Berkeley is so left-wing…

…that people will pay extra to get personalized license plates which refer to Antonio Gramsci, the communist philosopher who advocated the methodical long-term infiltration by leftists into positions of influence in academia, media and local politics as a necessary precursor to a “stealth” socialist cultural shift which will lead inevitably to a complete nationwide Marxist revolution.

I peeked inside the car and saw a souvenir “FBI” visor with the FBI crossed out — which should dispel any doubts as to the political views of the car’s owner.

57 Responses to “In Berkeley. . .the personalized license plates say "Gramsci””

  1. 1CattusMagnus on Jun 23, 2009 at 11:38 am:

    I wonder if the car’s owner knows that Adolf Hitler had a hand in designing their precious little commie-mobile. And by Hitler, I don’t mean the man who’s face appears on the bumper.

  2. 2average_guy on Jun 23, 2009 at 11:39 am:

    I learned something new today, thanks to Zombie.

    Now if I speak with and/or hear an elite somewhere who drops the name “Gramsci” I’ll know who they are speaking of.

    Apparently there are all kinds of education to be had from Berkeley. Zombie, in a way you’re a professor. I mean that as a compliment.

  3. 3Starless on Jun 23, 2009 at 1:00 pm:

    That sure is a nice bourgeois-mobile. Be a shame if the proletariat did something to it.

    At what point are rich middle-class radical Communism worshipers going to see the irony of their entire world view? (I know, I know. Never.)

  4. 4Kade on Jun 23, 2009 at 1:20 pm:

    “I peeked inside the car and saw a souvenir “FBI” visor with the FBI crossed out — which should dispel any doubts as to the political views of the car’s owner.”

    …Don’t forget the trite bumper sticker on the rear end.

  5. 5bemused on Jun 23, 2009 at 3:24 pm:

    what I find soooo ironic is these folks blindly dis the system that feeds, clothes and provides transposation for them. Any bets on whether the vehicle’s owner has a 401K?

  6. 6Tom Jones on Jun 23, 2009 at 3:42 pm:

    No Cars for Commies! When the owner comes back it should be stripped.

  7. 7Tony on Jun 23, 2009 at 4:01 pm:

    is that a tube of KY i see in the cup holder?

  8. 8Horse on Jun 23, 2009 at 4:31 pm:

    Another faux commie whose actual objectives are acquiring capitalist provided goods.

  9. 9nadadhimmi on Jun 23, 2009 at 7:16 pm:

    To the progressives in San Fransicko: People die when shot in the chest, see the video of Neda. The people you refer to as “rednecks”, in your most tolerant and enlightened, progressive view, have the guns. And can hit a groundhog at 500 yds. Do you really think liberals will be allowed to destroy the USA, when all it takes is a hot loaded .243 Winchester, a good rest and; bang, story over? Think twice before you declare civil war in the USA, you won’t like the results, fools.

  10. 10Stone K on Jun 23, 2009 at 8:02 pm:

    What kills me is the fact that if this person lived i the system they promote they would not have such a nice car, have have products of “quality” like whats on their center console, nor would they have the right to mock the people who defend the state…

    Some how they think they would be just as well off…

    Well considering how corrupt the communist system is maybe they would be prosperous while the rest of us suffered for the state.

  11. 11zombie on Jun 23, 2009 at 9:53 pm:

    #9 nadadhimmi:

    You’re still thinking like a “redneck.” The whole point behind Gramscianism is that the revolution can be implemented slowly and sneakily, by indoctrinating the next generation into Marxist thought patterns through the educational system, by brainwashing everyone using the MSM, and so on. They don’t need to ever resort to a shooting war; the Gramscian revolution is a stealth revolution fought in the cultural institutions, not on the streets. You can’t defeat them with a rifle. The only weapon the Gramscians fear is the truth.

  12. 12richb on Jun 23, 2009 at 10:08 pm:

    Why any wealthy person would think that communism would be better is so incomprehensible, it boggles the mind. Not only has it failed worldwide, it kills the rich first, every time!

