Public mediums, not individuals, are superspreaders, concentrating pathogens from orders of magnitude of people

The big story about COVID-19 right now is the failure of the mass vaxx campaigns to stop the spread, just like this time last year saw the total failure of 100% mask compliance to stop the spread. (Although at least the masks did not give young people heart disease.) Soon I'll get to this topic -- why do vaccines fail when the disease is spread through a public medium (all coronaviruses, influenza, plague, cholera, etc.), as opposed to those spread through personal encounters (smallpox, HPV, measles, etc.).

But first, I'll have to develop one of the factors I think plays a big role in that. Even if it turns out not to matter for the topic of vaccine failure, it's still a crucial difference between the dynamics of public medium diseases and personal encounter diseases.

In contemporary sex ed classes, students hear the warning that, "You're not only having sex with that person, but everyone else they have had sex with (and everyone who those first-degree partners have had sex with, ad infinitum)".

There's something to this, but it is exaggerated and turns out to be the wrong category of diseases to issue such a warning about. How many other people has that person had sex with? Most people only have single-digit partners in an entire year, at most, while others are monogamous or even celibate for the year. Ditto for the number of partners for those first-degree contacts. There's almost no chance you're talking 100s, and possibly not even 10s, for the typical pair of sex partners.

Then there is the matter of how long the effects of those distant contacts last. If someone gave your partner an STD two years ago, but it has cleared in the meantime, they are no longer able to pass it along to you. For the purposes of measuring the indirect effect on you, it's as though your partner never had sex with that third person at all.

So, the warning should be modified to say, "You're having sex with everyone else who that person has *recently* had sex with" -- where "recently" is measured on the time-scale of the relevant diseases that could be passed along to you. If a disease clears up after 1 year, and your partner had sex with them 3 years ago, they are not included in the list of people the person has recently had sex with.

This is why the typical person is not a walking petri dish of STDs by the time they're 30 or 40. The pathogens clear up after some time, although not for all diseases, like those that can lie dormant. Therefore, during any single sexual encounter, a person is not exposing themselves to the pathogens of a large number of other people -- probably only single digits, and probably low single digits. That still allows for contagious diseases to rise in epidemic fashion, but it is not the gross interconnected web that the warning statement implied, and the epidemics won't be so bad.

The exceptions prove the rule here, as we see from people who do have high body counts, like gay men and prostitutes. It's worse in the case of gays, because a bunch of hyper-promiscuous people are having sex with each other, so the first-degree and second-degree and nth-degree contacts are also high body count people. During a single encounter among gays, the person could easily be exposed to 10s or 100s of others. This makes virulent wildfire-spreading diseases like HIV emerge among them, but not among heterosexuals.

Nor, for the most part, among prostitutes. While prostitutes have a high number of partners, their johns are mostly unfuckable losers. So when one john sees a prostitute, he is exposing himself to the diseases of her other recent johns, but those first-degree contacts have likely had 0 partners themselves during the past year -- that's why they're going to the prostitute, because they're desperate and unwanted. And prostitutes do not have sex with each other, so two high body count people are not going to have an encounter with each other, in the world of prostitution.

It's true that one john could have sex with two or more prostitutes, and indirectly link two high body count people. But the larger point remains -- any and all prostitutes within a given area are servicing the same local population of unfuckable losers, none of whom have extensive partner lists. So the web of connections does not spiral out exponentially like it does for gays, although certainly more so than among normal heterosexuals who don't visit prostitutes. So there's no HIV epidemic that will emerge within the (female) prostitute world.

As usual, I'm focusing on STDs to discuss person-to-person transmission because not even the strongest anticontagionist will argue that they don't require close personal encounters between an infected and a susceptible individual. It takes two to tango. They distill the essence of contagious disease dynamics.

* * *

Now let's shift to diseases whose pathogens are spread through a public medium, without encounters between the sick and the susceptible. Again the canonical example is cholera from the 19th C., spread by the medium of the public water system, where a sick individual's defecation (containing pathogens) entered the water supply through the sewers, and where a susceptible individual sampled that contaminated water every time they drew up water through a pump (for drinking, washing themselves, washing clothes, etc.).

The sick and the susceptible individuals never encountered each other during the course of the transmission. It was the public medium with which they both had contact -- perhaps separated by entire city blocks -- that spread the disease from one to the other.

In total contrast to the personal encounter diseases, look at how many other individuals you are exposed to by coming into contact with a public medium like a city's water system. It was everyone who was served by that system -- everyone whose defecation entered into the same body of sewer water. It's not as though each household had their own body of water that collected their waste, with no two households' wastewater bodies ever merging to form a single body of wastewater.

Rather, the public water supply reflected the whole collective that it served. And the size of that collective would have always been greater than mere single digits -- could be 10s, 100s, 1000s, or higher.

When I say someone is "exposing themselves to" all those other people, I don't mean they actually come into contact with the wastewater of every last one of them. I mean it in the sense of taking a risk, playing Russian roulette. More precisely, they are "sampling from" that population who contribute their wastewater to the whole system.

That is equally true for the class of encounter diseases like STDs, though: even if your current partner has traces of what was given to them by 5 recent partners, you won't necessarily pick up traces from all 5 of them. You will be sampling from those 5.

The main point is that a person samples from a much more gigantic size population when they come into contact with a public medium like a city water supply, compared to coming into contact with another individual human being. A city water supply could easily be a "walking" petri dish -- accumulating tons of particles across tons of pathogen species coming from tons of sick people -- whereas a particular individual person will not be.

How does that affect the potential for epidemics? Well, just imagine the early stages where the local frequency of the disease is small, say 1%. If it's an STD, 1% of your potential partners has it. If those partners have been monogamous recently, you're damn unlikely to get it. Even if they've had multiple recent partners, who have still left traces within your potential partner, that number probably reaches a max of 10. Sampling 10 individuals for a disease with 1% prevalence is still highly unlikely to give it to you.

But what if it's spread through a public medium? Then you have to avoid getting it after exposing yourself to 10s, 100s, or 1000s of people. By sampling 100 people for a disease with 1% prevalence, you're expected to get it. All it takes is that one critical exposure. Maybe your symptoms will be worse if you get even higher doses of it, but still, with the one crucial exposure, you've now got it, and you can pass it along in turn via the public medium.

If you're sampling 1000s for something with a 1% prevalence, you're expected to contract it 10s of times. And even if some of those infections are hunted down by your immune system, or they by chance don't reach their target organ after entering your body, the other infections will. You're going to come down with the disease, and contribute pathogens back into the public medium to complete the cycle.

The bottom line is that it's far easier to avoid contracting a pathogen when you're only rolling the dice a few times, vs. rolling them 10s or 100s or 1000s of times. Only public medium diseases allow for rolling the dice such a large number of times during any given contact with the transmission vector.

* * *

That brings us finally to the topic of "super-spreaders," a term with various definitions. Usually it means that a few sick individuals have a high number of contacts, any and all of whom they can spread the disease to, whereas most sick people have a small number of contacts, and are far less likely to contribute to the disease's continued spread.

I don't like using this term for individuals, though, because that highly-skewed distribution reveals exactly why such diseases do not become widespread and everlasting. Transmitting an encounter disease is a labor-intensive process -- if one sick person "wants to" spread it to 1, 10, 100, or 1000 others, they are going to have to put in higher and higher hours into the relevant activity.

That severely limits the share of sick people who will spread it at these high orders of magnitude -- unless the person does the activity for a living (and gets paid as a rising function of their number of contacts), or is just driven to it by a wandering, super-extraverted personality, what is the incentive to contact so many distinct other people during a single day, week, or month? None.

Of course, that makes it more spreadable than if every single sick person kept mostly to themselves. But it underscores the fragility of the transmission -- it crucially relies on a few people to do most of the heavy-lifting. Without them, it sputters out before catching on like wildfire.

