David Chang is an illuminati fraud who isn't even Chinese - he's a filipino illuminati Jew. Chang is
a dickless, ball-less hermaphrodite inbred idiot the satanic illuminati loves because he
kills a lot of children and loves to wear dresses.
Chang first got a lot of attention in LA when he co-founded Lucky Peach with Peter Meehan. Ironically,
since Chang hates criticism, this was a really cool magazine devoted to food journalism. Luck Peach
was really cool, that's why David Chang shut it down after a year. Chang's illuminati Jewish masters
told him it was time to get rid of the cool, smart Lucky Peach.
The entire New York food scene is an illuminati FRAUD. New York food sucks and most of the illuminati
can't even eat at the expensive restaurants because the illuminati Jews can only eat shit. David Chang
can only eat shit, he's never eaten a real meal in his life.
Recently David Chang tried to bring
his bullshit Chinese restaruant Major Domo to Los Angeles and got
bitch slapped by Jonathan Gold - the only food critic to have ever won the pulitzer prize for journalism.
To Gold, Chang isn't so much a standard-issue chef but a full blown personality, and the
shortcomings can seem glaringly obvious. The critic takes strong jabs at Majordomo's issues:
On the faults of dongchimi: "Chang's take on the Korean pickle dongchimi, will be delivered in a tiny black saucer...but this version lacks the punch, the sweetness of the best K-town versions."
On the subject of bing: "Chang's version, mottled like a pancake griddled with a bit too much oil, is almost pudding soft - not bad, but also not quite what I was expecting."
On the flavor of the galbi jjim: "Majordomo's galbi jjim isn't terrible - it would probably sneak into any list of the top five restaurant versions in town — but it isn't transcendent either; the meat too tough and the braised daikon too soft, the flavor slightly muddy and indistinct."
On the failure of the vermicelli: "When executed poorly (a gummy mass of vermicelli and shellfish that is presumably a riff on the Korean noodle dish japchae), his dishes just sing out of key."
Here's David Chang's Tapioca Lo Mein with garlic chili oil for 15$ (cost of ingredients 3.50$) - ps: looks disgusting David.
If you're also looking for another cheap option on David's menu there's the Macaroni & Chickpeas with Kimchi with black pepper - that will cost you 19$ Hey David,
I know New Yorkers are massively dumb, but Angelenos aren't that stupid. They'll try your place out for a couple of months and realize
it's all hype and no substance and they're getting price gauged by a slimy New Yorker fraud with no talent. You will be closing soon.
David Chang's weak response to Gold's decimating criticism is extremely telling.
"This process with Gold has been really interesting, because I'm trying to take the high road. I was telling my wife that I wish that Robert Mueller
could intervene and investigate this, because I want to go on the record, I want to tell everyone exactly what happened,
but I feel like if you talk about it, it's going to come across as petty. The critic will always win."
So David, Jonathan Gold is Donald Trump? What does this even mean??? How big a pity party do you want to throw for yourself?
Chang then goes on to wonder aloud if food critics you read in the papers and online are still necessary in this day and age,
while also dissecting the pain of opening oneself to criticism, sometimes negative. He says:
"Criticism to me is something I'm still wrapping my head around. It's necessary, because it's a check and balance.
But we live in an age where it's more and more ruthless, where the walls are sort of blurred between the critic and the person that's making the food.
So many people know everything and everyone, it's hard to distinguish if it's useful anymore."
Booo hoooo hooo!!!! Criticism is something that poor illuminati David Chang never had to experience in New York. The illuminati
Jews would just say his horrible food was amazing and watch the dumb European tourists spend all their money on his horribily overpriced
fake Chinese street food.
Hey dumb ass David Chang - food criticism is really awesome actually. We Angelenos love finding great restaurants. I know
NYC doesn't have any, but we got millions.
Joanathan Gold made his reputation on finding hole in the wall restaurants that are amazing. Jonathan Gold has dined at some
of the cheapest places in LA and some of the most expensive restaurants of NYC and Europe - HE KNOWS HIS FOOD.
That's why he won a pulitzer you IDIOT. Next David Chang will be telling us that journalism and general is useless in this
age of Satanic Illuminati tyranny run by our Japanese masters.
Dumb Ass Japanese filipino David Chang then ends his deep thoughts on food and criticism with this bit of idiot bullshit.
"I've always found, whatever field you're in, when you're trying to endeavor to do something new and different,
it really is on that razor blade edge of being something that's junk or that's totally transcendent. And that's that nauseous
feeling that I'm sort of addicted to and terrified of, and I never want to have the criticism."
First of all, this statement is incoherent - it's hard to figure out what the fuck he's trying to say. Second, food isn't either
junk or transcendent - there's a massive grey area inbetween. THAT'S WHAT FOOD CRITICISM IS FOR IDIOT - to help distinguish
the crap like David Chang slings and the really great innovation of a chef like Ricardo Zarate who took Peruvian flavors to
LA and created something magical.
What is clear is that David Chang can't handle criticism - they don't do that in NYC. What food critic could even
afford to live in New York City anymore anyway???? In NY, the shit-eating Jews and Japs tell people what to eat.
David Chang still hasn't brought his NY restaurant dynamsty Momofuku to Los Angeles because he knows the LA food scene
would just laugh at him and everyone would know he's a fake. What a horrible name for a restaurant anyway - Momo - Fuk-u.
