McDonaldland mocks Christianity

Great Debates
1

This is posted with thanks to Skip Trace

I posted this before and claimed it as my own and as much as I would like to take credit, it is the work of my dear friend Owen Vaughan. I am one of the people reviewing his work for publication (hopefully). Vaughan doesn’t mind if I post his work like that in internet forums because it streamlines conversations. I now understand that this is against forum policy and in the future I will accurately quote my sources even if it is a friend as in the case of Vaughan. I quote him here:

[QUOTE=O. Vaughan]
Ronald McDonald: The figurehead

He is the mouthpiece of the machine. In order for Mcdonalds to have access to our inner space we must be assured and calmed to a point where we ingest their products with abandon. In their infinite wisdom, the Illuminati have chosen the seemingly benign clown to be the muse that delivers their bidding. RM is the interface between McDonalds and the human population of the world. Much like a modern King or Queen he is a figurehead who helps to create the image that the machine will have created.

In spite of any evil that might be perpetrated upon us, RM is there to divert our attention from it. Even though clowns are inherently evil they overtly come across as gentle comedians, safe for any audience. We are collectively duped by this ruse time and again.

Mayor McCheese The Keeper of Order

MM is the real boss but he defers to his right hand man RM most of the time.** . . .**

Big Mac The keeper of the law

Big Mac is there to make sure that the law is followed.** . . .**

Together, the trinity of MM and BM and RM is highly symbolic and the fact that it elucidates the heart of Christianity is NO coincidence. RM is of course representative of Jesus Christ, MM is as the father and BM is as the Holy Spirit. The powers that be sought to conceal this through such trickery as what would at first glance appear to be silly costumes but when we delve further into this enquiry we see that this is clearly not the case.
. . .

The powers that be at McDonalds have created a microcasm of the civilized world, its strengths and weaknesses, temptation and salvation. On some level we all relate to this. They are well aware of what they’re doing. Eating at McDonalds has become ritualistic. When Americans travel abroad they typically CHECK IN at the McDonalds at least once. When foreigners come to America they check in to the ones here. Like Mecca, Mcdonalds restaurants are important destinations for the initiated. Many will admit to “eating there at least once a week” for example.
[/QUOTE]

Originally posted at:
http://www.axeuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1338&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=f8f50d79f201c7deccc22db89df90cc7

2

There’s witnessing, then there’s witnessing. Preach it, brother!

3

Your ideas intrigue me.

4

I read this the first time you posted it and still don’t understand what point you/he are making. Are you saying that McDonalds is not just a place that serves fattening food but is part of a secret society that is trying to rule the world? That McDonalds is a religion of which Ronald is god?

In short, there are a lot of assumptions and tenuous connections being made but what conclusion is being drawn? What question do you want us to debate?

5

So… are the Fry Guys supposed to be Satan’s minions or the Council at Nicea? (I’m so close to cracking the code I can taste the special sauce!)

6

Ross Grumet, we have only your word that the author of this essay is a friend of yours or has authorized you to spam it across the internet. I have, for now, left the introductory and closing remarks and substituted a link to the actual piece.

Please do not bring whole texts of others’ works to the SDMB.

Everyone else, this “essay” is found on another message board. If you feel compelled to visit, do nothing that might be construed as promoting any friction between the boards.

I have not yet figured out whether this is sincere lunacy or an attempt at irony, so further action may yet be taken when we have better evidence which.

[ /Moderating ]

7

So, is the Burger King something like the anti-Christ? What role does Jack from Jack-in-the-Box play.

Or, to quote Firesign:

A mighty hot dog is our God

8

[QUOTE=Antinor01]
I read this the first time you posted it and still don’t understand what point you/he are making. Are you saying that McDonalds is not just a place that serves fattening food but is part of a secret society that is trying to rule the world? That McDonalds is a religion of which Ronald is god?

In short, there are a lot of assumptions and tenuous connections being made but what conclusion is being drawn? What question do you want us to debate?
[/QUOTE]

I originally posted it in the cafe, not so much for debate but more to share here and perhaps pass any interesting viewpoints and/or commentary over to Vaughan. Skip Magic is the one who asked me to repost it here.

