McDonald's: Update on Ice Cream Machines & Burgers

Low integrity management and low trust marketing

Let's update a post from three years ago, on McDonald's and the never-ending troubles they have with their Taylor ice cream machines.

So here I am on the other side of the world, in the Philippines.  And you often see Taylor ice cream machines here just as you do in all US McDonald's.  After that first post, I tend to notice these machines.  But yesterday I was in a Jollibee (the largest fast food chain in the country) and I noticed that they had removed their Taylor machine and replaced it with a Carpigiani, an Italian competitor.  Like the one in this photo.  Or see the actual machine, below.

So I asked the manager, Hey what's with the new machine and how long have you had it?  She said, Yeah, it's brand new, we've had it for two weeks.  Our Taylor machine was defective.  I said, Yeah, a lot of them are.

If you are wondering, machines from both companies sell for around $20,000 up to $60,0000 depending on model.  And that is before installation and setup fees, and ongoing maintenance costs. (Grok)

This was the same day that a video went viral of the McDonald's CEO, Chris Kempczinski, supposedly eating the company's newest "product," the Big Arch, with obvious distaste.  Here is one reaction video:

As Lindey Glenn points out, it is practically guaranteed that he does not eat McDonald's products.  Ever.  He's no Dave Thomas, or even Donald Trump.  By the way, I met Dave Thomas when I was in college; he always referred to Wendy's products as sandwiches, even the burgers.  Which I found a bit odd, but at least you never heard him refer to any of his burgers as a "product."

You gotta wonder how many Big Macs does the company have to sell in order to pay Kempczinski's daily tab at Michelin-starred brasseries?  McDonald's clearly hates their franchisees and their customers.  So the long history of questionable management continues.

Anyway, here's the machine I saw yesterday:



For those who do not know, Jollibee is primarily a chicken joint.  But they serve all of the fast food staples, like burgers, fries, and of course, soft serve ice cream.  And rice; nearly everything here comes with rice.  They also do a sweet spaghetti that is very popular with Filipinos.
𓐵

Again, The Experts Have Spoken

Like the Covid response and transgender mania, Tourette's Syndrome defies common sense

Tourettes activist John Davidson shouts n*gger and b*tch at Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo at the Bafta Awards in London. pic.twitter.com/mrS95IrW41

— Anthony Brian Logan (ABL) 🇺🇸 (@ANTHONYBLOGAN) February 23, 2026

I get the tics part of the syndrome.  We have all met people with tics of one kind or another.  And I can maybe understand, or at least tolerate, the verbal outbursts.  But it is the incendiary nature of these outbursts where I have to draw the line.  When two black men are on stage, a Tourette's sufferer shouts the n-word?  Why not pink elephant?  Or as one black commenter observed, "Why not shout Hallelujah?"  Indeed.

No, this is a bridge too far for me.

And yet every major medical organization supports the idea that this is involuntary.  And they have lined up in uniform to denounce those of us who question the narrative.  Just like they did with the Covid response.  Just like they did with gender confirming healthcare.  And for that matter, just like they did with lobotomies and then tonsillectomies.

We are told that this is a counter-intuitive medical condition and we should just accept the wisdom of the medical experts.

No sorry, I don't buy it.  Expert groupthink is a very real thing with a long and checkered history.

I have not always thought this way.  But today, in any conflict between so-called experts and common sense, I will choose my own common sense.  Every single time.

So what's the issue?

We are told that Tourette's Syndrome sufferers cannot suppress the use of obscene language at inappropriate times.  A condition called coprolalia.  Yet these same sufferers are able to suppress other inappropriate behaviors, say violence, crime, or reckless driving.  So it is only the obscene language that they cannot suppress.  But it seems to me that if these people have a problem with control of one inappropriate behavior, that this would manifest among other behaviors as well.

My theory, and that is all it is, is that they misbehave in this one area because they have been trained, first by their parents, and later by the medical establishment, that there are no consequences.  And they do not misbehave in other areas because they realize that there may very well be consequences of those actions.

Plus I find the use of the word suppress to be interesting.  Personally, I never have to suppress the use of the n-word.  The very idea of using it never occurs to me.  Just like acts of violence, reckless driving, other crime, or misbehavior.  I need not suppress these urges; I do not have them.  So what does it say about someone who needs to suppress bad behavior?  Really, I'm asking.