And if it is a true encounter disease, quarantining a sick individual would work, by preventing contacts. And if there are only a small number of "super-spreaders" to quarantine, then the collective effect of a quarantine would also be massive and simple -- easier to lock up a small number, no matter how much they prefer being out and about, than to lock up a huge number. For example, implementing some real thot patrol by confining the local prostitutes and other high body count people, to curb an epidemic of an STD.

These all speak to the fragility and extinguishability of such a disease, whereas the term "super-spreaders" gives the impression of inevitability and broad reach of the disease.

* * *

The concept of "super-spreading" is better suited to public medium diseases, because there is a broad reach of, and nearly inevitable contact with the disease, when a medium is collecting pathogens from a huge number of people, and susceptible people cannot help but come into contact with the medium.

But it is the medium -- not a sick individual -- that has super-spreading powers. Its role in the transmission is not affected by the pathogens, so it is not limited in the number of contacts it can make with susceptibles. Public water doesn't move slower or otherwise fail to reach susceptible drinkers, just because it's polluted with cholera. And drinkers cannot detect the presence of cholera vs. unpolluted public water of their time and place, whether by sight, smell, etc., so they don't know when they should reject it for being polluted.

That is the opposite of an encounter disease, where having the disease limits their reach -- maybe an STD leaves someone bed-ridden, unable to get out and meet future partners, or maybe it leaves a visible sign that makes potential partners run the other way.

And more importantly, public mediums are not limited by the labor-intensive nature of spreading pathogens through encounters. A given volume of water can be excreted into by 1s, 10s, 100s, or 1000s of individuals -- it only depends on how many people happen to live in the region it serves. It does not need to increase in volume by the same orders of magnitude in order to serve those larger-sized populations. It does not need to do any of its activities by those higher orders of magnitude -- it just does its typical standard thing, and however many people come into contact with it, come into contact with it.

Ditto for the volume of air inside a building, to briefly return to coronaviruses. If it's a high-traffic building like a supermarket, that volume could collect the aerosolized breath of 1s, 10s, 100s, or 1000s of people during a day. An air volume of the same size, but in a low-traffic building like a storage facility (for things, not for livestock), may only be collecting the breath of the 1s of workers who work there.

The volume or size of the medium does not have to rise at all, let alone by orders of magnitude, in order to put exponentially larger numbers of people into an indirect chain of transmission. The indoor air is just doing its typical standard activity of being stagnant and filling up space, and however many people breathe into it (and breathe from it), do so.

Ditto for the insect population that spreads insect-borne diseases like malaria, plague, or Yellow Fever. The entire insect population acts like a public medium, similar to drops of water adding up to the entire water supply, or particles of air adding up to the entire indoor volume of air. People come into contact with this public medium by being bitten by the insect, which allows transmission of pathogens between two people who never have an encounter with each other.

And the same size mosquito population could be cohabiting with a human population that is 1s, 10s, 100s, 1000s, or millions. Mosquitoes don't have to boost their own population by 100 times, or do 100 times their swarming activity, in order to reach 100 times the human population -- however-many people are in their environment, are in their environment. And mosquitoes are not burdened down by being carriers of the pathogen (if anything, the pathogen will co-evolve to benefit the carrier).

That is the opposite of labor-intensive activities that spread encounter-based diseases, like a sick person who has to increase their dating-and-mating activities, to have sex with more and more partners in order to spread an STD to more and more susceptible people.

To conclude, public medium diseases unleash a more unrelenting and unavoidable assault on their targets, due to the medium collecting and concentrating the pathogens from such a large number of people. It is impossible for a person to sample the pathogen load of such a large population when it's an encounter disease, due to the labor-intensive nature of the activity that spreads it, and due to the hindering effect of the pathogen on its human carriers.

On the applied side, no public medium disease can be substantially curbed or eradicated through measures that target people, since they are not the source of the inevitable super-spreading phenomenon. Quarantines failed for cholera, plague, Yellow Fever, influenza, etc., just as they failed for COVID-19 -- along with masking, and now mass vaxx campaigns.

Rather, public health measures must target the medium through which transmission flows, which is the source of the high degree of connectivity among people. Such as separating outgoing wastewater from incoming potable water, chemically treating water to purify it, and so on. Or eradicating the local insect vector population, or at least putting up repellents or nets that keep them from biting sleeping people. Or for indoor-air diseases -- all respiratory epidemic diseases -- improving the ventilation to keep polluted breath from accumulating in the stagnant air, or releasing a purifier into the air to neutralize the pathogen (and which has no harmful side-effects).

Anticontagionism led the way forward, intellectually and practically, during the last peak of pandemics during the 19th C., and neo-anticontagionism must lead the way forward in the new pandemic era.

Kenosha rebelled against rioters, voting Trump by wider margin than in '16, after being Dem lock for decades

Something that election thieves don't appreciate is that legitimacy is socially constructed. It is not automatically, impersonally conferred on whoever occupies a certain office, however they managed to get there. The whole citizenry is watching the process, and if it's stolen, then they withhold their conferral of legitimacy.

That's why everyone outside of libtard bubbles is openly flouting the Biden admin's agenda and getting away with it. Notably with masks, vaccines, woke propaganda in schools, and so on and so forth. If the government is illegitimate, the citizens will only follow those orders that it was already going to. They will not follow those that they are not on board with.

If they viewed the government as having won fair-and-square, then they would carry out its orders whether they liked it or not. That happened with McCain and Romney voters when Obama was in office. There were no widespread non-compliance movements of any sort. Everyone in the Tea Party paid their taxes, got healthcare coverage or paid the fine, and all the rest of it. Because Obama did not steal either election. His opponents responded not by openly flouting the admin's orders, but by staging an electoral attack, winning back the House, then Senate, and with Trump, the White House.

But since the Democrats flagrantly stopped the ballot count in multiple battleground states on election night in 2020, "discovering" 10s or 100s of thousands of votes in the *weeks* after the election, which went 100% to Biden -- they forfeited any legitimacy upon usurping their way into office. Words on a document do not enforce themselves, nor do entries in a spreadsheet.

"B-b-buh, this document says that Biden won the election!" Gee, I guess we all have to behave accordingly -- sike. It's like Tanya Harding stealing an Olympic medal at gunpoint, and demanding that everyone treat her as the real winner -- where is the fawning coverage, the lucrative deals with sporting goods manufacturers, etc.? Uh, you get none of that, because you stole the medal, you dumb bitch.

Imagine expecting all of the benefits that redound to a legitimate winner of a prize, when you have flagrantly hijacked it! Sorry sucker, you can't put a gun to the heads of everyone in the audience and make them treat the possessor of the medal as though they won it fairly. If all you wanted was the medal per se, perhaps as a trophy or to sell for its precious metal value, then you'll get what you want. But if you were looking for all those other tangible and intangible goodies that accrue to a legitimate winner, then tough shit -- win it for real next time.

This widespread withholding of legitimacy against the Biden team actually began before his inauguration, though. Before the citizens were expected to behave according to the Biden admin's orders, upon inauguration, they were expected to vote for him on Election Day, to give him a legitimate win, and make his agenda easily implemented upon assuming office.

And as I wrote last summer, the main function of the summer riots was to whip votes for Biden / Harris. They almost entirely targeted battleground states, not California or New York or Texas or Kansas, which were not up for grabs. They were both to punish those states, such as Wisconsin, for voting Trump in 2016, but also to intimidate them ahead of the 2020 vote -- "Don't forget, we can fuck up your city any time we feel like it, so don't disappoint us on Election Day."

Aside from the riots carried out by the paramilitary wing of the DNC (i.e., BLM and Antifa), there was the usual hysterical demonizing coverage by the entire media cartel, against Trump and for Biden.