What Vaughan is saying that in creating the characters in McDonaldland, McDonald’s Corporation has willingly created a reperesentative model of the Trinity, life on Earth and a construct of the manifestations of the spiritual realm. In doing so it more or less sets the context for a religion in and of itself.

The McDonaldland theme was abandoned long ago, but it is fascinating to speculate as to whether or not it was an insidious hijacking of Christianity to sell fast food. Vaughan believes so and he makes a compelling point in his analysis, IMO. According to him it is an example of Corporate Culture gone amok.

Cheers,
Ross

9

I clicked on the link to the other message board, read the part about “emerging NWO and the conspiracy of the Illuminati against the general population of the Earth,” and then I bought a cookie!

They are yummy.

10

[QUOTE=Voyager]
So, is the Burger King something like the anti-Christ? What role does Jack from Jack-in-the-Box play.

Or, to quote Firesign:

A mighty hot dog is our God
[/QUOTE]

The Burger King situation is different. Vaughan and I discussed it when the new character with the big head first showed up a little while back but this is more of a harmless mascot than anything else. In Vaughan’s McDonald’s treatise, it just happens to be a fast food company that tried to create a religion. It could have been anything but it happens to be McDonalds Corporation who tried to pull it off. It doesn’t have anything to do with any other fast food companies but if you have any serious insights or first hand information I would love to hear it.

Thanks,
Ross

11

[QUOTE=Ross Grumet]
I originally posted it in the cafe, not so much for debate but more to share here and perhaps pass any interesting viewpoints and/or commentary over to Vaughan. Skip Magic is the one who asked me to repost it here.

What Vaughan is saying that in creating the characters in McDonaldland, McDonald’s Corporation has willingly created a reperesentative model of the Trinity, life on Earth and a construct of the manifestations of the spiritual realm. In doing so it more or less sets the context for a religion in and of itself.

The McDonaldland theme was abandoned long ago, but it is fascinating to speculate as to whether or not it was an insidious hijacking of Christianity to sell fast food. Vaughan believes so and he makes a compelling point in his analysis, IMO. According to him it is an example of Corporate Culture gone amok.

Cheers,
Ross
[/QUOTE]

Ah. I would submit that he is wrong. There is a much more clear connection showing that McDonaldland is a plagiarism of H.R.Pufnstuf. Cecil speaks to the issue in the linked column. Seeing as they didn’t even independently come up with the concept or the characters, it doesn’t really work. It really seems to me that it nothing more and nothing less than an advertising tool aimed at kids to get them to beg their parents to take them to McDonalds. That is the purpose of advertising, to get you to spend money.

Another big problem is the numerous references to the Illuminati, the powers that be and so forth. When you try to make a statement that uses so many conspiracy theory buzzwords it really takes away from any credibility the argument might have.

12

When I was in college, a prof had gave us an assigment in my lit crit theory class. We were all to analyze a work using as many different frameworks as possible. IIRC, one of my classmates managed to analyze The Hobbit using five different ones, including a Marxist analysis. We also spent some time on archetypes, and the necessity of a certain degree of repetition in dramatic forms.

The key, though, is in realizing the interpretative element involved. And, I would hasten to add, to leave the pipe dream to the 2am bull session the night before.

Your friend seems to have bought into his own bullshit. Some of his claims are simply laughable and/or manufactured. Either that or he’s recently read something by Robert Anton Wilson, dabbled in psychadelia, and much like good ol’ Kurtz, kicked loose of the world.

This, to me, actually seems fairly likely. If the names Hagbard Celine means anything to him, as the “Illuminati” seems to, then he sure as heck needs to Kill Bob and grind him up into the Perfect Burger.

Do I really have to analyze that? Mayor freaking McCheese is a force to be reckoned with? He is cunning? He’s a guy in a suit designed to sell hamburgers to children. When Mayor McCheese strikes you as cunning, it’s time to take a nap.