No, I view Tourette's as a factitious indulgence.  But I confess, I'm just a simple-minded coprolalia bigot.  No doubt the mental health community would dismiss my willful ignorance.  So be it.

This behavior is unacceptable for any occasion.  But I have to add that I have enjoyed both Jordan's and Lindo's work; they are both excellent at their craft.  And they did not deserve this disrespect at an awards ceremony.  Of course, to their credit, they may well be more forgiving than I am.

I had an interesting conversation with Grok on this topic.  It is rather long, but if you are interested in this topic and why it makes people uncomfortable, I think it is worth your attention.  The final three questions are most revealing.  Skip the rest if you like and read those.

𓐵

South Africa 2026

When I was coming of age, in the seventies and eighties, my parents taught me that the apartheid regime in South Africa was racist and evil.  When I went off to college in 1985, I found fellow students protesting the South African government and US investment in the country.  They set up encampments on the quad calling for the university to divest from this segregated country and its racist ruling white minority government.

I never joined the protests.  Not because I was unsympathetic to the cause, but because I saw the protests as less about the injustice in South Africa, and more about the protesters' need to protest.  And importantly, to be seen protesting.  If it had not been this issue, it would have been something else.  Anything else.  That was my immediate impression, and I still hold it to this day, forty years later.

And we all know the history.  Apartheid ended in South Africa in 1994.  And I bet most of those protestors never gave the country another thought.

Right?  Well.  Here is South African, Winston Sterzel:

Now Winston blames the communist ANC.  And sure communism may play a part.  But the real problem is corruption.  This is true in most third world hellscapes.  Whether a government leans left or leans right, it is the culture of corruption that results in what you see in this video.

What most people do not understand about corruption is this:  You do not find corruption only at the top.  No, corruption permeates society from top to bottom.  You cannot only say things like, they have a corrupt government or they are corrupt crony capitalists or corrupt communists.  Because where you have those things, I assure you, the cab drivers and the street vendors are also corrupt.  Corruption is not an elite issue; rather it is a cultural failing.

Returning to communism, it is interesting that it seems to take hold most easily in corrupt cultures.  I do not think this is an accident.  Something for nothing, provided by somebody else is appealing to the corruption-minded.

I am not saying that apartheid was a good system.  And I am certainly not calling for its return.  But today, the citizens of South Africa have no one to blame for the failings of their country except themselves and the leaders they vote for.  They have the government and the society that they want.  They have the government and society that they deserve.

So that's okay then.
𓐵

Islamic Immigration into Europe

Peter Boghossian and Raymond Ibrahim, and the Cameraman

Boghossian and Ibrahim talk about why Europe is dying, but about ninety minutes in, their cameraman injects himself into the conversation, with a real time demonstration of suicidal empathy.  The argument of the left on full display.  And they allow the cameraman to make his points.  Then after quizzing the cameraman on what exactly he believes, Boghossian makes the point the we are going to get the Europe that the cameraman is championing.  The cameraman seems to be okay with that because he does not believe that Islam offers any danger to Europe.  And besides, Muslims are too low of a percentage of the overall population to make much difference.

Listening to the cameraman, I could not help but reflect that this is what millions of Europeans believe.  They either don't think about this at all, or they believe what the cameraman believes.  And there is no reasoning with the cameraman because he has his doctrine and his dogma, and these convictions are immune to reason.  As with any religion.

I love the way Boghossian dealt with this guy.  He did not argue with him.  He let the cameraman make his points, and then he simply asked a few questions to clarify what the guy believed.  And here, if you do not understand the reality of Islam and European political leadership, you might think that the cameraman got the better of Boghossian and Ibrahim.  But I think Boghossian is well aware of who is watching, both in the live audience and online.  And to those people, the cameraman is simply yet another naive leftist.  So Boghossian just let him dig his hole.

Ordinarily I would say that this was painful to watch.  But it was not.  Watching this was like watching someone predict a train wreck without realizing that is what they are doing, but you know with certainty that they are correct.  By the time that the bien-pensants wake from their trance, it will be too late.