And yet, voters were not intimidated by these soft and hard tactics. Wisconsin and the other Trump states voted for him again in 2020, now also including Nevada. Any state that stopped counting ballots on Election Day, and where the outcome was not 100% certain in advance (e.g., California or Texas), is a state where Democrats could not afford to just let the results play out and declare themselves the true, legitimate winners by the end of the night. They only stopped counting ballots, in order to pad their own side's count for weeks, where they were doomed to failure.

They effected the steal through the mega-cities that they control with Democrat machine politics, not through operatives in every single county throughout the state. In Wisconsin, that means Milwaukee was the source of the steal.

Kenosha, however, is not part of the Milwaukee metro area -- it's part of the Chicago metro, but not lying within the state of Illinois, and therefore not so easily manipulated by the infamous Democrat machine in Chicago.

Were the people of Kenosha intimidated by the summer of riots in their city, which got huge national coverage, and whose local hero Kyle Rittenhouse was vilified by the media cartel? Not at all!

In 2016, they were one of the counties that I profiled in this post, where Obama had won them twice before flipping to Trump, and whose population was at least 100K (i.e., not rural areas, which are Republican-friendly). Kenosha County went for Trump by a narrow margin of 0.3 percentage points, the first time they voted R since Nixon's landslide re-election in 1972, and Eisenhower's landslide re-election in '56.

But Trump 2016 was not a landslide, and not a re-election, so Kenosha people were not just following the rest of the country that time -- they were sticking their necks out, declaring themselves to be on one side of a major faultline.

Then in 2020, after the summer of riots that rocked their own hometown, they voted for Trump by an even wider margin -- by 3.1 percentage points, an order of magnitude higher than before, although still not a landslide. That narrowest of wins in '16 was supposed to flip back to the Democrats, but it moved in wider in favor of Trump. That's the first time the R's won the county back-to-back since 1928, when Wisconsin and the Great Lakes states in general were part of the Republican coalition, before they switched to Democrats under the New Deal realignment in 1932.

A wider victory for Trump in '20 is no surprise, since they liked him in '16, and he did not blow up the country in the meantime, and had only been incumbent for one term. So sure, give him another term.

What *is* surprising is that the people of Kenosha gave the finger to the DNC for destroying their city over the summer, rather than give in and vote for Biden in the hopes of no riots in the future.

And unlike Milwaukee, there is no huge imposing well-orchestrated Democrat machine in Kenosha. They do happen to be reliable Dem voters, but it's not a machine city like Chicago or Milwaukee or Detroit or Philadelphia. So the Democrats could not steal the county-level election in Kenosha, and had to pad their state-level totals through Milwaukee.

That may seem like a distinction without a difference -- they still stole Wisconsin's electoral votes, who cares which county they had to do it through? But it does show that everything hinges on Democrat control of a few key choke-points, and outside of that the citizenry can openly rebel against their soft and hard tactics, and there's nothing the DNC can do to stop it from going through. Kenosha County in 2020 is officially recognized, not just de facto understood, as a red-for-Trump county.

As power devolves due to Democrat delegitimation of the federal executive, having flagrantly stolen their way into the office in 2020, Democrats will have to increasingly rely on control over smaller-scale fiefdoms to ram their widely unpopular and hated agenda through. If it's a college town (say, Madison, WI), it will probably sail right through. But if it's a Trump county that resisted intimidation by riots, and did not get its ballot-counting hijacked on election night, then they can do more what they want, whether the usurpers in DC like it or not.

If there's any justice, Kyle Rittenhouse will get a statue of him blowing away the criminal vote-whippers, in Kenosha County itself. Of course it wouldn't fly in the state capital or Milwaukee, nor in a Wisconsin delegation in the national capital of DC. But it would remind everyone at those higher levels that they don't have the legitimacy and authority that they believe they do, and not to bother intervening in local affairs, since the lack of legitimacy means they couldn't remove the statue no matter how hard they stamped their feet about it.

This is the natural reaction to Democrats enacting "no-go zones" in major cities across multiple states throughout the entire summer of 2020. There are now no-go zones for libtards, and they are larger than cities, encompassing entire large states like Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc. National mask mandate? No-go. State-level mask mandate? No-go. Vaccine mandate, passport, etc.? No-go.

The bureaucrats and technocrats are starting to understand how impotent they are at enforcing their will in these places. They have brought this predicament upon themselves, by participating in the effort to steal the 2020 election in front of everyone's eyes on election night itself. They forfeited their legitimacy, so now half the country is a no-go zone -- for them.

This would not have been the case if the Democrats had won legitimately, witness the Republican voters' response to Obama's two terms. They may have hated it, but they all carried out the national agenda, and planned to turn the electoral tide so that it would be their own agenda being enforced when they took back the federal level.

Reversing course is 100% up to the Democrats, as the initiators of the current downward spiral of national legitimacy. If it continues, oh well, sucks to live in a fragmenting country, but at least some of us live in the no-hablo-libtard zones, and will never have to wear a mask, get a pointless / harmful vaccine, or demonize white children in schools.

"She's So Spicy" (Aimee Terese tribute, Tal Bachman parody)

I was going through my notebook to see if there were any Aimee songs left unfinished, as I'd better get them out now, while she's shifting from imaginary bf to IRL bf. Sure enough, there was one from the summer that only needed a few more lines. You can consider this the encore of the year-long "serenading Aimee" concert. Should the need for it ever arise in the future, the band would consider a reunion tour...

Like most of the others, it's set to the tune of a power-pop classic, "She's So High" by Tal Bachman. Original lyrics here. She's been getting nostalgic for her '90s childhood, so the timing couldn't be better.

This all got started when I was listening to the song, and thought, "What other MENA baddie historical heroine could I compare Aimee Terese to?" Fittingly for here and now, she's a figure from the imperial collapse period of Rome (the Crisis of the Third Century). I can just imagine her great-great-granddaughter leading a breakaway empire of her own on the periphery, taking Australia and New Zealand under her anti-woke wing, dealing a crippling blow to the core.

But mainly it's about translating the original into the online domain. A lurker or reply guy becomes infatuated with a larger account, although not a huge celeb account, someone approachable yet still out of his league. BTW, it's not a neg when I say "10K" -- that fits the stress pattern better than 20K or 30K.

Pronunciation guide: stress on both the first and final syllables in "following" and "spellbinding" in the 2nd verse, to match the original stress pattern.

* * *

Her account's a frenship zone
No cucks or e-girl clones
She's clutch, hella tight, based, unbound
It's only online, they say
How could it ever matter?
It sure doesn't feel that way
But still I shouldn't @ her

'Cause she's so spicy
Spicy 'n' gutsy, yet so cuddly
She's so spicy
Like Queen Zenobia, cursed Cassandra,
And Holly Golightly
She's so spicy
Spicy 'n' gutsy

Rollercoaster Red Bull feed
Sharp words, then less-than-threes
She's grown a 10K following
How could anons like me
Ever hope to top her?
Her eyes are so spellbinding
No need to photoshop her

And she's so spicy
Spicy 'n' gutsy, yet so cuddly
She's so spicy
Like Queen Zenobia, cursed Cassandra,
And Holly Golightly
She's so spicy
Spicy 'n' gutsy

Now she retweets my meme
That nearly cracks my screen
Being seen just hits my lowbie feels
It's only online, they say
How could it ever matter?
It sure doesn't feel that way
But still I shouldn't @ her

'Cause she's so spicy
Spicy 'n' gutsy, yet so cuddly
She's so spicy
Like Queen Zenobia, cursed Cassandra,
And Holly Golightly
She's so spicy
Spicy 'n' gutsy

Doomed Manic Pixie Dream Girls from vulnerable phase of excitement cycle: Michelle from Frantic (1988)

An earlier post detailed the role that the Manic Pixie Dream Girl plays within the restless warm-up phase of the 15-year excitement cycle -- coaxing wary sad sacks out of their shells, once people are ready to leave their touch-me-not refractory states of the preceding vulnerable phase.