Then, of course, your friend goes on to invent (or shall I simply say pretend?) that there is any form of trinitarian symbolism at work. Three figures, chosen semi-arbirtarily, do not necessarily represent any God-form. No more than Winkin, Blinkin, and Nod do. Or the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker. Or past, present, and future…

Your friend seems to be obeying the Law of Fives.

Otherwordly? Ross, I have no idea what your friend was on at the time, but it must’ve been some heavy shit for Mayor McCheese to seem otherworldy. I must admit that I’m jealous.

If you’re ever somewhere on the road to Barstow with him, watch for bats.

13

[QUOTE=Ross Grumet]
Vaughan believes so and he makes a compelling point in his analysis, IMO.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry. There is absolutely nothing compelling about taking any series of identifiable characters of fiction and arbitrarily assigning them religious or political values outside their own setting. Using that to draw conclusions is just silly. (See the Master’s presentation on an earlier (equally risible) claim for The Wizard of Oz.)

Regarding this particular piece, (which I do simpy to demonstrate how one might approach such nonsense and not because I think it is truly worth pursuing): When McDonaldlands were first put into the McDonald’s advertising (and some outlets) the chain was still headed up by Ray Kroc who was known to be a fairly ethical individual with Christian associations. (I do not know his actual religious beliefs, although I know that his widow endowed the Salvation Army with money for some of their work.) So, we now have a premise that a company that wants to become a national leader in a (largely Christian) country, led by a man who is known for his ethics and at least some religious affiliations, has suddenly decided to create some sort of mockery of religious belief that is so cunning that it cannot even be discovered until twenty years after his death (and closer to thirty years after most of the advertising using the symbology was superseded).
In order to do this, we randomly assign various religious associations to various characters and then draw spurious conclusions that are based, not on the actual behavior or words of the characters, but on the silly meanings that we have imposed on them despite their words and behavior.

To make this work, one might want to find examples of the characters in McDonaldland actually reenacting a creation, a nativity, a crucifiction, a resurrection, or a Pentecost-type event. (It is not hard: look at the Narnia series by Lewis to see such themes applied to wholly separate literary creations.) Failing that, we can look at every single advertising or literary creation that contains three protagonists and simply declare that “they” are the “Trinity.”

Why are some advertising characters part of the “Trinity” and others are part of the forces of evil? How does that work into any relevant “theology” or even “anti-theology”? Does this mean that Kroc wanted us to reject his fries as evil? Or were we supposed to eat the fries to inflict pain on them (while eating cheesburgers and Big Macs was not supposed to be offensive at the same time)?
This is just silly.

14

I would like Ross or Owen Vaughan to comment on another disturbing facet of fast-food marketing - namely the redesign of the Colonel Sanders logo:

Link.
Why the apron? Is this part of the plan to feminize America? And why is it necessary to have the logo visible from outer space? Who is expected to see it, and what action will ensue?

Obviously those reporting on this development have not thought through the ramifications. :dubious:

15

Does this mean that H.R. Pufnstuf is like Judaism or Mithraism?

16

Ah, coffee store philosophy at its best, well worst, but you get the point.

You know sometimes a thing is just what it is, a thing. A clown is a clown and a big mac outfit is just a big mac outfit. Im with Tom on this one "silly

17

Perhaps Owen Vaughan or Ross Gromet can assist me. Lately the voices in my head have been getting louder. I used to keep them out with my safety helmet fashioned from Reynold’s Wrap, but, well, money is kinda tight, and I had to use my helmet to wrap some food. I made another one, but I bought the store brand of aluminium foil, and it doesn’t seem to work as well. Do you think it’s the brand, or could it be because my old helmet was shiny side out, but my new one is shiny side in?

18

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
<snip> When Mayor McCheese strikes you as cunning, it’s time to take a nap.<snip>

[/QUOTE]
I think I see a potential sig line here. OK, FinnAgain?

19

[QUOTE=Crotalus]
I think I see a potential sig line here. OK, FinnAgain?
[/QUOTE]

Sure, I’m flattered. Be my guest.

20

Nope, sorry. Would you settle for incredulous laughter and good-natured mockery?

I hope so, because I’m afraid that’s all you’re really likely to get out of this thread.