    This person who is driving that car didn’t earn the money that bought it. There is no way that car belongs to the driver, it has to be owned by the parents of this genius or something.

    Communists can’t build near enough cars for society let alone a convertible. A convertible is a symbol of the success of free enterprise. There is no other way a car like that would exist.

  13. 13Starless on Jun 24, 2009 at 4:35 am:

    #11 Zombie

    It seems to me that they really don’t feel the need for stealthiness anymore. Yes, they deny their true intent up and down but they don’t seem to feel any need to hide their actions.

    #12 richb

    This person who is driving that car didn’t earn the money that bought it. There is no way that car belongs to the driver, it has to be owned by the parents of this genius or something.

    I disagree, though you could quibble over what constitutes “earning”. The Gramsci reference implies the owner is an academic — maybe a prof or asst. prof. — who can afford at least the down payment. So it’s probably safe to assume that the vehicle is owned partly by the driver and partly by the bank which adds yet another layer of irony. A bank loan means participating in the very capitalist system of credit.

  14. 14Anonymous on Jun 24, 2009 at 4:37 am:

    “The whole point behind Gramscianism is that the revolution can be implemented slowly and sneakily, by indoctrinating the next generation into Marxist thought patterns through the educational system, by brainwashing everyone using the MSM, and so on.”

    I can’t speak for everyone, but in my case, I don’t think they’re making a whole lot of progress.

  15. 15Dave Surls on Jun 24, 2009 at 4:40 am:

    #14 was my post, btw. People may have noticed that I don’t think too much of communism.

  16. 16Stephanie A. Richer on Jun 24, 2009 at 7:53 am:

    Zombie, you are my hero. It really is almost too easy, isn’t it, finding the irony of life in Berkeley? Vanity plates to promote one’s admiration of a Communist philosopher . . . five bucks says the owner of the vehicle also has a Che t-shirt hanging in his/her closet.

  17. 17Ringo the Gringo on Jun 24, 2009 at 8:55 am:

    “I can’t speak for everyone, but in my case, I don’t think they’re making a whole lot of progress.”

    Huh?….The Presidency of Barack Obama is the pinnacle of 70 years of Gramscian social grooming.

  18. 18marcus on Jun 24, 2009 at 10:45 am:

    I wonder if the irony of the bumper sticker is lost on the owner of the car. Blurred on my monitor, “No child left a mind” it seems to say, with of course a picture of George W. No child left a mind seems to be the underlying theme of the Gramsci folk, and given the last post (the Special School for Special Children), they are winning. No child left with a mind to think for themselves, surely.

    And as to their progress, well, they have won, folks. Time to take the 62,000,000 of us who did NOT vote for this and get busy to make change we really can believe in. Right now.

  19. 19Dave Surls on Jun 24, 2009 at 11:19 am:


    No doubt what you say is largely true.

    The government is basically taking over everything, bit by bit, as the above chart shows, but there are plenty of us out there that do NOT approve, and we’d reverse the trend in a second, if we could.

    Personally, I only vote for Libertarians and Republicans, never for Democrats, and I vote against ALL bond issues. I refuse to accept any government handouts, I live out in the country in order to minimize my contact with socialist America and its endless rules and regulations, and I revile communism and socialism and the Democrat Party every chance I get, and that’s about all I can do.

    And, I wouldn’t vote for Barry O if you held a pistol to my head.

    Like I said, I can’t speak for everyone…but I ain’t buying into communism or anything that even resembles communism.

    True communists are going to be disappointed with the way America ends up, however, because we’re following the path of National Socialism, not Marxist style socialism. We’re not headed towards a dictatorship of the proletariat with a lot of pie in the sky egalitarian redistribution of wealth, we’re headed towards a national socialist partnership between the people in the government and the people in the gigantic corporations and any redistribution of wealth is going to be in the other direction (“welfare reform” for the unwashed masses, government bailouts for the rich and powerful is how its going to be, and it’s going to be more and more like that as government grows and grows and grows).

  20. 20Tony on Jun 24, 2009 at 2:15 pm:

    I kow it sounds mean, but i have no pity fo rthe people who voted for Obama, and are losing there jobs.

