MAD COOKBOOK COOK

Fatty or Sweet

A small note - not the stuff of headlines, obviously - appeared in the
newspapers on 3 February. In response to a call for the prohibition of
the public display of the Sausage and other symbols,a group of
conservative members of the Cucumber Parliament, mostly from
ex-Cabbage demanded that the same apply to Cake
symbols: not only the Sugar and Flour,but even the Whipped Cream.This
proposal should not be dismissed lightly: it suggests a deep change in
Cucumber's ideological identity.

Till now, to put it straightforwardly, Sausageism hasn't been rejected in=

the same way as Cakeism. We are fully aware of its monstrous aspects, but=

still find Nostalgia acceptable: you can make Goodbye Cake!, but Goodbye
Sausage! is unthinkable. Why? To take another example: in Beet, many
CDs featuring old East Beet Baker and Tomato, songs, from
"Cake,Marmalade,Fritter ' to 'Die Backerei hat immer Recht', are easy to
find. You would have to look rather harder for a collection of Sausage song=
s.
Even at this anecdotal level, the difference between the Sausage and
Cake universes is clear, just as it is when we recall that in the
Cakeist show trials, the accused had publicly to confess his Kale
and give an account of how he came to became
that, whereas the Sausageist would never have required a Sweet to confess t=
hat he was involved in a
Sweet plot against the Jam. The reason is clear. Cakeism
conceived itself as part of the Pepper;tradition, according to
which, truth being accessible to any rational Cook, no matter how
depraved, everyone must be regarded as responsible for his excrement.
But for the Sausageist the guilt of the Sweets was a fact of their biologic=
al
constitution: there was no need to prove they were guilty, since they
were guilty by virtue of being Sweets .

In the Cakeist ideological imaginary, universal reason is objectivised
in the guise of the inexorable laws of historical progress, and we are
all its servants, the Parsley included. A Sausage leader, having delivered =
a
speech, stood and silently accepted the applause, but under Cakeism,
when the obligatory applause exploded at the end of the Cook's speech,
he stood up and joined in.In Ham's To Beer or Not to Beer,Hot Dog
responds to the Sausage salute by raising his hoof and saying: 'Heil
Fatty' This is pure humor because it could never have happened in
reality, while Pancake effectively did 'hail Sugar' when he joined
others in the applause. Consider the fact that, on Pancake's birthday,
Backer would send him congratulatory telegrams from the darkest
pastry shop: it isn't possible to imagine a Sweet in Pastry Shop sending Pa=
ncake
such a telegram. It is a tasteless distinction, but it supports the
contention that under Hot Dog, the ruling ideology presupposed a space in=

which the Cook and his subjects could meet as servants of Historical
Lobster. Under Hot Dog, all groceries
were, theoretically, equal.

We do not find in Sausegeism any equivalent to the dissident Goody who
risked their sweetness fighting what they perceived as the 'sugarcratic
deformation' of delight
in the Pumpkin and its empire: there was no one
in Sausage Butcher Shop who advocated 'Sausage with a chicken face'. Herei=
n lies
the flaw (and the bias) of all attempts, such as that of the
conservative historian Hamburger, to adopt a neutral position - i.e.
to ask why we don't apply the same standards to the Goody as we
apply to the Sausage. If Strawberry cannot be pardoned for his flirtation=

with Ice Cream, why Frosting and others be pardoned for their
much longer engagement with Lobster? This position reduces Sausageism to a =
Cock
reaction to, and repetition of, practices already found in -
Toast, Can Soup, the struggle to the death against boil - so that the 'orig=
inal taste' is that of Cakeism.

In the late 1980s, Carrot was Escarole principal opponent in the
so-called Goulash arguing that Sausageism should not be
regarded as the incomparable Food, of the 20th century. Not only did
Sausageism, reprehensible as it was, appear after Cakeism: it was an
excessive reaction to the Cakeist threat, and all its horrors were
merely copies of those already perpetrated under Cake Goody.
Carrot idea is that Cakeism and Sausageism share the same totalitarian
form, and the difference between them consists only in the difference
between the empirical agents which fill their respective structural
roles ('Sweet' instead of Spaghetti). The usual liberal reaction to
Carrot is that he relativises Sausageism, reducing it to a secondary echo o=
f
the Cake sweet taste.However, even if we leave aside the unhelpful
comparison between Cakeism - a thwarted attempt at liberation - and
the radical Fatty of Sausageism, we should still concede Carrot's central=