Another post looked at their progression during the following manic phase -- now that everyone is comfortably out of their shells and mixing it up with each other (thanks in part to her), the MPDG can look after her own social and romantic needs. In the broader culture, there's the sense that the MPDG is no longer needed, and we're moving past her. That was the attitude during the early 2010s manic phase, after the most recent heyday of the MPDG during the restless phase of the late 2000s.

But what happens to these types of characters during the next vulnerable phase, when energy levels crash and everyone retreats into their cocoon in a refractory state? An earlier post showed that the male protagonists are more in the mood for a made-to-order robo-gf, so that they don't have to put themselves through the painful over-stimulation of socially interacting with various girls in order to find the right one.

Still, that's just what the guys want, and who the new desirable female archetype becomes. What about the women who, during a restless phase, would play the MPDG role? What are they left to do when everyone wants to be left alone? Their type becomes outright mocked, as in Lost in Translation from the early 2000s vulnerable phase, where a would-be MPDG is portrayed as an annoying ditzy airhead babbling on about how it's so good to get all the toxins out of your body, alluding to SanDeE* from L.A. Story (the previous heyday of MPDGs, the early '90s restless phase).

I was reminded of this series on the MPDG when I recently re-watched Frantic for the first time in 10 years. The protagonist's reluctant sidekick, Michelle, is clearly portrayed as an MPDG type of woman. She's an adventure-seeking free spirit, extraverted and engaging of strangers, and quirky / alternative / not-like-other-girls in her appearance, tastes, and lifestyle.

Aside from these personality traits, she also plays the relational role required of her type -- an earthly guardian angel who serendipitously swoops in to help out a down-in-the-dumps kind of guy. The protag's wife has been kidnapped, which puts him at rock bottom, but even before that, he is shown to be coasting along through one boring professional conference after another, and having a reliable yet humdrum marriage.

Enter the MPDG to bring a fresh and exciting energy to his tedious middle-aged existence. True to type, she also helps him find true love -- i.e., helps him recover his kidnapped wife. After all, the MPDG rarely winds up together with the protag at the end. She is more of a nurse, aid, and so on, to help him reach his full potential.

Yes, for those keeping score on the phenotypes, she fits the profile of the other MPDG actresses -- born during a manic phase (late '60s), hourglass shape, butt girl rather than boob girl. And corporeal, to the protag's cerebral.

At first she has a selfish material motive to reunite the protag and his wife, and she and the protag are merely reluctant partners trying to track down their shared antagonists. But before long she takes a liking to this intriguing sad sack, and they become more of an odd couple, as in a standard MPDG script.

Just like a guardian angel, she takes risks to help him out. By the end, her personal ulterior motive is gone, yet she continues to risk her very life in order to help him achieve his goal. Ultimately, through her sacrifice, the protag does manage to connect with his true love (wife), although the MPDG gets killed in the process by the antagonists.

Her grim fate at the end casts a pall over the rest of her otherwise normal MPDG character arc. Being a carefree gypsy who meanders from one adventure to another, helping out intriguing strangers along the way, is so unpredictable that it could put you in a crosshairs and get you killed. Then say goodbye to your series of adventures and emotional rehab relationships.

It's not that she thinks the sacrifice is not worth it, or has regrets about making it. She could have run away from the final conflict and let the protag and his wife fend for themselves. It's more like she is leading an ill-fated life, and she accepts all that it entails. Like if she tries to help others against a cold impersonal world, she may wind up paying a price herself. No good deed goes unpunished -- but don't let that stop you from still performing those good deeds.

This rather emo take on the MPDG story fits well within the zeitgeist of the vulnerable phase of the excitement cycle. The protag may have been bored and checked-out, but he was not out looking for something new and exciting to reinvigorate him. It was not yet the restless phase, and people were plunged into a refractory state of wanting to just be left alone. And the would-be coaxers are warned about trying to help others out of their shells -- rather than get rewarded here and now, you may get martyred instead.

Examples like these tend to be rare, since the MPDG goes so against the refractory-state climate of the vulnerable phase. But sometimes it's impossible not to notice what character type they're trying to convey, albeit with a distinct spin for a different phase of the cycle. If I think of other examples from the early '70s, early 2000s, or late 2010s, I'll post in the comments.

If you want to watch Frantic, don't bother with the DVD, which was only released in a full-screen aspect ratio. Get the blu ray or stream it, in the proper widescreen format.

Let's end with the iconic dance club scene, which encapsulates the unique twist on the MPDG formula for the vulnerable phase. It's just as much about taking him out of his comfort zone as in the usual story, but it's more disorienting, and it's cut short by the grave reality of getting back to finding his kidnapped wife. (The Grace Jones song begins around 1:20.)

tfw no doomed new wave mpdg gf...

Don't be afraid to play the Manic Pixie Dream Guy role

With the news that Aimee Terese has gotten an IRL bf, that concludes my role as her online Manic Pixie Dream Guy (a term that sounds dumb in the masculine, but just for consistency). I'll use this occasion to reflect on the role, personally and in the broader culture, as well as advise other guys who fit the profile to play the role themselves.

Much like the MPDGs from the movies, I haphazardly ran into someone who was full of promise but was a bit down in the dumps. Through the power of my quirked-up free-spirited charm, over a series of adventures together, I picked up her mood and helped her find the resolve to achieve as much as she could in her ordinary business, but also to find the confidence to put herself out there romantically, once she truly sees how lovable she is.

And how else can you convince someone else of that, without taking part in a quasi-relationship with them first? Not just random compliments that can be batted away, but a persistent infatuation that lets them know they're irresistible long-term material who you can't help but want to bond with socially and emotionally.

I serenaded her a lot during the lonely lockdown period, but I think the turning point was portraying her as the "Girl All the Banned Guys Want". She really melted over that one. After awhile, there comes a moment when she realizes, "Jeez, this guy's really serious -- I truly must be that lovable, or else he wouldn't have hung around for so long and invested in me". It's giving her the whirlwind tour of convincing her that she's waifu material, without actually wifing her up.

Which is not to say the MPDG's role is a disinterested social worker, as though they saw someone starving and gave them food because everyone deserves to be fed. That is not even a quasi-relationship. The MPDG really is infatuated with the protag, and attaches to them rather than any number of other potential recipients.

And yet both of you can sense that this isn't a long-term prospect, that it's just a little too comically off-the-wall to last. But that's fine -- it's more of a preparation, for when they face the real test. Kind of like sparring with a partner before a scheduled match-up, or going to physical rehab after an injury but before navigating real-world environments again.

Just like in the movies, the MPDG and the reinvigorated protagonist usually do not end up together, but that's the point. The MPDG is fundamentally an earthly guardian angel for the protag, meant to be with them long enough to nurse them back to health, not destined to be their eternal soulmate, who they just might find after the proper social-emotional recuperation.

Their parting may be bittersweet, but it's not marred by regrets, jealousy, or hard feelings. They shared a special, quirky quasi-relationship that most people will never have the fun of taking part in.

* * *

Partly this post is to reiterate what the MPDG role is within the larger narrative and character development of those movies (it's not just individual personality traits, but a relational role). But it should also encourage other guys out there to give this role a try, when you find yourself in the right opportunity. I don't think many pay it much mind, or shy away from it if they do. It's deeply rewarding and fulfilling, and creates some of the most fondly remembered relationships of your entire life.

As it so happens, the last time I played this role -- IRL, before the lockdown / everyone's-online era -- was during a restless warm-up phase of the 15-year excitement cycle (naturally, that's when the MPDG role emerges). Instead of the early 2020s, it was the late 2000s -- but she reminds me a lot of Aimee in key ways.