    You wanted socialism, fine.

    now live with it.

  21. 21Ken on Jun 24, 2009 at 2:59 pm:

    Obama a Socialist?

    Give me a fXXXXing break, people.

    I’m off to Tel Aviv tomorrow. Take care of yourselves. Back soon to annoy you all once again.

  22. 22Dave Surls on Jun 24, 2009 at 3:18 pm:

    “Obama a Socialist?”

    Of course, he’s a socialist. Just not a marxist style socialist.

  23. 23Starless on Jun 25, 2009 at 4:33 am:

    #22 Dave Surls

    Of course, he’s a socialist. Just not a marxist style socialist.

    He’s a FDR/LBJ socialist with a touch of Jesse Jackson thrown in.

  24. 24Panzerkardinal on Jun 25, 2009 at 10:19 am:

    Gramsci at his deathbed made confession recieved absolution and died a Catholic.

    So perhaps the driver is actually a former communist who’s returned to the Catholic faith.

    Well probably not…

  25. 25jeff on Jun 25, 2009 at 2:34 pm:

    It’s not that strange to be a rich communist. The communist party big shots in the soviet union were all very well off and drove foreign cars (unlike the soviet people who drove the crappy soviet made cars, which the vast majority of the people couldn’t afford), ate better food, wore better clothes, and got to listen to foreign music. This is what Orwell was talking about when he wrote that “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others”. And if there ever was a communist regime running America, you can bet the owner of that car would automatically be given an important position.

  26. 26Kowa B on Jun 25, 2009 at 10:20 pm:

    #19 Dave Surls

    You’re aware that between 1950-2009, the president was Republican about twice as often as he was a Democrat…so it’s a little foolish to use your chart to criticize the democratic party. Also, one of the longest decreases in government spending was during the democratic president Clinton’s term. I’m not a democrat, but your argument makes no sense

  27. 27Dave Surls on Jun 26, 2009 at 12:19 am:

    “You’re aware that between 1950-2009, the president was Republican about twice as often as he was a Democrat…so it’s a little foolish to use your chart to criticize the democratic party.”

    The chart actually shows total government spending, not just federal government spending, and it covers the period 1900-present, not 1950-present.

    Also…Congress decides how much money to steal and spend, and since the 1930s, Congess has almost always been controlled by the Democrats. Between 1933 and 1995 the Republicans only had majorities in one Congress (1953) and that’s when federal government spending went totally bonkers.

    I do agree that it would be nice if Republican Presidents exercised their veto on appropriations bills.

    Here’s another analysis of government spending. You can see that virtually all of the increase in federal government spending took place during the years when Roosevelt and Truman held the presidency, and in the following years when the Democrats controlled Congress every single year (federal expenditures went from about 5% of GDP to about 20% of GDP).

    The dip in federal government spending during the Clinton years takes place after the Republicans (finally) won control of Congress in the 1994 elections.

    I think I will continue to vote for Libertarians and Republicans, and not for Democrats.

  28. 28Anonymous on Jun 26, 2009 at 3:54 am:

    to the person who said Hitler designed the VW it was actually designed by Ferdinand Porsche But Hitler did call for a affordable/dependable car for all German families

  29. 29Starless on Jun 26, 2009 at 4:57 am:

    #25 Jeff

    It’s not that strange to be a rich communist.

    Lemme see if I can anticipate a Ken-style comment regarding Communism and wealth with a response.

    No, Communism does not preclude the accumulation of wealth. Owning a New Beetle does not, in itself, make the Commie wannabe a hypocrite. What does is the comparative suffering of the proletariat. While workers drive to their labor in Kias, Geos, and Ford Fiestas, this privileged parasite on the economic body of the people drives around in a trendy, relatively expensive product of Western decadence and has the gall to proclaim solidarity with the workers through something as cheap and decadent as a bumper sticker.

    This is what Orwell was talking about when he wrote that “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others”.

    Indeed. Orwell was a good Socialist ideologue. What he hated was Stalinism.

