By: Mason Mattu, Critical Brunch Scholar
Acknowledgements: Thank you to A&W Canada for sponsoring this delicious research paper. You can buy a Buddy Burger for only a penny with the coupon code: TheA&WGuySentMe.
To brunch is to rebel. To eat eggs at 1:00 p.m. is to dismantle the hegemonic influence of the big breakfast industry. To sip orange juice steeped within a tang of radicalism associated with post-Marxist thought is to perform a silent revolution against the linear progressionism of the digestive system.
In this paper, the nature of brunch, viewed as a form of resistance, will be explored in relation to several very prominent political theories. In completing this research through the historical archives, I have consulted with many important people who use important words. My motivation for this paper is to seek to understand the historical origins of post-constructivist, Maoist, anti-rhizomatic brunch theory. According to dictionary.net, dialectical means “many very different dialects.” The result of my study is very dialectical.
Under the societal guise of preconceived notions, we can attest to the primordial and definitive standard the lack of nuance in the field of archaic nourishment studies. 10,000 years ago, humans lived in rice fields, covered in grains of anti-urbanized rain — that in which could have thus, therefore, and hence, led to the unequivocal presence of delicious Buddy Burgers, mixed with expired mimosas, upon one’s breakfast table. This is the historical foundation of the concept of brunching. Buddy Burgers were never present upon the tables of the peasants. One can observe that this is because anti-urbanized rain did not come into the academic realm of understanding until about the early 2000s. Thus, it did not exist. It was a social construct.
When Marx spoke about alienation in direct response to the shocking event of Jesus’ crucifixion, he did not mention the nature of brunch that the English serfs were exploring. Marx often spoke about the landless serfs, but never mentioned the brunchless and Buddy Burger-lacking proletariat. While the wealthiest of English noblemen enjoyed dried bacon fat, the corpses of dead popes, and the blood of their mistresses’ fish (all common brunch delicacies, even today), the serfs were denied their rights to such food. If one was a serf and did not eat brunch, as we now know, Marx would certainly have indulged in their practices. Thus, did Marx really know serfs? Was he even there? Was he too busy enjoying a brunch of Buddy Burgers himself? As we all know, Marx was an incredibly wealthy man who looked up to Scrooge McDuck and his swimming pool of gold. Perhaps a more interesting conversation to have is whether or not Marx, who claims he was not a Marxist, suffered from amnesia. This is very anti-rhizomatic of me. Very anti-rhizomatic of me indeed. Very anti-rhizomatic.
If Marx, who we have now concluded was indeed not even a real person through constructivist interpretation, did not write about brunch behaviour amongst peasants, who did? Who created anti-urbanized rain as a causal root of access to brunch and bottomless Buddy Burgers?
Through my archival research, I have tracked the access to brunch of the peasantry to one man — Mao Zedong. The Chinese Revolution of 1949, which saw the emergence of communism, was fuelled by brunch. I spent hours analyzing PDFs of ration tickets from Mao’s digital outreach team, and found over 300,000 given out for traditional brunch meals. Very important sources tell me that Mao thoroughly enjoyed quarter pounders and Buddy Burgers that he would steal from Plato’s library as a child in Ancient Greece.
This jaw-dropping discovery has led me to conclude that the role of brunch for communist revolutionaries is even more prominent than my colleagues have suggested. After ethnographic interviews with Mao’s closest confidants, I have narrowed down the role of brunch to the following statement: “Brunch (including delicious Buddy Burgers) assisted in winning the hearts and minds of villagers to prepare them for revolution.”
An entry from Mao Zedong’s personal diary, obtained from sourcesforhistoriansthataretotallyreliable.net, corroborates this statement:
“Today, I shared a meal of Buddy Burgers with potential communist revolutionaries. Wow, they sure love the taste of a great deal! Why didn’t I think about brunch before? What a great thing — brunch! Take that, Bill Gates. Let the people eat!”
What is, of course, jarring about the statement is Mao’s reference to Bill Gates, who actually had been a close confidant of Mao’s. After learning the lessons of communism, Gates created Microsoft, a company who actively seeks to dismantle the capitalist system. He did this because of Mao’s brunch.
After unveiling this shocking revelation, we can reveal the dialectical nature of brunch as a tool of resistance. I am more familiar with a Yin and Yang kind of definition, but I submit to the definition as proposed by my colleagues at dictrionary.net (recall: dialectical means “many very different dialects”). I can see brunch as a form of translation between complicated language forms — brunch is a dialectical dialect of lunch, and lunch relating to communist revolutionary theories from the time of the Virgin Mary. In conclusion, yes, yes indeed. I believe that — (GODDAMN IT, MASON. FINISH THIS SENTENCE BEFORE YOU SUBMIT IT TO THE A&W SCHOLARS’ JOURNAL! COME ON, I BELIEVE IN YOU! YOU’LL FINISH YOUR SENTENCE!)