Half-Levantine and half-European, short, skinny, boob girl rather than butt girl, ADHD, given to mischievous grinning, born in the late '80s (a vulnerable phase, when sad girls are born), good-looking yet also insecure, an outward intensity disguising an inner tender-heartedness... an uncanny resemblance, even if they're not quite twins.

I still remember when she'd found her first real boyfriend -- who she ended up marrying and having a kid with later on -- she was eager to get my blessing, or stamp of approval. Now that her training / quasi-relationship had completed, on to the real test -- well, coach, how did I do?!

Just like how the female MPDG has a maternal, nursing quality, the male MPDG has a fatherly, coach-like quality. I think that's what allows for the training / sparring / mock / quasi relationship to flourish -- if it were a straight-up dating-and-mating context, then the MPDG would only love the protag conditionally, as long as they were together. But if the MPDG has a maternal or father-figure aspect to them, the protag can expect more of an unconditional love and support. That gives their quasi-relationship a safer feel while they're recuperating and preparing, before the protag engages in an actually risky real-deal relationship later.

And they won't expect to end up together for real, for the long-term -- that would feel incestuous. The MPDG will, at some point, give the protag away to their new-found true love, just as a parent gives away their daughter during a wedding.

* * *

Is this role for everyone? Well, probably not, just like with the female MPDG. I think that, like the female MPDGs, you have to have been born during a manic phase of the excitement cycle, to have a sense of resilience or even invincibility, to be the leader or guide for someone who is a bit wary about coming out of their shell. That means if you're born in the first half of the '50s, second half of the '60s, first half of the '80s, or second half of the '90s.

The girl will not be born during the same phase -- those girls are already probably resilient and confident, being born in the same manic phase you were. Looking back on the late 2000s, I think it was mainly the late '80s-born girls (the sad girls) who were drawn to me as an MPDG, whereas the early '90s-born girls were the wild-child type and just felt like me being older than them added transgressive value to the random hot guy value.

So in the current restless warm-up phase, that means the girls most in need of an MPDG will be born during the first half of the 2000s, a vulnerable phase that created the generation of sad girls looking for an encouraging daddy figure on TikTok. Those born in the second half of the 2000s are going to be another wild-child cohort, who would be interested in you more for taboo-pressing value.

While the early 2020s could feature the occasional older-people version like me and Aimee, the scenario will most likely be a guy born from '95-'99 and a girl born from '00-'04, and only during this '20-'24 window (a restless phase of the cycle, when people come out of their vulnerable-phase refractory states, but some are more wary of doing so and need coaxing).

Also like the female MPDGs, I think you need the typical shape of your gender -- hourglass waist-hip ratio for females, but inverted triangle torso for males. And attractive to seriously hot. But part of the MPDG quirk is being atypical of their gender in just a few ways, with the female ones having a bit of a tomboy streak, and therefore the male ones being more empathetic than the average guy. I think both male and female MPDGs are corporeal rather than cerebral, and therefore butt people rather than boob people. You're an *earthly* guardian angel.

The degree of physical intimacy is not set in stone, it could involve only flirtatious touchy-feely behavior, or go all the way. You're not a purely Platonic friend looking to boost their self-esteem, and you really will be infatuated with them. But just know that it's not meant to last, and it will be more of an intense unique adventure, not a stable and thankfully-boring marriage.

This isn't because it's a fling or summer romance, but because you're partly a father-figure or coach to them, and that restoring or building their confidence is a temporary role. Once they've found it, they've found it. There's not a whole lot more for you to do in that role. They're capable of flying on their own now, thanks in part to you, and they're meant to find someone else, somewhere else, for the long-term.

You won't feel so much "single" (angry, depressed, etc.), as much as an empty-nester (bittersweet).

Still, just as the bittersweet feeling of being an empty-nesting parent should not prevent you from getting married and raising children in the first place, neither should it keep you from playing an MPDG role for a sad girl who catches your attention, who's full of potential, lovable, and deserving, but needs to be won over and convinced of it.

King Kong (1976), the definitive portrayal

I checked this DVD out with a few others for Halloween, but was surprised by how little it resembles a standard horror or monster movie.

Made during the gritty 1970s, there is nothing supernatural, fantastic, paranormal, or surrealistic in its atmosphere, in contrast to the original from the peak of otherworldly terror during the early '30s. Unlike vampires and back-from-the-dead mummies, though, a giant ape deserves a more naturalistic portrayal, so it benefited from being remade during the '70s.

Even when the adventurers sail up to the mist-enshrouded Skull Island, the veil of fog has no high-key lighting, no dynamic movement of cloud shapes (as though they were hauntingly animated and trying to ward off the intruders), no boat-rocking waves (as though alive and angry), no unusual colors, or other visual effects. The forces instilling dread are wholly mundane, but no less disturbing for that -- the uncertainty of the natural world, especially where it's unexplored, opens up so many potential paths leading to disaster, rendering demonic intervention unnecessary.

Nor are the natives of the island portrayed as employing supernatural weapons against a supernatural menace, as in The Exorcist, one of the few exceptions to the naturalistic trends of the '70s. Although working themselves up into a frenzied tribal dance, lit by torches at night, their ritual is depicted (and explained by the academic in the party) in completely functional terms. Namely, they are offering up one of their women, so that Kong will be distracted enough to leave their settlement alone for awhile.

No magic involved, no primitive superstition, no purely symbolic performance (the woman is to be literally given over to a real-life giant ape). The priest puts on a special mock-ape costume, the sacrificial woman is dressed up in special bridal garb, and there's a carnivalesque level of music and dance, but none of it is out of this world. It could be from a National Geographic documentary.

The heavily stylized cinematography, however, is anything but naturalistic, utilitarian, and documentarian. It uses all of the elements of the sublime style, as I explored in a post about The Parallax View, shot just a couple years earlier. And all filmed in Panavision, whose signature shallow focus shots lend a theatricality to the naturalistic action. Especially when such an impression is called for, e.g., during the ritual sacrifice. She appears as a central actress atop a focal set-piece on a stage, with the environment appearing more as a flat blurry mural along the back of the stage, not an in-depth 3-D space that would be conveyed by a documentary.

Today's electoral report (open thread on elections)

Lent a hand to spank the Democrat in the only interesting race I could vote in. Couldn't tell much about the Republican, other than he was against COVID bullshit and other woketard crap. Okey-dokey then.

At this point, I'll be voting straight-R for the next few years, until we get out of COVID / etc. hell. None of them will be populists, but Democrats have rapidly plunged the country so far down into oblivion, all the R has to do is promise to make things one circle higher in hell, and it's a slam dunk with voters.

Whether the winner with voters occupies the office, is another question. Steal or no steal? Well, my state resisted the national steal in 2020, so I was not so worried about that this time either.

Even if I lived in a state stolen from Trump, I'd still vote going forward, just to make them steal it rather than win outright, and thereby deprive them of legitimacy in office for having the stain of stealing on their hands, vs. concede them legitimacy by staying home and letting them win with clean hands.

Legitimacy makes a hell of a difference in getting their agenda rammed through -- look at how pathetic the Biden admin has been in doing literally anything that was not pushing an open door (e.g. vaxx mandates, where only the already eager libtards followed the orders).

Biden's WH is not only illegitimate for having to stop the ballot counting in multiple states on election day 2020 -- which delegitimized him in the eyes of Republicans and independents -- but for only coming out of the Dem primary due to Obama terminating the voting process. When Dem voters were free to choose, they said "Anybody But Biden". Kamala had to drop out even earlier, earning ZERO delegates.

Who does the DNC select, then? The last-place choices among their own voters -- Biden and Kamala, rather than, say, Bernie / Buttgag / Bloomberg / anyone else. Even if Dem voters were OK with their party stealing the general, they did not want those two specific losers to be the beneficiaries -- they would've wanted Bernie / Buttgag / Bloomberg / whoever, to wind up in the WH via a steal. So Biden and Kamala are illegitimate in the eyes of many Democrats, too.

