WARFARE-THEN AND NOW
February 20, 2011
Part 1: Middle-Class Menace
Ah, the sixties! I remember them well. College campuses across our nation were abuzz with flower power on one hand and seething with anger on the other. Targeting and manipulating naïve students, “Cultural Marxists” used art, music, and media, as well as education, to condition their prey. As puppeteers masterfully wielded rhetorical trickery to foment dissention, disunity, and dispute, deeply alienated and embittered marionettes submitted on cue, thus affecting what arguably amounted to a stealth revolution.
Baby Boomers after all were products of Progressive Education. The movement’s father, Professor John Dewey was a Marxist-Fabian socialist. In 1928, Dewey identified the political function of schools as he saw it—that being, “to construct communist society.” Thanks to Dewey and ilk, progressive public schools served as nurseries for anti-God, anti-American, anti-middle class collectivism. Indeed, atheism was Progressive Education’s root; Marxism its branch.
The Middle-Class Anomaly
In many, if not most cases, myths sparked the flame, fanned it, and then drove the outcome—for example, stereotypical belief about proverbial “fat-cats.” Recall that some of the most vociferous rebels of the sixties themselves were privileged ivy leaguers. Phony disdain for affluence in no way prevented preppies from climbing their own professional ladders to success in business, law, media, and education. Over time, many amassed fortunes and became the very establishment they had censured.
The same applies today. Tinsel-Town liberals “own the bank” so to speak. All the while heralding “the little man,” and bemoaning right-wing greed, these live out an advantaged, planet-depleting lifestyle that they feign to detest. As was the case in the sixties, definitions as to who-fits-what-category are in flux and, especially throughout the coming decade, are destined to continue changing.
Keep in mind that half of America identifies with the “middle class”; and studies by the National Opinion Research Center reveal that those earning an annual income of $45K define themselves as such (Parade.com/intel). In politics, however, what constitutes this fuzzy category depends on what’s being promoted. For example, while campaigning, Obama promised a tax cut for “middle-class” families that earn up to $200K yearly. When a tax credit was proposed to help middle-class families pay for higher education, the magic number adjusted to $160K.
Two (or Three) Americas?
Well-to-do, progressive politicians, as former Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards, advance the “two Americas” theory. In this paradigm, good guys are "regular Americans" (the many), and bad guys are an affluent minority (the few). That Edwards’ haircuts each cost $400 hardly qualifies him as “the regular many” he purports to champion.
Truth be told, progressives recognize three Americas—namely, the affluent, the poor, and the coalition of political elitists, intelligentsia, and bureaucrats who together form a ruling class. Unfortunately, their disingenuous political leaning on behalf of “the poor” serves more to magnify a growing fiscal gap than it does to bridge it.
Fashionable Disdain of the Middle Class
Cultural editor for World, Gene Edward Veith contends, rightly so, that “a fashionable disdain for middle-class values animates liberalism.” Accordingly, upper- and lower- crust folks snub the middle class—specifically for their work ethic, religious inclinations, and social respectability. Projected guilt is intended to shame middle-class Americans into questioning their rights to private property ownership, free enterprise, and manner of living to which they have grown accustomed.
Understandably, stereotypical middle-class norms appeal to most Americans—i.e., having kids, a dog or cat, home, appliances, car, and bank account. As if on cue, today’s “third-America” class is manifestly insulted if accused of indulging in unsustainable practices, as these; and spotlighted “have-nots” are incited to begrudge their own meager piece of the American pie.
Ironically, many prominent Democratic families possess inherited wealth—e.g., the Kerrys and Kennedys. These join computer- and Hollywood- industries in lending support to liberal ideals and causes likewise funded by mega-wealthy financiers, as Warren Buffet and George Soros.
Never mind that free-market capitalism created wealth that actually catapulted America’s teeming masses (the “have-nots”) into a middle-class (“bourgeois”) lifestyle. No more. Collusion between big business and big government is no real friend to American workers. Under a new social order, their monetary worth promises never to exceed the lowest common denominator prescribed by the world community at large.
To expedite this (the power-elites’ agenda), any memory of an “American dream” must be erased from consciousness. This is accomplished, first, by targeting America’s middle class for systematic extinction. Convince the masses that they are victims of greedy, rightwing management—the answer for which is “social justice,” minus the Founding Fathers’ blueprint. Do this, and dependency on the State with its many entitlements will flourish unabated.
Marxist Plan to Destroy American Hegemony
Minus her middle class, America forfeits hegemony; and that’s just what globalists want—this, by dismantling and shipping overseas America’s industrial base and by advancing theories found in Paolo Friere’s book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Friere insists that non-whites must accept that they are oppressed and, then, give voice to their grievances; furthermore, they must resist any assimilation that “dominant white Western culture” attempts to impose on them. This they do by maintaining their native tongue and culture. Season this recipe with class envy, coupled with bogus claims of entitlement to other people’s resources, and the seething pot boils over.
Cosmic Struggle between Worldviews
Chuck Colson said it well: “The culture war is not just about abortion, homosexual rights, or decline of public education. These are only skirmishes. The real war is a cosmic struggle between worldviews”—ideologies or philosophies offering overarching approaches to understanding God, the world, and humanity’s relations to both.
Postmodern nomenclature may be new, but concepts aren’t. As was the case in the sixties, non-socialist societies still are divided into two classes relating to class, race, ethnicity, and/or gender—namely, the oppressed and their oppressors. Under pretense of eradicating “class warfare,” opportunists fabricate and, then, exploit this seemingly timeless struggle (consistently to their own advantage).
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
In 1921, leading American socialist Norman Thomas gave voice to this scheme. “Under the name of liberalism,” he explained, the American people will “adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Punishing the middle class, expanding racial justice to favor minorities, trumping the U.S. Constitution with international “soft law,” and demanding justice for the planet (ostensibly worthy of human apology and even worship) all hasten Norman Thomas’ premonition.
Socialism’s pawns are in for a surprise ending, though. Minus America’s middle class, two classes will remain—namely, the oppressed and their oppressors.
This is the “real change” they can count on.
More to come in Part 2
David A. Noebel. “The Marxist/Leninist Worldview.” Understanding
the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth.
2. Mindy Belz. “We vs. Them.” World (9 May 2009): 73.
3. Gene Edward Veith. “Head of the Classes.” World (5 March 2005): 30.
4. Donald S. McAlvany. “The Decline of the Middle Class.” The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor (December 2007): 1.
5. Kim Andrews. “Arizona Bill Targets Classes Promoting Ethnic Resentment.” Education Reporter 293 (June 2010): 1, 4.