  30. 30CattusMagnus on Jun 26, 2009 at 10:25 am:

    #28 Anonymous,

    Hitler drew a sketch of what he thought this affordable car should look like. Guess what? It turned out to look exactly like his picture:
    He even said it should look like a junebug.

  31. 31Joe on Jun 26, 2009 at 8:47 pm:

    Pretty funny and ironic that this tool chose to keep the license plate frame and prostitute themself for a capitalist business, McNevin dealership.

  32. 32Anonymous on Jun 27, 2009 at 8:19 am:

    One would think a Red would drive a UAW made car. But that would mean having sympathy with American workers rather than a contempt for them.

  33. 33Salman on Jun 27, 2009 at 2:22 pm:

    Hitler did not design the Volkswagen. He drew a picture of one of these and said build it like that.

  34. 34Anonymous on Jun 27, 2009 at 6:30 pm:

    #27 Dave

    Spending jumps in 1940-45, then drops off substantially afterward. You seem to attribute that jump to the fact that FDR and Truman were democrats while brushing off the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the largest and deadliest war in world history, which to cost a rather large sum of money. In addition, There is no substantial spending drop from the general upwards norm during the Reagen era on the chart.

  35. 35Dave Surls on Jun 28, 2009 at 3:48 am:

    “Spending jumps in 1940-45, then drops off substantially afterward.”

    Federal spending went way up in WWII. However, ignoring the big blip that caused, between 1933 and 1967 it rose from 5% of GDP to about 20% of GDP…and never really went down, as the graph plainly shows.

    “There is no substantial spending drop from the general upwards norm during the Reagen era on the chart.”

    That’s because Reagan didn’t use his veto pen to reduce government spending, like he should have done.

  36. 36Anonymous on Jun 28, 2009 at 4:37 pm:

    Not just a VW, but a convertible, too.

  37. 37Tony on Jun 28, 2009 at 9:00 pm:

    LOL, can you guys imagine the media coverage, and or vandalism that would have taken place if someone were to have a tile on here with a giant “Ron Paul in 2012!” slogan on it?

    I wonder what text books they are using……..

  38. 38Kun on Jun 29, 2009 at 12:01 am:

    I noted Gramscism to a friend and said this:
    “A. Most of the people he proposes to lead revolution would be progressive petite-bourgeoisie.

    B. It isn’t necessary to begin with, the vanguard is the most advanced section of the proletariat, aka proletarians who devote their lives pretty much to learning and attaining revolution. So just giving proletarians a book and teaching them would work just as fine

    C. Most of the people listed in A would have generally ultra-left views that would alienate them from the proletariat, and since culture is part of the superstructure, if the economy goes bad and culture turns bad, the bourgeoisie can just say ‘Cultural degeneration!’ and blame the Communists. That’s how anti-intellectualism and such exist, they’re viewed as elitists with no ties to the proletariat.”

    There are also other issues, such as by neglecting an actual proletarian presence, there’s no way to actually defend against reactionaries since the only people who know of your efforts are other, similarly doomed intellectuals, etc.

    While one could say that Gramsci had an influence on culture in general moving to the “left,” it has not moved it towards Communist ideals and has instead degenerated into reactionary currents such as postmodernism and other idealistic, anti-materialist strands of culture.

  39. 39Anonymous on Jun 29, 2009 at 12:50 pm:

    I just don’t see the point of this blog. You’re showing us that Berkeley is left-wing? In other news, the sky is blue, water is wet, and the KKK is racist.

    Seriously, how is pissing and moaning about the left-wing idiots in Berkeley going to help the Republican party get back into power? It’s not enough to say no to the other side’s ideas, you guys need to come up with viable alternatives that appeal to the american people. I say this as a moderate liberal who recognizes the importance of having a viable opposition party to balance things out in government.

    The cold hard truth is that things look pretty grim for the GOP right now. Most of my token conservative friends have jumped ship and either voted Libertarian, or crossed party lines and voted for Obama. They are pissed that the GOP was in power for 6 years and didn’t even balance the budget. Also, they don’t care for the increasing influence of the Religious right.