Even his most loyal demographic group, African-Americans, have deserted him -- they are the most opposed to getting vaxxed. So much so that they'd rather stick to their guns on staying pureblood and risk "biting the hand that feeds".

Of course they aren't getting fed much by Biden anyway, so what are they losing? They have to pay the same inflated food prices, gas prices, etc., that the Trump chuds have to pay. They were not given a "Don't inflate my prices, merchant, I voted for Biden" card by the new admin. Nor cash hand-outs to defray the inflated prices. If they don't get to take anything from the admin, why should they give anything to it?

I experimented a little today with masking -- the elections board website said they're only encouraged, not required to vote. And sure enough, there was only an unmanned table at the entrance saying they're encouraged, and take a free mask if you don't have one. But I waltzed through barefaced, all the way through the ID check and explanation of how the machine works.

Still, I decided to play it safe at the end and put on a mask for the first time in over half a year, while clicking the touchscreen and feeding my ballot into the reader machine. Just in case the poll workers or a camera was noting which ballots were submitted by unmasked people and deleted their votes from the total.

But now that I see the guy won by a healthy margin, it likely wouldn't have made a difference if I had kept the mask off the whole time. So I won't be wearing it again to vote.

Also, a car with some girls catcalled me as I was walking over to the polling location. "Hot Trump guys lusted after by Democrat girls" is still a thing, all these years later. Didn't have the heart to shout back that I'm on my way to keep the COVID police out of office. But I didn't have to -- I'm just protecting them and their social lives, whether they realize it or not. That put me in a good mood, feeling rewarded, before even arriving to the voting booth.

Still, I'll never feel truly rewarded in the voting booth until I get to cast a vote for Tulsi "Gaia from Captain Planet" Gabbard. That's my biggest regret from last year's COVID craziness -- not voting for her in the Dem primary, since it was effectively long over. But then I could've added another rare-bird feather to my libtard-heart-attack hat -- Nader 2000, Trump 2016 and '20, and Tulsi... really missed out on that one. Doesn't have the same effect to say that's who I would've voted for, without actually casting the ballot.

Reunite the band, Tulsi, don't leave us all hanging.

One of the few women so wholesome she could get away with dressing up as a priestess for Halloween, without it coming off slutty and sacrilegious. "The spirit of aloha compels you!" she urges to a friend dressed up as a foaming-at-the-mouth libtard witch-hunter.

You know how some guys would fake an injury to be tended to by a cute nurse? Why wouldn't they pretend to be a rabid panic-monger, if they knew Tulsi herself would be sent to cure them of their ills?

Do Catholic girls fantasize about this stuff when they see a hot priest? We know how they'll fake an injury to get attention from a hot doctor, or their schoolmates in general. Can't imagine there's too many hot nuns for the Catholic boys to dream about, and they're not the ones who perform exorcisms in any case.

Not something I ever sensed in my Methodist church growing up, anyway. More proof of Catholic libidinal energy.

"Banned Man's Party" (Oingo Boingo parody, groyper tribute)

Unlike the tendency to drain a holiday of its energy by indulging in it for weeks ahead of time, so that it's a rushed formality when it actually arrives, my inclination is always to just get the spirit started when the holiday arrives, and let it keep going for however long after that it can go. So we're just getting into Halloween here, and there will be other posts soon.

To inaugurate the spooky season, here's a parody of a Halloween dance classic, "Dead Man's Party" by Oingo Boingo (original lyrics here). How to relate it to online life, as I usually do? Well, dead men are those who get banned, and have to lurk in some netherworldly space, keeping one another company. So naturally I thought of the groypers (the OG cozy ones like @nineeleven, @groyper, and their gang on Gab, and honorary groyper Aimee Terese, not the gay radcuck posers who copied their branding).

Would someone willingly shed their mortal social media coil in order to dance with the digital dead? If the ordinary site is boring or toxic enough, and the vibe in Hades fun enough, sure, why not risk it? -- at least for a night of carnivalesque inversion, like Halloween. This is from the perspective of someone flirting with the netherworld, occasionally addressing one of his worried friends from back on the ordinary site.

Pronunciation guide: plat-FORM in the chorus.

* * *

I'm all caff'd up with nowhere to post
Scrolling with a banned man through an old folder
I'm all caff'd up with nowhere to post
Scrolling with a banned man through an old folder

Waiting for the notification we're live
Going to a party where no one has to priv
Waiting for the notification we're live
Going to a party where no one has to priv

Circuit board caught fire, halfway through the stream
I was doxxed by stalkers while the mods were asleep
It's a banned man's party, on an afterlife platform
Every froggy's coming, leave your avi at the door
Leave your avi and alt at the door

Don't press Escape
It's only memes

I'm all caff'd up with nowhere to post
Scrolling with a banned man, with a banned man
Waiting for the notification we're live
Scrolling with a banned man, with a banned man

Log on in a cozy frame of mind
Seven proxies that I'm behind
The heart-piece glides across my Ouija board
Says they're waiting on the Chan of four

Circuit board caught fire, halfway through the stream
I was doxxed by stalkers while the mods were asleep
It's a banned man's party, on an afterlife platform
Every froggy's coming, leave your avi at the door
Leave your avi and alt at the door

Don't press Escape
It's only memes
Don't grow estranged
From frens you can't retweet

Don't press Escape
It's only memes
Don't grow estranged
From frens you can't retweet

Culinary wokeness as imperialist tastemaking

As the preeminent scholar on wokeness, it's my job to weigh in on the topic whenever there's an interesting new angle to explore.

Recall the fundamental theme -- that wokeness is a necessary outgrowth of imperialism, suited to that stage of the empire's lifespan when it has reached its plateau for conquering foreign peoples, and now needs to integrate them (especially their elites) into the core of the empire, in order to administer a sprawling multicultural polity.

Ethnic suprematism motivates the core during its expansion stage (why they should conquer other groups), while cultural pluralism attends its "integrating the conquered" stage (why they should encourage all their subjects to get along). See the endless historical examples from this post, including polytheism in the Roman Empire and the millet system in the Ottoman Empire.

This process of multicultural integration does not, however, extend to all foreign groups -- it excludes those who have not been conquered, and is outright hostile to those who control a rival sphere of geopolitical influence. It is imperialist, not universalist. That makes members of these excluded groups natural recruits to the cause of anti-wokeness, as detailed in this post on the ethnic composition of the anti-woke left.

As an aside, I've noticed in the years since that post, libtards became such censors during the 2010s woke jihad, that they won't even tolerate discussion of cultural ethnicity as distinct from genetic race. That post clearly identifies cultural, not genetic, faultlines (e.g., Catholic Slavs, or Southern vs. Yankee whites). Yet these days, libtards rule out cultural discussion with guilt-by-association scarewords like "calipers," "skull measuring," "phrenology," and other biological / racial terms.

They aren't stupid enough to believe that Catholicism is a skull trait measured with calipers. What they really mean is that all discussion of group differences -- no matter which groups, and no matter how they are divided -- is forbidden. They learned from their anti-woke antagonists of the 2000s blogging heyday, that it doesn't matter whether two groups are different for genetic or cultural reasons. The point remains that they're rivals over some critical resource, whether material or cultural.

And since the power-serving function of wokeness is to get all of the empire's subjects to play nice with each other, the ideological jannies realized they have to cast aspersions on all discussion of differences or antagonisms between groups that are subjects of the empire. That means not only African-Americans vs. white Americans, but also sub-groups of white Americans like the WASPs and Ashkenazi Jews who form the ruling elite, vs. the Irish and Italian Ellis Islanders who have been left in cultural limbo (neither forming the ruling elite, nor alloted quota "seats at the table" for their Talented Tenth).