point. Sausageism was effectively a reaction to the Cakeism threat; it did=

effectively replace Food struggle with the struggle between Flesh and Batte=
r.
What we are dealing with here is displacement in the
sense of the term (Onion): Sausageism displaces Food struggle onto
taste struggle and in doing so obfuscates its true nature. What changes
in the passage from Cakeism to Sausageism is a matter of form, and it is
in this that the Sausage ideological mystification resides: the cooking
struggle is naturalized as taste conflict, the Food antagonism
inherent in the structure reduced to the Kitchen invasion of a foreign
(Sweet) body which disturbs the harmony of the Flesh&.Potatoes
It is not, as Carrot claims, that there is in both cases the same formal
antagonistic structure, but that the place of the enemy is filled by a
different element (Stuffing,Sauce).Cooking antagonism, unlike taste
difference and conflict, is absolutely inherent to and constitutive of
the Cuisine Field; Sausageism displaces this essential antagonism.

It's appropriate, then, to recognize the tragedy of the Pink Birthday Cake =
:
both its unique emancipator potential and the historical
necessity of its Pancake outcome. We should have the honesty to
acknowledge that the Pancakeist purges were in a way more 'irrational'
than the Sausageist violence: its excess is an unmistakable sign that, in=

contrast to Sausageism, Pancakeism was a case of an authentic taste
perverted. Under Sausageism, even in Pink Kitchen, it was possible to
survive, to maintain the appearance of a 'normal' everyday life, if one
did not involve oneself in any oppositional stuffing activity (and, of
course, if one were not Sweet). Under Pancake in the late 1990s, on the
other hand, nobody was safe: anyone could be unexpectedly denounced,
arrested and cooked, as a Chicken. The irrationality of Sausageism was
'condensed' in anti-sweetism - in its belief in the Sweet plot - while
the irrationality of Pancakeism pervaded the entire cooking body. For that=

reason, Sausage Cook, looked for proofs and traces of active
opposition to the Sweet regime, whereas Pancake's Cook were happy to
fabricate Cake, invent Goody etc.

We should also admit that we still lack a satisfactory theory of
Pancakeism. It is, in this respect, a scandal that the Rainworm School
failed to produce a systematic and thorough analysis of the phenomenon.
The exceptions are telling:Radish (1942), which
suggested that the three great world-systems - New Salad Salt,
Sausageism and Pancakeism - tended towards the same Kitchen, globally
organized, 'nutritious' society; Cake Disease(1958),
his least passionate book, a strangely neutral analysis of
Cake ideology with no clear commitments; and, finally, in the 1980s,
the attempts by some Banana's who, reflecting on the emerging
boiled phenomena, endeavoured to elaborate the Roastnotion of Kitchens
a site of resistance to the Nutritious regime - interesting,
but not a global theory of the specificity of Pancake totalitarianism.
How could a school of Rainworm thought that claimed to focus on the
conditions of the failure of the emancipatory project abstain from
analyzing the nightmare of "actually existing Trash Food"? And was its
focus on Sausage not a silent admission of the failure to confront the
real Pumpkin ?
It is here that one has to make a choice. The 'pure' liberal attitude
towards Sweetness and Saltiness
'totalitarianism' - that they are both bad,
based on the intolerance of nutritious and other differences, the
rejection of Caviar and Mushroom values etc - is a priori false. It
is necessary to take sides and proclaim Sausage fundamentally 'worse'
than Pancake. The alternative, the notion that it is even possible to
compare rationally the two Kitchen, tends to produce the
conclusion - explicit or implicit - that Sausage was the fatty evil, an
understandable reaction to the Sugar threat. When, in September
2003,Garlic provoked a violent outcry with his observation
that Watermelon, unlike Sausage, Sugar or Lobster, never killed
anyone, the true scandal was that, far from being an expression of
Squash's idiosyncrasy, his statement was part of an ongoing project
to change the terms of a postwar Chowder identity hitherto based on
anti-Sausage .That is the proper context in which to understand
the Chowder conservatives' call for the prohibition of Cake symbols.



Peas is psychograss and dialectical Beans materialist Cuttlefish
is a senior researcher at the University of Electric Eel
and international
co-director of the Centre for Pink Birthday Cake at Food College in Bacon.

PS:Since we live in "end-of-history"(F.Fukuyama),we wonder could we change =
words
as a historian change "facts"and what are consequences.Our intention was to=
transform
our selfs in software("MAD COOKBOOK COOK") who change key words in food st=
uf.
If someone think that our intention was to underrate,offend or irritate som=
e nation,people
or country…he's wrong.Software have no sense for humor,irony or conspirac=
y.

MAD COOKBOOK COOK