Surrealist Semiotics

Oh, Pleeeeeea!

 a rant




Mike McDermott: "...and please don't splash the pot."
Teddy KGB:  "... in my club I vill splash de pwot venever de fahk I pliz."

When will it be possible anymore to have a conversation or a heated debate about anything important if:

a) we must constantly start any discussion by reassuring our interlocutor we're aware of ethical, legal, moral, and politically correct considerations, therefore ensuring s/he knows we're not Hitler, or any of the "lesser" dictators; 

b) we must present as many easily verifiable facts as possible;

c) we must not make the conversation personal in any way;

d) we must not have any emotional reaction to a topic/point;

e) we must 'let go' as soon as it becomes apparent that "it is making ppl uncomfortable"

When did it become a faux-pas to make a point? to be passionate about it? to have convictions?  When did ppl start behaving as though they're on MSNBBCNN?  Why this endless need for consensus, for blandness?  What is wrong with a hint of chili in chocolate?   Are mashed potatoes always preferable to something that needs chewing?  Babies like mushy peas.  But that's because they haven't got teeth yet.  As soon as toddlers get teeth, they want crunchy things, hard candy.  Picture tigers only having smoothies.

Then ppl complain they're bored.  Well, of course they are.  Fascinating though an earthquake or a volcano eruption might be, there is only so much that can be said about these natural phenomena, unless they're turned into a metaphor in a bigger, more cunning, more difficult, stupendous, mega-fascinating, point.  Or a joke.  Or a euphemism.  You get where I'm going with this.

So you make the points you find need making (all these tiny points, screaming in your head, saying 'pick me! pick me!' - like 6yo orphans no one wants, desperate for attention, yearning for warm arms to embrace them and make them feel they matter-) only to be told 'oh but you see, we can't run the risk these ideas will take over because the moral consensus has always been that..---' and on.  As if it'd be okay if the conversation would only happen between you two, but it can't be discussed with others, lest ppl who aren't v mature or intellectually prepared for these ideas should be exposed to them. All very hushush.  "Oh I know John, you and I know this, but imagine if ppl like Gareth put their hands on it; we'll all be doomed."  Yah? Guess what, that's not the case. Ppl like Gareth can also hear about it, because ideas aren't the boogey man.

Picture someone saying that to Robespierre or George Washington or Nelson Mandela?  'Sorry, Nelson, we just can't have you saying these things; they're dangerous and plus which ppl might adopt these ideas and then what?'  Gandhi?  'Oh Mr. Mahatma, do stop sulking and have a bite out of this er plate of mushy peas.  Here's the salt.'

Then the skies open up and suddenly the sun shines on your face and obliterates even the most moronic and boring, relentless droplet of drizzle, the climatic equivalent of a whine. 

Every now and then someone will say something that makes you feel alive, because you couldn't agree or disagree more. The important thing is that it stirs a strong response in you, even if it is short-lived.  Isn't that a wonderful moment?  Isn't that why we live?  OK, one of the reasons why we live.  Otherwise, it'd be a situation where "I may not agree with what you think but I'll die to defend your right to say bluebells bloom in spring."  

This is probably why I find TV is so pernicious; it ends up BPermeating our unconscious mind and downloading onto our hardrive reactions which aren't normally ours, a kind of corporate takeover of the mind, much like these multinationals make every single city in the world look the same, so that you can be in Buenos Aires or New Delhi and buy the exact same products from the same shops with the same automatons who mistake bad taste for subversion.  

Now we can also talk to ppl from all over the world, of all ages, socioeconomic backgrounds, and education, and be almost sure they'll tell us exactly what we'll hear if we turn the tele on.  

Well, to this, I say an overweight NO. ¡No pasarán!

I prefer the slightly insane but thinking person to the reasonable consensual parrot, telling me how smoking will give me cancer, and betacarotene is good for tanning, and how donkey rides on Greek islands are giga-chic.  

Supreme Court Upholds Freedom Of Speech In Obscenity-Filled Ruling — The Onion

Excerpt from City of Charleston v. The Kanawha

Players:

"The plaintiff clearly brought this suit without reading the fucking Bill of Rights. I'm not referring to a thorough grounding in the subtleties of Constitutional law, but, rather, the 15 fucking seconds it takes to read Amendement I, Because after 230 goddamn years of the U.S. Constitution, the general citizenry ought to know their own First Fucking Amendment. But it seems that gang of hillbillies is too busy cornholing they's cuzzins to pick up a book, so in review: It doesn't matter how fucking annoying the speech is, nor how filthy the speech is, nor how fucking insufferable a douche-nozzle the speaker is; if we adopted the practice of suspending fundamental rights every time some dried-out cunt from the sticks was offended by the word "balls," this country would be fucked five ways from Fuddrucker's.