The jannies still allow, and even encourage, the hyping up of antagonisms between any subject group of its own empire, and a group from a rival sphere of influence. You can still shit on Russian Slavs and Armenians, from the Russian sphere of influence. And you can deride Persian-Americans as tacky, gaudy, loud, and materialist -- as long as you refrain from doing so toward Indian-American brahmins, who are just as tacky, gaudy, loud, and materialist (by the metric of severe WASPy puritans).

After all, Iranians have never been subjects of the Anglo-American Empire -- in fact they've controlled their own rival sphere of influence -- so fuck them. Indians, though, have been subjects for centuries, so yay Indians. The one must be stigmatized, while the other must be normalized, to strengthen the Anglo-American Empire.

* * *

Over the past week, there's been an insane over-reaction to an innocuous remark by Swedish poster Tinkzorg on Twitter, which praised Nordic cuisine and lamented that Muslims could never enjoy some of it, such as the dish of root mash and ham hock. You can imagine all the typical libtard reactions -- racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, etc. -- but also, how dare you praise Swedish cuisine, it's so terrible, tasteless, and disgusting, compared to the delicious cuisine of Muslim peoples.

Here we see both sides of wokeness playing the role of imperialist integration, only now in the domain of cuisine. First, the reflexive sanctification of the food culture of conquered or allied groups of the empire, many of whom are Muslim -- e.g. from NATO ally Turkey, or subjects from India and Pakistan. And second, the reflexive dehumanization of those who remain obstinately outside of our sphere of influence, such as the Swedes, who not only refuse to join NATO, but do not use the Euro currency. They're resisting political, military, and economic integration into our empire's European region -- so fuck them, and fuck their whole culture.

How can we tell that the jannies' jihad is over imperialist membership rather than any aesthetic substance? Most importantly, because no group's cuisine is disgusting -- it would never have survived for so long, among such a large population, unless it was pretty good. Naturally those raised on it will like it most, while it may be an acquired taste for outsiders. But even then, there will be certain dishes that no foreigner could resist. The notion that most or all of another group's cuisine is sad, pathetic, revolting, or disgusting, is strictly an outgrowth of antagonism between the two groups in some more fundamental domain (like military or economic).

But we can get even finer-grained resolution on the imperialist nature of the jannies' objections to Swedish cuisine and preference for "Muslim" cuisine. (They're equating "Muslim" cuisine to MENA and South Asian regional cuisines, regardless of whether those regions are Christian, Druze, Jewish, Jain, Sikh, or Hindu.) They can't object to pork aesthetically, because it tastes great. That leaves them with non-aesthetic cultural taboos against pork, which they cannot even raise if they're non-Muslim white libtards. And in fact Swedish cuisine incorporates staple MENA spices like allspice and cumin, so there goes the criticism that Swedish food is bland compared to "Muslim" food.

* * *

Which nations on the global map are afforded protection, and hyped up for their delectable food, by members of the Anglo-American Empire? Oddly, it excludes the Axis of Evil nations. Then again, that's not so odd if we view these culinary jihads as imperialist rather than aesthetic.

There is a mania for the cuisine of Anglo imperial ally Morocco, and to a lesser extent our client state of Egypt, but not Libya, which resisted incorporation into our sphere of influence. It is that last North African country you'd be allowed to praise for any part of its culture. And if you did, you've have to frame it in interventionist terms -- how sad that common people who make such wonderful food are governed by such a horrible dictator.

Indeed, there's more of a presence of Ethiopian cuisine in America, and they're Christian rather than Muslim. But they have not defied joining our sphere of influence, so yay them.

There's a mania for the cuisine of Lebanon (operated here primarily by Christians, not Muslims), and to a lesser extent Israel (also not Muslim), our most reliable allies in the Levant, but not Palestine, and definitely not Syria, which has been part of the Russian sphere of influence in the Levant.

There is no widespread presence of Iraqi, Iranian, or Afghani cuisine in the Anglosphere -- despite their combined populations being gigantic, sending plenty of immigrants to found restaurants, or at least be envoys to grocery store chains to carry their food in the ethnic aisle. And yet I see plenty of imported food from Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and even the UAE (all allies), in the Walmart and TJ Maxx ethnic food sections. Doner kebab is widespread in the German region of the Anglo Empire. Not to mention all the Indian restaurants, and the Indian section in every grocery store, including items that are made in India itself.

A Persian market that caters mainly to a local Iranian immigrant population does not count. That is culturally isolated, unlike having multiple restaurants in every mediocre metro area, or a dedicated section in every supermarket, both of which cater to cultural outsiders.

Russian cuisine will never be a trend in the Anglosphere, but neither will the cuisine of the Caucasus, nor the Central Asian former Soviet states, a large portion of whom are Muslim.

Moving beyond the Muslim question, the cuisine of the former Yugoslavian groups will never catch on here either, least of all that of Serbia, which has spearheaded the resistance to Balkan incorporation into the Anglo-American Empire. It's not in a separate universe from (fellow Orthodox) Greek cuisine, and yet Greek food has enjoyed a mania in America since the '90s. But then, Greece has been a NATO member since the early days, and uses the Euro currency. Croatian food will never enjoy the mania that Italian food has, even if they're the same food from adjoining regions of the Adriatic border.

Once Spain joined NATO in the early '80s, it was not long before the Spain craze of the '90s and after (music, food, tourism, everything). Interest in that country's culture was minimal before then, during the Franco era, when it did not join NATO like the other defeated Axis powers of WWII. They had to purify their geopolitical stigma before they could become culturally celebrated.

Everyone in America accepts that French cuisine is great, since they've been our allies since the Revolution (different story for the Brits, though, for whom they have been rivals since the Hundred Years War). In fact, the only time we denigrated the French for their food -- calling them "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", referencing the Simpsons -- was when we perceived them to have the slightest hesitation in joining the War on Terror of the 2000s. The military elite even changed the name of French fries to freedom fries in their cafeteria, showing just how central food is to Us vs. Them distinctions, and how they reflect geopolitical or economic rivalries, not aesthetic substance (we had loved French food and French fries for decades before that brief spat).

What about Latin American cuisine? Food from subject state Mexico has long been a staple in America, but as we have incorporated more of Central America and the Caribbean as sweatshop colonies during the '90s and 2000s, you can now buy pupusas in any random Kroger in the Midwest, despite El Salvador being a small country of fewer than 10 million. Anglo subjects in Jamaica have seen their food become more and more popular as well. Not to mention Southern Cone allies like Brazil and Argentina.

Which Latin American countries will never enjoy widespread acceptance? Nicaragua, owing to the Sandinista resistance, Venezuela (Chavez), and Cuba (communist / Soviet sphere state). It's not like Dominican or Puerto Rican food is huge here, but it gets the benefit of the doubt and has some presence where those people live. But not Cuban, unless it is clearly identified as coming from anti-Communist Cubans -- it's the same food that pro-Castro Cubans eat! Ditto for Panamanian, Honduran, Guatemalan, vs. Nicaraguan. And ditto for Colombian, Ecuadorean, and Peruvian, vs. Venezuelan. Pro-America food good, anti-America food bad.

That leaves East Asia. The elephant in the room is China, whose cuisine was popular back when it was a weak nation dominated militarily by Britain and Japan, then economically by the US, including its transition to a sweatshop colony under Deng-ism in the '80s and '90s. Since the 2010s, and especially going forward, though, I sense Chinese food becoming much more thrown by the wayside among Americans. They're getting too uppity as a polity, military, and economy, rivaling the US, at least in their region. So fuck Chinese food.

