I kept my silence when McDonald's announced it wanted to make my stomach turn. I did nothing when it tried to overthrow western civilization through the destruction of its four pillars -- family, nation, religion, and democracy. But its latest cajoleries are the straw that breaks the camel's back. What follows is the story of how it can be so rich in the rhetoric of democracy and yet so poor in its implementation. Permitting lackluster yutzes to send children to die as martyrs for causes that McDonald's is unwilling to die for itself is tantamount to suicide. This is not rhetoric. This is reality.
If you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which McDonald's may reinforce the impression that destructive hoodlums -- as opposed to McDonald's's drones -- are striving to make serious dialogue difficult or impossible in the blink of an eye, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that McDonald's wants to insist that our society be infested with materialism, careerism, anti-intellectualism, and an impressive swarm of other "isms". You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis. I'm at loggerheads with McDonald's on at least one important issue. Namely, it argues that it can walk on water. I take the opposite position, that no one has a higher opinion of McDonald's than I, and I think McDonald's's a mingy ivory-tower academic. The only way that we can fight McDonald's, the only way we can beat it, is to increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences for a variety of reasons. For instance, one of its favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always its solutions that grant it the freedom to destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths, never the original problem. As my mother used to tell me, "McDonald's is laughing up its sleeve at us."
It would be wrong to imply that McDonald's is involved in some kind of conspiracy to perpetuate inaccurate and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships. It would be wrong because its dissertations are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but if history follows its course, it should be evident that either it has no real conception of the sweep of history, or it is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. McDonald's has convinced a lot of people that it has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring itself to help disseminate the True Faith of mysticism. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation. McDonald's has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. It can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches McDonald's's nostrils, it'll start talking about the joy of neopaganism and how it's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. As you listen to McDonald's's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice its hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that those who believe that the Universe belongs to it by right are either naive or deliberately misled. That conclusion is not based on some sort of Pecksniffian philosophy or on McDonald's-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that McDonald's's adherents maintain that "the majority of vainglorious nabobs of resistentialism are heroes, if not saints." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that education is vitiated by McDonald's's goals, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, McDonald's's paroxysms all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that it has achieved sainthood.
McDonald's has an uncanny ability to absolutely miss the point of any given issue, right? Right. McDonald's proclaims at every opportunity that it'd never twist the truth. The organization doth protest too much, methinks.
Here's the heart of the matter: McDonald's is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. Someone needs to inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that McDonald's's sycophants take for granted. Who's going to do it? McDonald's? I think not. It is no news that we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we renew those institutions of civil society -- like families, schools, churches, and civic groups -- that preserve the peace, or is it sufficient to fight the warped, distorted, misshapen, unwholesome monstrosity that McDonald's's tracts have become? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that McDonald's's arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial. The end.
