Thursday, January 8, 2015

Unoffensive

Oggy has been in the antagonistic satire business for a decade. Before starting this blog I was the creator of a little known Zine called NiggerKike You probably haven't heard of it but it was popular among the homeless of Santa Cruz. NiggerKike didn't have a big budget but we poured our hearts into offending all races and religions. I thought it was funny because I was stoned all the time and under the influence of that holy show "South Park". I don't really think for myself because it's easier to let animated cartoon comedies moralize my life for me. People would tell me, "Oggy, if you sound like a pedantic cartoon character on T.V. then chances are good that you're a narrow-minded asshole." I would just smoke more pot, laugh at them and find a way to offend them. Isn't that wicked funny?

The main objective of NiggerKike was to offend niggers and kikes and spics and cracker red necks in the purest sense, for the glory of being offensive. Political agenda never obstructed our objectives. Sure we got death threats but we translated those death threats into our language so instead of "You motherfuckers are going to die.." we read "Draw more cartoons of ignorant niggers." We did not only have cartoon depictions of the Prophet Mohammad, we claimed the magazine was written by the Prophet Mohammad. Isn't that funny? I wish I had copies of the magazine to share with everyone but we were print-only and no evidence remained after our shanty near the river levee was scorched by, depending on who you ask, either the KKK, the CIA, the Jewish Defense Fund, The NAACP or a tweaking meth junkie who thought it was a satanic church. This last scenario was understandable since we had a big sign that said, "Satanic Church of Santa Cruz" in front of the rotting wood plank shanty.

So we lost all the back editions of our zine and the incident caused a critical debate started among the writers, who were now homeless: should we censor ourselves in the face of such obvious hate? For the record, our work was not appreciated by anyone. It was more of a test to see how committed people were to the idea of freedom of speech. See? No one actually liked or enjoyed our Zine, but instead either defended our right to produce offensive trash or criticized our choices and similar battle lines were drawn among the writers. Some said that a recent depiction of Baby Jesus smoking crack under the railroad trestle had gone too far. Other claimed a depiction of Buddha giving Mohammad a blowjob under the carnival boardwalk was puerile, tasteless and without merit. Another said it was the "Jew Stew" recipe in our cuisine section that had pushed someone over the edge. 

I defended the work, "It's our job to offend everyone." and someone asked, "Why?" and my answer was, "To test the limits of tolerance, or something like that. The point is to determine if our desire to offend outweighs someone's desire to censor us." I pointed at the smoldering ruins of our shanty office and continued, "Clearly, we did our job right because we pushed someone to violence. So we win."
"How do we win?"
"Because now we will witness the whole city of Santa Cruz come to our aid and moral defense. True patriots for liberty will support our Jew Stew recipe because it's not the content of the speech, but the idea of being free to offend that's important. That's what George Washington wanted. He wanted Baby Jesus child porn cartoons and Jew Stew recipes! Right?"

There was dead silence but I patted myself on the back because liberty loving patriots always were quick to ask if Mohammed would really have wanted violence in his name, since that is super relevant to the discussion, and now I was turning that around to point out that James Madison and Ben Franklin may not have specifically included Jew Stew references in the Constitution but anyone with eyes could interpret that holy document as encouraging hateful and ignorant and antagonistic stereotyping for my own amusement. Yeah! The important thing, I told my staff, was that we never alter our offensive conduct since we were completely supported philosophically by James Madison, who is inherently superior to all other prophets. It made no difference if common sense and a shred of respect for others would suggest we censor our repulsive and purely inciteful Zine. No, our duty was to tap into our most irritating teenage instincts and channel that into our work. Because that's what adults do. 

I picked up a charred fragment of a hilariously scathing pencil depiction of a polar bear anally raping then President Bush in payback for destroying his habitat.

"This might as well be the Bill of Rights," I said solemnly with the carbonized satire flapping in the smoky wind.

"So, in essence, we are upholding all the moral values of our great patriot fore-fathers by defaming all the religions and holy figures of our time. Sam Adams would've done the exact same thing if he'd smoked as much pot as me and also failed to grow up. As long as the Constitution encourages us to offend people and defends us legally then we must do so. Or else betray Patrick Henry's long legacy of blasphemy." Intentional salacious blasphemy, I added, has resolved uncountable conflicts.

The magazine was never the same after the fire. I felt alone in my belief that freedom of speech, as defined in 1787 by devout Christians, was a decree to offend Christianity and other religions in the modern age. Some easily offended, race-baiting asshole even suggested I was distorting the meaning and intent of the writers of the Constitution to fit my own twisted and infantile agenda. But that's crazy talk.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

HAHAHAHA. So the hypocrite shows his true stripes. Why do you keep shutting down the comments section of the blog. Freedom of speech my ass. you lonely spic. pathetic. Est lover. The Paris brother killers are coming for you next. Stay in your hole.

Oggy Bleacher said...