  40. 40curious_fritz on Jun 29, 2009 at 3:00 pm:


    love your “berkley is so left-wing” series! as a german i’ve got one question regarding the berkley left-wingers reaction on the situation in iran: german left wingers for the most part remained silent or even backed the mullahs. not the usual behaviour from lefties towards an oppressed people, like the iranians, one would think. now my question: what about the american left-wingers? is there fascination for anti-western tyrants also bigger than their wish declare solidarity with the oppressed? Or ist that just the germans? or is there an ideological explaination i’ve missed?


    curious fritz

  41. 41curious_fritz on Jun 29, 2009 at 3:04 pm:

    sorry, i meant berkeley. it’s pretty late in germany already.

  42. 42average_guy on Jun 29, 2009 at 7:36 pm:

    #39 Anonymous troll.

  43. 43Starless on Jun 30, 2009 at 4:39 am:

    #40 curious_fritz

    It seems as though the international Left has taken Obama’s passive lead in their reaction to the Iranian protests. They’re really caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. OTOH, protesting against The Man is their bread and butter. OTOtherH, The Man in this case is being unjustly oppressed by the United States. So the math is: the Left is programmed to despise all things about Western Capitalist Democracy (or, as they see it, Western Christian colonial imperialism), the mullahs are in conflict with Western Capitalist Democracy, therefore, this is a case of, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. The whole religious thugocracy aspect of the situation is ignored, like a zit on the face of their ideological outrage.

  44. 44Kowa B on Jun 30, 2009 at 6:55 am:

    starless, Obama was absolutely right to respond to the situation in iran the way he did. Ahmadinejad’s only shot of maintaining real power or control over the state is to convince the country that the protests are the result of outside meddling, not a grassroots, homegrown thing. Remember, the Iranians hate America for “meddling” in their country at past times. Ahmadinejad would love nothing more than for obama to come out and say that the “great satan” is on the side of the protesters.

  45. 45Starless on Jun 30, 2009 at 8:13 am:

    #44 Kowa B

    I didn’t say Obama was entirely wrong. He could have used stronger words of condemnation but I don’t think he should have gone farther than that — e.g. make promises of support to protesters which he never intended to keep, overtly supporting the opposition, or secretly supporting a coup. Not necessarily because Ahmadinnerjacket would use it for internal propaganda — he did that anyway with Obama’s pussified language — but because a nuclear Iran is pretty much inevitable and any substantive action by the US against Iran would mean a military campaign which would be far, far messier than we could handle right now. Iran is pretty much a lose-lose situation for us unless we’re willing to pound one of the more advanced countries in the ME back to the stone age. And even that would be a net loss for us.

    What I was saying before is that the international Left seems to be taking Obama’s lead — something which they don’t necessarily have to do. If they wanted to live up to their stark ideological position they wouldn’t go all flaccid when it comes to religious thugocracies murdering The People, regardless of whether the Right is on the same side of the issue or not.

  46. 46zombie on Jun 30, 2009 at 8:54 am:

    #39 Anonymous

    Sorry, I’m an expert in identifying moby comments, so they don’t work here. As clever as you imagine you might be, we see through your charade halfway through the first sentence.

    You also need to do better research before crafting your moby comments on various blogs. You fall into the trap of believing the stereotypes that fellow leftists have spun about those whom they imagine to be their political opponents. I have no interest in “getting the Republican Party back into power,” nor any interest in political parties whatsoever.

    Since the rest of your comment is a pack of lies, I won’t waste any more time dissecting it.

  47. 47curious_fritz on Jun 30, 2009 at 10:26 pm:


    thank You for Your answer!

  48. 48Starless on Jul 1, 2009 at 5:03 am:

    #47 curious_fritz

    I’m always happy to go on about my own b.s. theories.

    BTW, I’m thinking somebody should ask groups like ANSWER where the big protests, benefit concerts, and ships full of aid are for the Iranian protesters. Like they did for the Palestinians in Gaza when the evil Israelis decided to finally hit back against Hamas rockets being shot into their country.