"It likewise bears noting that, even if everyone on this court got brain damage and ruled against protected speech, we're sure as fuck not starting on some harmless bullshit play. We'd start on that ignorant-ass, Bible-thumping, Fred Phelps homphobe shit. How would those Jesus-blowing backwoods cracker motherfuckers like that?"

-- Opinion of Justice Breyer

Justice Ginsburg wrote that those who dispute her interpretation of the Constitution can "shove a fat one so far up their ass they choke."

WASHINGTON—In a decisive and vulgar 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court once again upheld the constitution's First Amendment this week, calling the freedom of expression among the most "inalienable and important rights that a motherfucker can have."

"It is the opinion of this court that the right to speak without censorship or fear of intimidation is fundamental to a healthy democracy," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. "Furthermore, the court finds that the right to say whatever the hell you want, whenever the hell you want, is not only a founding tenet, but remains essential to the continued success of this nation." Added Ginsburg, "In short, freedom of speech means the freedom of fucking speech, you ignorant cocksuckers."

The decision came Monday in response to the case of a Charleston, WV theater troupe that had been sued by city officials for staging a sexually explicit play with public funds. Reversing the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the theater, an outcome free-speech advocates are calling a victory and Justice Ginsburg called "a bitch-slap in the face of all those uptight limp-dicks."

The ruling in City of Charleston v. The Kanawha Players marks the first time in 220 years that the nation's highest court has taken such a fiercely profane stance.

During oral arguments, Charleston's chief counsel Dan Roy said his clients could restrict any public speech they deemed offensive, an argument quickly dismissed by Justice John Paul Stevens, 90, who turned to his colleagues and made a repeated up-and-down hand motion intended to simulate masturbation. "I'm beginning to wonder if you really understand what 'abridging the freedom of speech' means at all," said Stevens, a 34-year veteran of the court known for his often-nuanced interpretations of the First Amendment. "I'm also wondering whether you and your fat-faced plaintiffs over there need to have some respect for constitutionally protected expression fucked into your empty hick skulls."

Justice Clarence Thomas, who voted with the majority, wrote a concurring opinion in which he made little mention of established court precedents but emphasized that he himself had viewed materials "way, way nastier than this stupid play."

"I don't know what kind of bullshit passes for jurisprudence down in the 4th Circuit these days," Thomas wrote. "But those pricks can take their arguments about speech that 'appeals only to prurient interests' and go suck a dog's asshole."

Added Thomas, "Just suck it. Get in there and seriously suck it." Writing in dissent, however, Justice Antonin Scalia contemplated the limits of the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

"The court has an interest in protecting meaningful human communication, which is jeopardized when every other word out of someone's mouth is 'F this' or 'F that,'" Scalia wrote. "In practice, such an expansion of free expression becomes far too unwieldy and large to accommodate." To which Justice Ginsberg immediately replied, "Yeah, that's what his mom said."

Conservative constitutional scholars have criticized the Supreme Court's decision, calling it not only a license to provoke, but also an act of provocation in itself, one that saw several justices repeatedly refer to the plaintiffs as "fuckwits," "asshats," and "cumsacks" before informing them that with their appeals exhausted, their only remaining legal recourse would be to "piss up a rope or take two fists in the mommy slot." More than 18 months after the suit was first brought against the theater group, defense lawyers said the road to the Supreme Court was "hard as shit," but well worth it.

"This is a historic victory for free speech, and I wouldn't be surprised if, a hundred years from now, the hallowed walls of this court bear an inscription taken from the eloquent decision handed down today," lead defense attorney Carl Huddleston said. "Particularly the phrase 'That which erodes human rights serves to erode humanity, fuckface.'"

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-upholds-freedom-of-speech-in-obsceni,17372/

Au régal des amateurs de littérature

Here's a book that's creating some controversy here, for several reasons.

The coolest of which, according to me, is that Marc-Édouard Nabe has completely circumvented the entire publishing Establishment- which has been boycotting him since the mid-80s - by financing his latest book entirely and selling it on his website.

Then there's the question of why he's been boycotted for such a long time, despite being arguably the greatest French writer alive. He says things that one doesn't often hear on television/radio. He writes things one doesn't often read anywhere. In short, he puts freedom of speech to (good) use, instead of rehashing the same tired postmodern/BernardHenriLévy-friendly school of thought that we're fed day in, day out.

I still haven't read this book because since it's gone on sale it has sold out within a month and I was not aware he'd released this book. I've ordered it but don't know when it'll be available.

I have read his tracts though, which he wrote and stuck to the walls all around the city, amazingly, and which are all available for free on the website set up by his readers.