You make my point for me. I don't have any sacred cows, including freedom of speech. I say what I want and I omit what I want. The cartoonists didn't die defending freedom of speech, they died because they wanted to draw something that had no point or value beyond pissing off a bunch of militants. They pushed and pushed for no reason except to push emotional buttons on zealots. They wanted to piss off violent zealots who had guaranteed vengeance and they got what they asked for. It's not a justification, it's a fact from living in a flesh and bone world where everyone does not think exactly like me. All your precious 'rights' don't override cause and effect. It's a simple question: do you want to die to publish a shitty illustration of Mohammed's naked ass? Is that your life's work? There is art worth dying for and honestly, I'm not capable of that level of creativity so I can find another person to draw naked. I guess these cartoonists thought their naked Mohammed cartoon was their "Guernica" or 5th Symphony. Go figure. I didn't think the cartoons were worth dying for but that's just my opinion. 7 billion people get through every day without offending militant Muslims: these cartoonists weren't among them. It's the same advice I give to unarmed black teenagers: your rights are irrelevant. Get on the ground. Surrender. They have more guns than you. Do not argue. It makes no difference what you believe to be correct or moral; do you want to survive? Again, 'freedom of speech' is irrelevant outside of conservative wet dreams. It's just a plastic ornament we hang on a tree in the trash to gaze at from the gutter. What exists in the real world are bullets and badges and bibles. My advice is to choose your battles.

There's a big difference between a patriot with a pen and a juvenile-minded bully who publishes blasphemous graffiti to mock someone's religion. You'd know the difference if you didn't watch so much South Park.

Oggy Bleacher said...

This topic is very interesting to chew on and after some thought and reading it definitely seems there are two camps:
One camp says because the cartoonists were lawfully allowed to offend the militant Muslims that equates to their right to life. And I agree. They had a right to life and a right to defend themselves. But as someone wrote, "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of speech." And that's the other side of the argument. The militant muslims DO NOT NEED a 'right' to execute 12 people in order to execute 12 people. Why? Because the real world does not operate according to paper laws. Oh, I guess there are even more sides but that's the only other rational argument. It's not a justification, but a cause and effect issue. The cartoonists died for the same reason anyone dies in a war: they underestimated their opponent. True, they refused to compromise so they contributed to the massacre, and the zealots also refused to compromise. See, at that point there is no more debate, no more rights, no more laws; it's a simple war. The cartoonists were amused and fought with pens, they maybe had one unarmed security guard. "We're French!" was their rationale. The zealots were not amused and were armed with assault rifles. Who wins? It's cause and effect. The cartoonists committed suicide by militant zealot. Rights do not equate body armor. That's why they died.
It's easy to debate the morality from a computer but the most popular remark can basically be translated into the sentence: the world would be better off if everyone thought exactly like me.
I had that same idea when I was 18 years old too and as true as it might be, it ain't ever gonna happen! The adult choices are still war or compromise. There is no option for "Do as I please without consequence."
I really shouldn't have to explain this to people but a crisis doesn't bring out the best thinking.

Oggy Bleacher said...

And I should point out that, like myself, most people throwing around that tired phrase, "I will defend your right to offend others." ARE NOT DOING SHIT TO DEFEND NOTHING. They are sitting on their ass poking their keyboard and have nothing to do with 'Freedoms'. They are big mouths behind a screen in a safe corner lot and they would shit their pants if someone lobbed a grenade through their window. It's real easy to be a paper hero and defend principles, in principle, but mostly just wash windows for a living. These conservative cunts are the worst of all because if I walked up to one of them on the street and shouted "Your mother is a fucking whore" in their face or bought a huge billboard with an illustration of their mothers being raped by some coon monkeys, they would not hesitate to kill me. Yet, they all want the zealot Muslims to smile and shrug off illustrations of their prophet's balls dangling in the breeze. Pretty funny. Furthermore, neither the zealot Muslims nor the zealot cartoonists need or asked for my opinion about their actions. My opinion is irrelevant to their reality. I disagree with tons of shit that still happens. Punditry and satire are bottom of the barrel pursuits.

Oggy Bleacher said...

This issue actually comes up daily here in Guatemala because the bus drivers are all mildly homicidal. The pedestrian technically has the right of way....and that right is irrelevant when two mini buses are hurtling toward one's midsection. I move and I move fast. I compromise. I appease. I acquiesce. I do not stand my ground. I do not bravely defend the rights of pedestrians. Why? Because it's irrelevant to the laws of physics and it's my midsection that is about to be destroyed. I do not want to die defending this particular square foot of pavement from bus attacks. That's my feeling. My heroic stand will not matter when I'm dead because I recognize this is not a war that can be won. But technically, I'm justified in defending pedestrian rights. Practically, that means dying and being forgotten and nothing changing. Talk of free speech is how survivors justify their emotions. It's irrelevant to the actual argument.

Creative Commons License
Man in the Van by Oggy Bleacher is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.