/445-2280 or Fax 908/445-rn3138.rnIn the United States:rntransaction publishersrnV I Department 96RWArnRutgers—The State Universityrn New Brunswick, N.J. 08903rnIn the United Kingdom and Europe;rntransaction publishersrnr , I Representation & Distribution, Ltd.rn^ ‘ 244A London RoadrnHadleigh, Essex SS7 2DErnUnited Kingdomrn- Russell Kirkrn”Mr. Scotchie’s collection,rnthe most valuable contributionrnto Weaver scholarshiprnso far, should havernbeen published long ago.”rn—Clyde Wilson, ChroniclesrnRichard M. Weaver was one of thernfounders of modern conservatism. Hernis an enduring intellectual figure ofrntwentieth-century America. The Visionrnof Richard Weaver is the first collectionrnof essays about this seminalrnthinker.rnISBN: 1-56000-212-3 (cloth) 245 pp. $39.95/£25.95rnVisit us on the Internet at www.transactlonpub.comrntransactionrnmost innocuous whiffs of anti-Semitismrnand crackpottery on the right, so “whyrnhave the mainstream conservatives whornbroke with the conspiracy-mongeringrnleader of the John Birch Society apologizedrnfor the even more extremist leaderrnof the Christian Coalition in thernI990’s?” While Lind fails to make hisrncase that Robertson is an anti-Semite, hernis probably correct that Robertson’s bookrnis far more closely connected to anti-rnSemitism and bizarre historical viewsrnthan is anything Buckley’s and Podhoretz’srnprevious targets ever uttered.rnWhy, then, do they not denouncernRobertson as well?rnLind’s answer, and he is probably correctrnabout this too, is that Robertson isrnstrongly pro-Israeli (as Podhoretz acknowledges),rnas well as being far morernpowerful than the Birch Society. Withrnone-third of the Republican Party identifyingrnitself as the “Christian Right,” anyrnattack on Robertson from such “responsiblernconservatives” as Buckley and Podhoretzrnwould probabk backfire on themrnand wind up marginalizing the watchdogsrnthemselves. Their smug determinationrnto smother any breath of irresponsibilityrnon the right is convenientlyrnsuspended when it runs up against “extremists”rnwho happen to be more powerfulrnthan they, and who support some ofrnthe same goals.rnDespite the validity of many of Lind’srnexposures of the intellectual poverty, dishonesty,rnand politically convenient acrobaticsrnof mainstream conservatism,rnwhich he mainly derives from unacknowledgedrnpaleoconservative critics ofrnthe mainstream right, liis book is toornflawed in concept and execution to be eitherrna reliable critique of the contemporarvrnright, or a sound analysis of overclassrnpolitical and social power. In fact, by itsrndefense of the “national liberalism” onrnwhich the dominance of the overclassrnrests and its disguise of the close relationshiprnbetween the overclass and the managerialrnstate that Lind worships, Up FromrnConservatism does nothing to challengernoverclass power, and much to bolsterrnit. Yet, if the overclass cannot produce arnmore persuasive defense of itself thanrnwhat Mr. Lind offers, its ability to resistrnthe emerging challenge from morernauthentic Middle American adversariesrnof the managerial state may be less thanrnmost observers arc prepared to admit,rnor most of its own members care tornbelieve.rn32/CHRONICLESrnrnrn