Please check out my new hit political film against the left: "What is a Breakfast?"

[EXT. TIMES SQUARE - DAY]

Poor holds a microphone, stopping a tourist who is eating a bagel.

POOR:
Excuse me, sir. You are engaging in a religious ritual. You are eating that bread circle. Why?

TOURIST:
Uh, ‘cause it’s morning? And I’m hungry.

POOR:
The idea of "breakfast" as a distinct meal didn't exist for most of human history. It is a modern invention, a result of the Industrial Revolution requiring workers to fuel up before entering the factory. You are essentially fueling a machine. Do you feel like a machine?

TOURIST:
Dude, I just like cream cheese.

POOR:
*Nods solemnly, gravely* The blue pill...

TOURIST:
The what? Leave me alone.

POOR:
You think you are eating, but you are actually being eaten by the system.

Lol.

[INT. UNIVERSITY OFFICE - DAY]

Poor sits across from Dr. Sheila Evans, a cheerful nutritionist.

POOR:
I want to ask a simple question. A question that any healthy society would have a clear answer for: What... Is... A... Breakfast?

DR. EVANS:
*Smiles* Well, breakfast is simply the first meal of the day. It breaks your fast that your body experienced while you slept.

POOR:
"Simply." You use that word as if it carries no ideological weight. Let’s dig in. If I wake up at 4:00 PM and eat a steak, is that breakfast?

DR. EVANS:
Technically, yes. Because it’s your first meal. It would break your fast from sleeping.

POOR:
But if I go to a diner at 4:00 PM and order "breakfast," they give me eggs. They don't give me the steak. So there is a disconnect between the temporal definition and the content definition. Who mediates that conflict? Is it the state? Maybe Harvard?

DR. EVANS:
*Looks around confusedly* It’s just... it's just a menu category.

POOR:
A "menu category." Interesting. So it’s a protocol. It’s a distributed algorithm enforced by the culinary elites to ensure we consume the right products at the right times. You’re admitting that "breakfast" is a social construct maintained by the Synopticon?

DR. EVANS:
I... I’m just saying oatmeal is good for your heart. You should eat a bowl of oatmeal in the morning when you can.

POOR:
*To camera, deadpan* She can’t define it. She can only recite the lines she's received from the USDA.

[INT. COLLEGE CLASSROOM]

Poor interviews a Professor of Food Studies.

Poor:
If I say that "Dinner is not Breakfast," am I engaging in hate speech?

PROFESSOR:
Well, strict rigid categorizations of meals are rooted in colonial thinking. "Breakfast" can be dinner. It can be a snack. Breakfast is a spectrum.

POOR:
So, "breakfast" is merely a signal to you? It lacks truth value? If I eat pancakes at midnight, I am signaling subversion. But if I eat them at 8 AM, I am signaling compliance.

PROFESSOR:
I think you’re overthinking panca—

POOR:
*Interrupting* It's not about the damn pancakes. It's about power. Cthulhu swims slowly, but he always swims toward those pancakes. Why is that?

PROFESSOR:
*Uncomfortably maneuvers to the classroom's entrance and swiftly exits.*

We hear a rapid, uneven pattern of thuds and slaps outside the classroom, quickly growing distant, getting quieter.

[EXT. A RUGGED UPPER PENINSULA CLIFFSIDE NEAR COPPER HARBOR - DUSK]

Poor stands looking out over Lake Superior, wearing a trench coat with a red and black plaid pattern.

POOR (V.O.):
We live in a world where we cannot define the basic parameters of our existence. We cannot define even the basic things that provide us sustenance. We cannot define a breakfast. We are adrift in a sea of semantic slurry.

CUT TO MONTAGE:
People eating toast, confused looks, factory lines of cereal boxes, a clip of FDR signing a bill, footage of Soviet Soldiers eating American butter.