  49. 49CattusMagnus on Jul 1, 2009 at 2:15 pm:

    #48 Starless,

    YES! YES! YES!
    But ANSWER is unlikely to care because the Iranians are not being oppressed by eeevil Joooooos.

  50. 50Starless on Jul 2, 2009 at 5:06 am:

    #49 CattusMagnus


    Latest: Iranian judiciary supposedly hanging protesters. So, again, where’s the blaring outrage from “social justice” groups? Why aren’t they advocating “direct action” against the mullahs? Will Rev. Al Sharpton stop grinding chicks at Michael Jackson memorials long enough to lecture his Iranian clerical brethren about the sanctity and dignity of The People?

    Tangentially Related Bonus: Cynthia “Look Into My Crazed Eyes” McKinney arrested by the Israelis for gun running. (Okay, so nobody said she was running guns, but who are they kidding?)

  51. 51jesuslovesyou on Jul 3, 2009 at 12:48 pm:

    There is no “environmental catastrophe.” The catastrophe is the environment itself. The environment is what’s left to man after he’s lost everything. Those who live in a neighborhood, a street, a valley, a war zone, a workshop – they don’t have an “environment;” they move through a world peopled by presences, dangers, friends, enemies, moments of life and death, all kinds of beings. Such a world has its own consistency, which varies according to the intensity and quality of the ties attaching us to all of these beings, to all of these places. It’s only us, the children of the final dispossession, exiles of the final hour – the ones who come into the world in concrete cubes, pick our fruits at the supermarket, and watch for an echo of the world on television – only we get to have an environment. And there’s no one but us to witness our own annihilation, as if it were just a simple change of scenery, to get indignant about the latest progress of the disaster, to patiently compile its encyclopedia.

    What has congealed as an environment is a relationship to the world based on management, which is to say, on estrangement. A relationship to the world wherein we’re not made up just as much of the rustling trees, the smell of frying oil in the building, running water, the hubbub of schoolrooms, the mugginess of summer evenings. A relationship to the world where there is me and then my environment, surrounding me but never really constituting me. We have become neighbors in a planetary co-op owners’ board meeting. It’s difficult to imagine a more complete hell.

    No material habitat has ever deserved the name “environment,” except perhaps the metropolis of today. The digitized voices making announcements, tramways with such a 21st century whistle, bluish streetlamps shaped like giant matchsticks, pedestrians done up like failed fashion models, the silent rotation of a video surveillance camera, the lucid clicking of the subway turnstyles supermarket checkouts, office time-clocks, the electronic ambiance of the cyber café, the profusion of plasma screens, express lanes and latex. Never has a setting been so able to do without the souls traversing it. Never has a surrounding been more automatic. Never has a context been so indifferent, and demanded in return – as the price of survival – such equal indifference from us. Ultimately the environment is nothing more than the relationship to the world that is proper to the metropolis, and that projects itself onto everything that would escape it.

    It goes like this: they hired our parents to destroy this world, now they’d like to put us to work rebuilding it, and – to top it all off – at a profit. The morbid excitement that animates journalists and advertisers these days as they report each new proof of global warming reveals the steely smile of the new green capitalism, in the making since the 70s, which we waited for at the turn of the century but which never came. Well, here it is! It’s sustainability! Alternative solutions, that’s it too! The health of the planet demands it! No doubt about it anymore, it’s a green scene; the environment will be the crux of the political economy of the 21st century. A new volley of “industrial solutions” comes with each new catastrophic possibility.

    The inventor of the H-bomb, Edward Teller, proposes shooting millions of tons of metallic dust into the stratosphere to stop global warming. NASA, frustrated at having to shelve its idea of an anti-missile shield in the museum of cold war horrors, suggests installing a gigantic mirror beyond the moon’s orbit to protect us from the sun’s now-fatal rays. Another vision of the future: a motorized humanity, driving on bio-ethanol from Sao Paulo to Stockholm; the dream of cereal growers the world over, for it only means converting all of the planet’s arable lands into soy and sugar beet fields. Eco-friendly cars, clean energy, and environmental consulting coexist painlessly with the latest Chanel ad in the pages of glossy magazines.