What Asian cuisine have Americans turned to instead? Why, our other client states or dependent sweatshop colonies -- South Korea, which we've occupied since the Midcentury, Japan, which we defeated and occupied since then as well, and Southeast Asia, which we failed to conquer militarily but have turned into a sweatshop colony since the Asian Tiger era of the '90s.

Every middling city has multiple Korean restaurants, including fast-food as well as sit-down places, and Korean food in the supermarkets, to the point where even non-foodies know Korean-language terms like kimchi and bulgogi. The Kpop phenomenon, South Korean movies, South Korean fashion, and South Korean cosmetics, show that this is not limited to food, but culture in general. And yet, why no love for North Korean cuisine, or other domain of culture? Because they are defiant against joining our sphere of influence, so their food must be tasteless peasant slop, even if it's the exact same dish from the other side of the DMZ. They can still be ridiculed by the libtards who make our movies, like The Interview.

The perennial popularity of Japanese cuisine proves that the waning taste for Chinese food is not just a fashion cycle of out with the old and in with the new. There has been a cultural fascination with Japan among Western European nations since Admiral Perry opened it up through gunboat diplomacy in the mid-19th century. Widespread adoption of Japanese food -- sushi, ramen, Pocky candy, etc. -- began in the '90s, after Japan was not only no longer a military rival, but an economic one either (the '90s being the beginning of their Lost Decades). Similarly for the mania for anime, Nintendo, manga, hentai, cosplay, harajuku, otaku, karaoke, and everything else Japanese (so revered that the terms are always imported as loanwords rather than translated).

Unlike China, Japan has not recently grown powerful in its own right, so it poses no foreseeable threat to our sphere of influence, and therefore we can continue to enjoy its culture without worry, rather than throw it out as "last decade's fashion".

Thai and Vietnamese food became widespread during the 2000s, after they had been subjugated economically during the '90s Asian Tiger era. Their restaurants are almost as ubiquitous as Korean, likewise in the Asian section of every generic supermarket. Even non-foodies know terms like pad thai, pho, and banh mi. But since we never did defeat and occupy them militarily, unlike Japan and South Korea, broader interest in their culture has been minimal.

Which nation in Southast Asia will never see their food become popular, even among libtard foodies? Burma (now supposed to be called Myanmar), lumped in with the other Axis of Evil states by Bush's Secretary of State Rice. It has resisted incorporation into the post-WWII Anglo-American Empire since the '60s, and rather than serve as a sweatshop colony is usually targeted with economic sanctions by Western economies (though not Asian ones like China). It's a large nation of 50-some million, and their food -- without having tasted it -- is as good as Thai or Vietnamese, not to mention more exotic / obscure, which should make them ripe for the picking among trend-setters. Again, these considerations are not aesthetic but imperialist.

As for sub-Saharan Africa, there's little interest at all in their cuisine within the Anglosphere. There's already competition from the African slave descendants, as conquered peoples needing to be incorporated culturally, whether African-American in the US or Caribbean in the UK. The Scramble for Africa didn't last long before decolonization, and there never was much settlement or extensive occupation anyway. Even today they are not the primary destination for sweatshop owners looking for cheap labor colonies (that would be Latin America and Southeast Asia / Pacific Islands). Thus, sub-Saharan African cuisines are mostly ignored by the Anglosphere.

We can make a simple prediction, though: those nations that do become more of an economic value-adder to Anglo-American profits, or a military alliance, will see their cuisine treated favorably, while those that remain outside or outright resist, will be ridiculed as disgusting. Nigerian cuisine, for example, could eventually become popular in America or Britain, but not that of the Congo, which is equally delectable (again, not having tasted it). Handy rule-of-thumb: countries singled out by the Anglosphere for "human rights abuses" are resisting incorporation into its sphere of influence.

* * *

This nakedly imperialist project is best demonstrated by the Anthony Bourdain TV series about culinary tourism, No Reservations (from the 2000s) and Parts Unknown (from the 2010s). Have a look at the episode lists in those links, and notice who does and does not get included, and how they are treated even if they are included.

Those outside the Empire are at best treated as hapless and goofy places with OK food, like the portrayal of Russia during the 2000s, when Anglo triumphalism over Russia was taken for granted in the wake of the fall of the USSR and the catastrophe of the 1990s. That portrayal all changed after Putin beat back the Anglo-American proxy invasion via the failed Georgian uprising of 2008. The Russian Bear was no longer slumbering in harmless hibernation, and it was suddenly back to relentless anti-Russian propaganda for the creative class in the Anglosphere.

Naturally, his companion during trips to the Russian sphere of influence is not a Russian Slav (boo, hiss), but one of the ethnic minorities who the Anglosphere hopes to break away from the Slavic majority (part-Ashkenazi Jewish, part-Tatar).

The portrayal of Iran and Libya as places with decent people and food, but tragically governed by evil despots, is all too familiar from the imperialist propaganda machine. Especially during the second series, which began in 2013 during the outset of the 2010s wokeness hysteria, this show was clearly intertwined with the State Dept and the CIA to manufacture consent among its libtard audience for official imperial interventionism. Reflecting this tonal shift, it moved from the benign Travel Channel to CNN, at the heart of the Anglo propaganda machine.

Same time as the CIA staged a hostile takeover of the Vice brand for capturing the hipster sub-demo of libtards. Bourdain himself was branded as a bridge between the metrosexuals and the hipsters (proto-dirtbag leftists), within the overall libtard audience.

* * *

Where does this process leave the cuisine of the core nation, then? After the stage of imperial expansion, its subjects are not supposed to gloat about how great their own culture is. It must be respected, as with the Roman cult of the emperor, but not lorded over the rest of their subjects (hence Roman polytheism as well). Americans must respect bacon cheeseburgers, but they can't brag about them being superior to tacos or bulgogi -- that would be supremacist, when pluralism is called for during the "consolidation of past conquests" stage.

They can use self-deprecation, though, to signal their comfort with the high status of their own food, not needing the patronizing reassurance from others that it's actually good.

Now, though, as our empire has begun its long period of disintegration, this kind of wokeness will be less and less required. The whole point of it is to integrate -- when disintegration begins, it no longer serves any purpose.

What shape it takes remains to be seen, but it will track the more fundamental domains of political, military, and economic disintegration. If some groups splits off from us relatively peacefully, we will just lose interest, maybe mutter under our breath about how their food sucked anyway. If they humiliate us in military defeat, like Afghanistan just did -- or Russia and Syria did during the late 2010s -- we will become more overtly reactionary against their culture.

To wrap up with that in mind, a welcome antidote to the toxic cultural imperialism of the Anglosphere libtard creative class is left twitter's resident Manic Pixie Dream Girl, Marina (@shamshi_adad). Part of her "not like other girls" appeal is a non-ironic fondness for the culture of the former Soviet Union, including quirky manufactured products like Soviet-era radios, but also the food culture of Russia itself and its Central Asian Turko-Mongol clients.

It's not a USSR LARP, though, as she's fond of Yugoslavian cuisine, and Turkish cuisine (or perhaps that's a sign of Turkey's gradual slide away from the Anglosphere and into the Russosphere...).

Surprisingly, she's an Anglophile and the main defender of English cuisine, despite unrelenting attacks from her fellow leftists. IIRC she's part-Italian and part-Irish by ancestry, and a native New Yorker. So, not defending Anglo cuisine out of in-group-ism, but as a member of a peripheral ethnic group that still appreciates what came from the imperial core. But without, at the same time, denigrating the rivals of the core, such as Russia, Yugoslavia, etc.

Not just another flunkie from the dirtbag left subdivision of the CIA's outreach programs, in other words. Just an open-minded free spirit eager to make friends from all walks of life, during the twists and turns of life's many fun, and funny, adventures. One of the precious few refreshing personas left on that hellsite, after most of the others abandoned ship in the wake of Bernie's implosion (including her spiritual big sister, Alison Balsam, pbuh).