Yes, he is. Your Bloguero has returned. He’s back. Apparently, the phrase has something to do with Poltergeist II. Evidently, it’s really “They’re back!" ("Han vuelto") At least that’s what it says on the jacket of the book derived from the movie. Or the DVD cover released in Mexico that mimics the US cover. But never mind all the attribution and repeated Google-izing, it’s close enough. Close enough to spur a brief, New Year’s Day inquiry into general gullibility.
Your Bloguero bets that you don't remember the 1986 film. You've probably forgotten this part:
One night, Steven lets his guard down and gets drunk, swallowing a Mezcal worm that is possessed by Kane, a demon disguised as a preacher, who temporarily possesses him. He attacks and tries to rape Diane, who cries out that she loves him. Steven then vomits up the worm possessed by Kane, which grows into a huge, tentacled monstrosity.
Your Bloguero, who is now back from his brief hiatus and wearing his relaxation in the middle of his face, wonders how this Mezcal worm nonsense passes an “Are You F*cking Kidding Me?” (AYFKM) Plot Salience Test. Maybe it's aimed at Gringos. After all, most Mezcal, your Bloguero notes, doesn’t have a “worm” in it, thank Mayahuel, and when it does, it’s not really a worm. No, senores, it’s a weevil larva. An insect, not a worm. So passing AYFKM relies on the particular viewer’s ignorance. Passing AYFKM requires a viewer who is already up to the eyeballs in false agave legends. Stories from the Border States. Jalisco Apocrypha. Dis-information (see, Paco Taibo II, Four Hands). Untrue stories about Oligochaeta. Perhaps in naked gullibility.
And, and this is a big and important and, when this yarn passes AYFKM, the viewer will of course have been taken in by something that is, wait for it, demonstrably false. My goodness. That’s nothing. I heard you say that. I agree. This is hardly surprising. This is an everyday event. An event that happens repeatedly. It's like WMD. Or yellow cake. Or the "debt crisis". And a million others. You can insert your favorite ones right here. Your Bloguero is, of course, amused at finding this in Poltergeist II. At the very least, he thinks, thank goodness, this particular falsehood didn’t cause any injury to anyone. Unless, of course, mind numbing credulity and stupidity promoted by gullibility are injuries. Maybe these are self inflicted (cue Ron Paul or Rick Goodhair). Anyway, it’s nothing new: it’s de rigueur. Hell, it's expected. You expect it. So does your Bloguero.
Your Bloguero originally speculated that the instantaneous transformation of the puked larva (believed to be a worm) into a “huge, tentacled monstrosity” was the place AYFKM Fail would be harshly activated and the plot would be reduced to his and other viewers' guffaws. Wrong. Your Bloguero notes without citation that if the viewer willingly and uncritically accepts the
(possessed worm=larva) < Mezcal
formula, the film’s startling, spontaneous generation of a giant monster from a Pukevalanche including a dead insect is hardly problematic. It’s entirely credible. It follows almost logically, if you're of that mind.
Your Bloguero loves to generalize from such thoughts. And to terrorize himself with them. But he cannot top H.L. Mencken, who said “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” Your Bloguero knows how scary that is. It makes Poltergeist II seem bland.
Have a wonderfilled, joyful, Happy New Year! Your Bloguero is delighted to be back.