    We are told that the environment has the incomparable merit of being the first truly global problem presented to humanity. A global problem, which is to say a problem that only those who are organized on a global level will be able to solve. And we know who they are. These are the very same groups that for close to a century have been the vanguard of disaster, and certainly intend to remain as such, for the small price of a change of logo. That EDF had the impudence to bring back its nuclear program as the new solution to the global energy crisis says plenty about how much the new solutions resemble the old problems.

    From Secretaries of State to the back rooms of alternative cafés, concerns are always expressed in the same words, the same as they’ve always been. We have to get mobilized. This time it’s not to rebuild the country like in the post-war era, not for the Ethiopians like in the 1980s, not for employment like in the 1990s. No, this time it’s for the environment. It will thank you for it. Al Gore and degrowth movement stand side by side with the eternal great souls of the Republic to do their part in resuscitating the little people of the Left and the well-known idealism of youth. Voluntary austerity writ large on their banner, they work benevolently to make us compliant with the “coming ecological state of emergency.” The round and sticky mass of their guilt lands on our tired shoulders, coddling us to cultivate our garden, sort out our trash, and eco-compost the leftovers of this macabre feast.

    Managing the phasing out of nuclear power, excess CO2 in the atmosphere, melting glaciers, hurricanes, epidemics, global over-population, erosion of the soil, mass extinction of living species… this will be our burden. They tell us, “everyone must do their part,” if we want to save our beautiful model of civilization. We have to consume a little less in order to be able to keep consuming. We have to produce organically in order to keep producing. We have to control ourselves in order to go on controlling. This is the logic of a world straining to maintain itself whilst giving itself an air of historical rupture. This is how they would like to convince us to participate in the great industrial challenges of this century. And in our bewilderment we’re ready to leap into the arms of the very same ones who presided over the devastation, in the hope that they will get us out of it.

    Ecology isn’t simply the logic of a total economy; it’s the new morality of capital. The system’s internal state of crisis and the rigorous screening that’s underway demand a new criterion in the name of which this screening and selection will be carried out. From one era to the next, the idea of virtue has never been anything but an invention of vice. Without ecology, how could we justify the existence of two different food regimes, one “healthy and organic” for the rich and their children, and the other notoriously toxic for the plebes, whose offspring are damned to obesity. The planetary hyper-bourgeoisie wouldn’t be able to make their normal lifestyle seem respectable if its latest caprices weren’t so scrupulously “respectful of the environment.” Without ecology, nothing would have enough authority to gag any and all objections to the exorbitant progress of control.

  52. 52pub on Aug 23, 2009 at 6:18 am:

    –”You’re still thinking like a “redneck.””–

    Wow, you know about Gramsci and indoctrination, but you show you’re a victim of the indoctrination.

  53. 53Lydia W. on Oct 11, 2009 at 11:36 am:

    And why were you peeking in their car in the first place?

  54. 54شات كتابي on Sep 27, 2010 at 11:09 am:

    And why were you peeking in their car in the first place?

  55. 55Paolo on Oct 11, 2010 at 1:19 pm:

    Panzerkardinal on Jun 25, 2009 at 10:19 am:
    Gramsci at his deathbed made confession recieved absolution and died a Catholic.

    How do you know? Were you there? Or are you just taking the word of a few post Mussolini fascist fetishists as gospel? Try thinking for yourself, you might enjoy it. Why would Gramsci deny Catholicism all his life, rot away for years in prison, only to go grovelling back to the Mother Church just as he was about to expire.

  56. 56Simon Wilby on May 21, 2012 at 3:14 pm:

    One adjective that defines Simon Wilby is smart. He is the CEO of Smart Power, Inc. He developed

  57. 57Bradley Bunner on Nov 23, 2013 at 8:24 pm:

    Hey are using WordPress for your blog platform? I’m pristine to the blog world except I’m difficult to get happening and set positive my identifiable. Achieve you need several html coding expertise to compose your peculiar blog? Some avoid would be in fact appreciated!