What this shows is that suicidal empathy is a choice.  A warmly embraced and welcome choice.  It is also a bit smug; you hear this in the cameraman's responses:  He looks down on Boghossian and Ibrahim for their obvious bigotry.

This is not entertaining; this is a snuff film.

𓐵

David Starkey and David Betz

Civil War:  The Somewheres versus the Anywheres and the Muslims



The above videio is from earlier this month.  I have posted David Betz videos twice before in the last year:  Here with Louise Perry (audio only), and here with the Triggernometry guys.  Further, I have collected notable Betz videos on this topic here.

For residents of Britain, I see four possibilities.  One, you can stay and fight.  Two, leave now, before the violence begins.  Three, stay and work towards peaceful subjugation.  Not because you want subjugation, but because you believe in coexistence.  Of course you do.  Four, denial.  This is the Keir Starmer approach.  And millions of Anywheres share it.  They will bear the brunt of the violence, and as the cause of this problem, they surely deserve it.

In the end, options three and four will be one and the same.  Ultimately the deniers will die in the coming violence or submit to Islam, which arguably, they already have.  When you are willingly giving over your daughters for rape, you have already submitted.

But wait, one might argue that Keir Starmer and his ilk are not giving over their own daughters for rape.  Right?  But that is the whole point:  They are giving over the daughters of the Somewheres.  And before they fed the Somewhere daughters to the immigrant rapists, they let uncountable numbers of these consanguineous monsters into the country.  And rape is but one part of the cultural conflict.

This is the reason I say they, the Anywheres, deserve it.  What did they think would happen?  No, they did not think at all.  But they love to tell people how clever they are; just ask them.  After all, they are citizens of the world.

So for we of lesser intellect, but with perhaps a modicum of common sense, only the first two possibilities are viable.  Stay and fight, or flee.  But make up your mind quickly; both options require planning.

If you choose to stay and fight, one does wonder if, in fact, there is going to be a fight?  If recent history is anything to go by, submission will be more palatable for most.  So if you stay and fight, I do not think you will be joining the fight.

No, if you stay, you will have to start the fight.

𓐵

The Center Cannot Hold

The Second Coming
By William Butler Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming!  Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight:  somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?


Thanks to Heather Heying; she reads the poem here.  While written in 1919 and first published in 1920, it could have been written this morning.  See gyre definition; and that is only the beginning of the poem.  To say that the poem has aged well is an understatement.  Along with W.H. Auden's Funeral Blues (1938) and Dylan Thomas' Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night (1951), it is a masterpiece of the twentieth century.  William Butler Yeats won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1923.

𓐵

Black Names

The truth about black names



I am not sure when this was filmed; it came up in my Youtube feed today.  Both Jesse and Larry are much older now.  But it is still so relevant.  I think parents can accomplish their goal without going crazy.  I once knew a gal named Kenya and I always thought that was beautiful and unique, and elegant and spellable.  Note to parents, maybe don't go with Djibouti.
𓐵

The Tipping Point is Near

Boghossian:  Enablers, you are going to get what you deserve



It is long past time to admit that there are vanishingly few moderate and/or good Muslims.  The absolute best they, as a group, will ever do is remain silent in the face of Islamic misconduct.  And more generally, the misconduct of people who also happen to be Muslim.  Before you berate me for this observation, watch the above video with Lubna Zaidi.

Just as with our political class, where it is not the politicians that are the problem; rather, it is the voters.  It is not the Muslims that are the problem.  Rather, it is what Boghossian and Zaidi label, their enablers.  Typically, but not exclusively, from the left.  They tolerate or even allow the misconduct, and then turn a blind eye to it.

Stop pretending.  Stop the wishful thinking.  Stop the suicidal empathy.  It is time to be serious.

* Apologies to Malcolm Gladwell and Ray Kurzweil.
𓐵

The Story of the Hole

Scene from The West Wing



20 December 2000  I remember this scene and this story.  Actually, I have never forgotten it.  The West Wing writers, Peter Parnell and Aaron Sorkin, adapted the story from an old Alcoholics Anonymous parable.  But I like how they expanded it to friendship more generally.
𓐵

Theater of the Absurd

Milo:  It is not a sexuality...it is a trauma response



I have never given much thought to homosexuality.  And I have never understood it.  But I have always thought that there is something inauthentic about it.  That is, many gay people, well gay men, seem to relish the theater of it; they make it a production.  Everything from the mildly effeminate affectation to the exaggerated campy social performance in its various presentations.  Oh honey, we have all seen the entire repertoire of gay theater.