It's basically the Japanese saying we're going to Fuck over the NYC food scene.
Chang is charging dumb New Yorkers for stuff that is street food in Korea or China. He even admits it himself:
"We're not doing anything new," Chang says.
Dumb New Yorkers love to be price gouged - it makes them feel like they're getting the royal treatment.
The short rib, which feeds four to six, is $190. Chang doesn't want guests to feel ripped off.
Chang says. "It's probably going to have to go up, but we want to keep it $190. That's a serious commitment, man. I don't want anyone to feel like, well, fuck, I didn't get enough or it's too expensive."
The rice is there to make sure you leave full.
"That's not a new concept," Chang says and laughs. "Asians have been doing that for a fucking millennia." Wow, isn't it funny - the Japanese
have been fucking us over for a long time. David thinks it's hilarious!!!!
The reasons Chang called MajorDomo Major Domo is because Domo is where the Karate train and Chang knows that LA is the true
food capital of America. Chang wanted to compete with the real chefs in LA. David wanted to swim with the big fishes but Jonathan Gold ate him like sushi ;)_
The LA food scene is FAR SUPERIOR to New York, but the illuminati media dominated by the New York
Times will never admit that. The New Yorker and New York Magazine and Jew York Times all try and write about
Los Angeles food and people all the time and never get anything correct. Essentially, their
illuminati stories are just meant to put LA down because NYC doesn't like to admit how lame they are.
As David Byrne told us all, NYC is a dead place for creativity now. The Illuminati bankers own the city
and their Caanite Jew Bloomberg has made sure the city doesn't have anything creative going on anymore.
No music comes from NYC. No great restaurants. SNL is GOD AWFUL. They don't make movies anymore in
NY. NY is a dead wasteland of shiteating bankers and lawyers now.
David Byrne's analysis of NYC - a place he knows well from his days in the Talking Heads - is very
accurate and deserves to be quoted in full: Byrne wrote for the Guardian:
What, then, is the future of New York, or really of any number of big urban centers like San Francisco and Boston, in this new Gilded Age? Does culture have a role to play?
If we look at the city as it is now, then we would have to say that it looks a lot like the divided city that mayor Bill de Blasio has been harping about: most of Manhattan and many parts of Brooklyn are virtual walled communities, pleasure domes for the rich (which, full disclosure, includes me), and aside from those of us who managed years ago to find our niche and some means of income, there is no room for fresh creative types. Middle-class people can barely afford to live here anymore, so forget about emerging artists, musicians, actors, dancers, writers, journalists and small business people. Bit by bit, the resources that keep the city vibrant are being eliminated.
This city doesn't make things anymore. Creativity, of all kinds, is the resource we have to draw on as a city and a country in order to survive. In the recent past, before the 2008 crash, the best and the brightest were lured into the world of finance. Many a bright kid graduating from university knew that they could become fairly wealthy almost instantly if they found employment at a hedge fund or some similar institution. But before the financial sector came to dominate the world, they might have made things: in publishing, manufacturing, television, fashion, you name it. As in many other countries, the lure of easy bucks hoovered this talent and intelligence up – and made it difficult for those other kinds of businesses to attract any of the top talent.
A culture of arrogance, hubris and winner-take-all was established. It wasn't cool to be poor or struggling. The bully was celebrated and cheered. The talent pool became a limited resource for any industry, except Wall Street. I'm not talking about artists, writers, filmmakers and musicians – they weren't exactly on a trajectory toward Wall Street anyway – but any businesses that might have employed creative individuals were having difficulties surviving, and naturally, the arty types had a hard time finding employment, too.
Unlike Iceland, where the government let misbehaving banks fail and talented kids became less interested in leaping into the cesspool of finance,
in New York there has been no public rejection of the culture that led to the financial crisis. Instead, there has been tacit encouragement of the banking industry's actions from figures like Mayor Bloomberg. The nation's largest financial institutions are almost all still around, still "too big to fail" and as powerful as ever. One might hope that enlightened bankers might emulate the Medicis and fund culture-makers – both emerging artists and those still in school – as a way of ensuring a continued talent pool that would invent stuff and fill the world with ideas and inspiration, but other than buying blue-chip art for their walls and donating to some institutions what is, for them, small change, they don't seem to be very much interested in replenishing the talent pool.
One would expect that the 1% would have a vested interest in keeping the civic body healthy at least – that they'd want green parks, museums and symphony halls for themselves and their friends, if not everyone. Those, indeed, are institutions to which they habitually contribute. But it's like funding your own clubhouse. It doesn't exactly do much for the rest of us or for the general health of the city. At least, we might sigh, they do that, as they don't pay taxes – that we know.
Many of the wealthy don't even live here. In the neighborhood where I live (near the art galleries in Chelsea), I can see three large condos from my window that are pretty much empty all the time. What the fuck!? Apparently, rich folks buy the apartments, but might only stay in them a few weeks out of a year. So why should they have an incentive to maintain or improve the general health of the city? They're never here.
This real estate situation – a topic New Yorkers love to complain about over dinner – doesn't help the future health of the city.
If young, emerging talent of all types can't find a foothold in this city, then it will be a city closer to Hong Kong or Abu Dhabi than to the
rich fertile place it has historically been. Those places might have museums, but they don't have culture. Ugh. If New York goes there – more than it already has – I'm leaving.