I find it a bit flattering to be in a center of attantion - there is no such thing as negative publicity:). However, a few points need clarification.
1. The world I see is not Manichaean, or bipolar if you will: good/evil black/white, rich/poor opressor/opressed, East/West, North/South etc. and I have a track record of denopuncing it - but this genre seems very popular in this country, much more so than in Europe. If memory serves, each time I denounced such bipolar views on a Left discussion list - it stirred a controversy or even resulted in my expulsion. I think that such bipolar perspective may be an effective tool of political manipulations, but is quite useless as an analytical tool, because it obsures and distorts beyon recognition the dynamic nature of human interaction. In a nutshell, the same person can be a victim in one situation and an oppressor in another, but the bipolar narrative misses that dynamics altogether, and portrays him/her as a static character on either side, but not both.
2. I rant against not "poorer and less" educated folks, but petit bourgeoisie, which happens to be the great majority and the dominant character of the American society (but they can be found in great numbers elsewhere as well). True, they incidentally happen to be "poorer" (quite markedly so) than the folks who run this country and "less educated" than the folks in the academia - but at the same time they are relatively well off and educated by any meaningful world standard - i.e. they live better and have access to more information than 90 or so percent of the world population. The basis of my rant is that, as H.L. Mencken once observed, these folks demand rights and privileges for themselves, but are quite unwilling to extend them to others. I saw that time and again. In that sense, they are like kapos in a concentration camp - they grovel before the camp authorities but are ruthlessly cruel toward prisoners below them. For some reason I find that one of the most despicable forms of human psyche and behavior.
3. I was never a follower of any doctrine or ideology. Even in my youth I was kicked out of the boy scouts shortly after I enrolled on my parent's insistence, and when I once showed up at my HS's meeting of the local chapter of the Socialist Youth Association I was told that I was a trouble maker and asked to leave. In my undergraduate study of philosophy I was time and again admonished by my mentors for not showing proper revenerence toward the text, as I found most seminars boring. My attitude toward the text I read, including that written by Karl Marx, is that what Claude Levi-Strauss (in _Savage Mind_ if memory serves) called 'bricoleur' - take out what you need and use it, and leave out the rest. I am thus incapable of being an "-ist" of one sort or another, and your critique that my views are inconsistent with the doctrine does not stick.
Cheers,
Wojtek