Of course, not all of them are like this.  But for the men who put on the gay show, really you have to ask, is any of that real?  Well this Milo interview comes as close to explaining homosexuality as I have ever seen.

And yes, Milo comes with his own version of the show.  Here, watching Milo Yiannopoulos, it looks like he is on something.  I mean more so than when we used to see him a decade ago.  But if we can, and we should, set that aside, he makes some wildly interesting, honest, and I believe accurate, points.  Even if his demeanor and conversational style is largely theater, and whether he is doped-up or not, he is an astute observer on this topic.

Like I said, I have never given this topic much thought.  I have never been terribly close to it.  But once, when I was in college, during the AIDS crisis, a friend asked me what I thought about homosexuality.  I remember saying to her, well, I think it is a choice.  She was aghast, and asked, but why would anyone choose to be gay?  My response was, I think it is a form of rebellion.  Parental rebellion or family rebellion, or maybe even something broader.  But it is something reactive rather than innate.

She was even more aghast, but I added, plus it has the added benefit of making one a victim.  This was before the whole victim identity nonsense and she just could not believe that one would or could purposefully identify as a victim.  To what end?  She asked.  Well, there is a kind of status in victimhood.  And it gives you a kind of shield against criticism.

She had to think about that.  But then she asked me the question that I could not answer:  If it is a choice, when did you decide that you were straight?

Bam!

That was it, right?  There was no answer to that question.  Conversation over.

And I really never thought about it again.

Sure, I met gay people over the years.  But from the time of that conversation, my attitude was, hey, you do you.

But about twenty years later something happened.  I met no less than three men, roughly my age, who had married women and had children, and then after long marriages, came out as gay.  All three subsequently divorced.  And I thought back to our conversation twenty years earlier.  Wait, if they are born that way, then whether or not they were ready and willing to accept their homosexuality and/or go public with it, they surely had chosen to be straight.  Or at least had chosen to act straight and live as straight.  Right?

Well no; I was told, because people wrestle with this internally and sometimes it takes decades to accept who you are.  But be that as it may, it seemed to me that there was a choice being made.  And then later reversed.

But this was impolitic, and not really an area of interest for me, so I pretty much kept my opinion to myself.  And it was easy enough to continue with the you do you attitude.

And so I did, again for years.  But over the decades homosexuality, and its various dispositions and alphabetic permutations, have continued to grow.  If you make the argument that this proves that it is not innate, the bien-pensants respond with, well today more people feel they can be open about who they really are.  So they dismiss the social contagion and slippery slope arguments outright.  And if that does not work, they will tell you how offensive these arguments are, and eventually they will get around to calling you a bigot.  Of course.

So still, today, I want to take the you do you attitude.  I want to.  But the numbers have exploded, young people are clearly confused, schools are encouraging alternative sexualities and then hiding the results from parents, we are mutilating children, gender confusion has swept all aspects of society, we are producing record levels of surrogate children, and more broadly, we are accepting of these children in gay households.  And while the causes are uncertain, testosterone levels are in free fall.

It is probably worth remembering that Milo was cancelled in 2016-2017 because he had the audacity to describe how predatory gay men prey on underage boys.  Some say he seemed to condone it.  But was it untrue?  Or has it changed?  Or was Milo just being honest?  Likewise, is he being honest about the rampant promiscuity of the gay lifestyle?  Even in the supposedly married gay households?  Does this conduct stop when children are introduced?  Judge these questions for yourself.

Obviously our society and culture has become more gay and continues to move in that direction.  Ask yourself, is this healthy?  Gay acceptance has gone from, we just want to be treated equally and get married like everyone else, to the gay lifestyle, here I mean the aggregate of the whole spectrum of alphabet people, and its effect on society, is completely beyond criticism.  This is not an overstatement; when they are mutilating children with impunity, their conduct is beyond criticism.  And that is the very least we can say about it.

So, it has gotten to the point that I think we need to take a considered look at the topic.  Believe me, love him or hate him, we could do a lot worse than Milo as a starting point.

𓐵