POOR:
To ask "What is a Breakfast?" is to ask "Who rules me?" Is it my biology? Or is it a marketing executive at Quaker Oats who decided in 1923 that I cannot function without toasted grains? Perhaps it's the Quaker ideology that has taken over this country, which is accepted by nearly all the responsible people of this nation.

*Poor turns to the camera.*

POOR
I decided to stop eating. Not because I am not hungry. But because I refuse to participate in the democratic process. The only way to win is to not take a bite.

*FADE TO BLACK*
TEXT ON SCREEN:
WHAT IS A BREAKFAST?
A Daily Poor / Todd Placeholder Production

*SCROLLING TEXT*

THE CREDITS END WITH:
"Actually, fasting is the only reactionary position."

The way a town or city is constructed tends to reflect the metaphysical priorities of that place.

For centuries, most areas' tallest building was their Church. This is ideal. Physical height invokes spiritual status; the Church is the highest point in the town, implying its inhabitants value God above all else.

That was the tradition for centuries. What does the modern way suggest?

Big cities construct immense architecture that dominates the sky in a way unimaginable to our ancestors. And, since the skylines of these modern major cities are dominated by corporate headquarters, financial centers, and luxury real estate, the architectural implication is that economic power has displaced spiritual authority as the highest priority of the culture.

What about smaller areas? What about modern towns? Well, the Church being the tallest building in a modern town is obviously way more likely than in a city, but it's still uncommon. More frequently, the tallest buildings in such places will be high rise apartment complexes. This suggests that the individual’s private life, personal comfort, and domestic existence are the supreme goods. They have placed humanity and private life, not God, at the apex of value.

One might be tempted to say "retvrn" here, but this is merely a symptom of modern crisis. And while you probably can't fix the culture, you can at least put an effort into putting God first in your own life.

Traffic....

A million blockheads looking authoritatively into one man of what you call genius, or noble sense, will make nothing but nonsense out of him and his qualities, and his virtues and defects, if they look till the end of time. He understands them, sees what they are; but that they should understand him, and see with rounded outline what his limits are,—this, which would mean that they are bigger than he, is forever denied them. Their one good understanding of him is that they at last should loyally say, "We do not quite understand thee; we perceive thee to be nobler and wiser and bigger than we, and will loyally follow thee.

—Carlyle

Discuss.

It's 40°F today.

THE UNFASHIONABLE FOUNDERS & DISSENT AGAINST ARTICLE VI

In our second post on the supposed Christian founding of these United States, we mentioned that the clause banning religious tests, according to the official records penned by Madison in his notes on the debates, was voted for unanimously by the state delegations. I posited that it seems that not a single person there was in favor of religious tests for federal office holders. But we do find divergence against this notion in the testimony of Luther Martin, an outspoken Anti-Federalist delegate from Maryland.

Martin testifies that it was adopted into article VI after "not much debate" and by "a great majority of the convention," but he does note the existence of some men present who were (emphasis his) "so unfashionable as to think, that a belief of the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers."

Both men's accounts suggest a consensus in favor of banning religious tests. But Martin suggests that some men, some profoundly unfashionable men, opposed it on principle. However, the incongruity remains. Perhaps a reasonable guess is that the dissenting individual delegates likely conceded they did not have the numbers to win a single state delegation, so they did not force a roll call or voted with their state majority; this would imply that Madison was commenting on the official vote explicitly, while Luther was commenting on the sentiment.

I'd like to ask you to take a moment to contemplate on the matter. Luther claims it was unfashionable at this early point in US history to suggest that believing in Christ is a prerequisite for a ruler, that a ruler who believes in the divinity of Christ is likely to use his authority more justly than one who doesn't. If he's right—take it as a hypothetical for now—then how does this portend for the narrative that the United States was founded as a Christian nation? If he's right, how much of your perception of history would need to be thrown out? Take a bit of time to ponder, but don't get too worked up. We want you back tomorrow to read the next post.

Back to ToC.