収束ゾーンでのライフ: Life in the Convergence Zone

Welcome to Part 5 of a series of posts focusing on the fundamentalist propaganda “He Gets Us” Superbowl ad of 2024.

I strongly recommend you read at least the first section of Part 1 before proceeding, if you have not already done so. It defines a variety of critically important terms, outlines the overarching purpose of this entire series of ads – this billion-with-a-B propaganda campaign – and the relevant religious-political beliefs of those who designed it.

If I could summarise Part 1’s first section in a paragraph, believe me – I would. I have tried, without success. That’s why I point people back to it, because to echo Dickens – without that knowledge, little of what follows will have full meaning for you.

The next three images comprise what I think of as the Intentional Racism Triptych.

Welcome to the third post of this series analysing the imagery from the billion-dollar “He Gets Us” propaganda campaign to recruit people into fundamentalist evangelism, focusing specifically on the ad run during the 2024 Superbowl.

I strongly urge you to read the first section of Part 1 before continuing, if you have not already done so. That first section explains the overall theological structure of the ad. Without understanding that structure, the terms “Sinner” and “Saviour” as used in this series will not make sense, but I don’t want to have to paste that explanation back in to each of these posts.

Back already? Good job.

Before we return to the images, I want to address a couple of issues which have been brought to me, and highlight a comment made elsewhere.

First, I want to be very clear: this is an analysis of propaganda more than of theology. In the case of a deeply religious political movement, the two certainly do blur together! But I am not engaging in a theological critique. I am reporting upon how these propaganda images are intended to be read by their own, by their co-religionists, and – naturally – what that says about the thoughts and goals of their movement. While some of those meanings are in part theological, they are also political and must be read as such.

Secondly, pointing out a relevant meaning – particularly a politically relevant meaning – does not imply that other meanings do not or cannot exist. The washing of the feet, for example, has other meanings in addition to the one I mentioned, even for them. But where those are either strictly theological or do not contradict the top-line message they do not believe in but are trying to sell, I don’t bother discussing them.

To give one example, however – and this ties directly into the washing of the feet – I had a commenter elsewhere ask what it meant that both the washer (Saviour) and the wash-ee (Sinner) had bare feet. This ties back to the more mainline Christian theological interpretation of the footwashing event, a statement of a kind of equality, where Jesus, the leader, is serving his apostles, and in doing so, saying that in some ways we are all equal in this.

That’s also what everyone having their shoes off means here – though in their case they would frame it less as “we are all equals in this” and more “we are all sinners in the eyes of (an angry) god.” That “angry” part’s important, though I don’t want to get into it here – but when they say “god-fearing Christian,” they absolutely mean that part about the fear.

Regardless, even in that more antagonistic framing it is an equalising message and they do mean it to some degree. But since it’s not in contradiction to the topline political framing of reconciliation, I hadn’t discussed it.

There are other examples, which you may choose to discover on your own.

Finally, Part I of this series got shared around a little on Facebook, which was nice. The first comment I saw was from a former evangelical, who was kind enough to say that as an ex-fundamentalist, everything I said in Part I was extremely obvious to her.

I like to hear things like that, because every so often, I get pushback on this sort of analysis when I post it, always from people not of that particular community. And every time that’s happened so far, an exvangelical or other former fundamentalist has come in and said “No, she’s right,” in one form or another.

I’m not saying that will happen every time or that I can’t be wrong, because of course I can. But it is nice to get that validation, and Part 1 received that explicitly.

Now, where were we? Ah yes, slide six. Here’s a partial:

And they say this commercial wasn’t made with AI. Hilarious.

I don’t see a lot here that isn’t obvious, frankly – including all the obvious AI usage. You have Shower Valves of Mystery, you have floating bananas and a CRT television that can’t’ve received a picture in decades and isn’t actually a television but is a computer monitor, you have a row of cabinets built to be above either a sink or maybe an oven which is above neither a sink nor an oven but does have a doormat labelled… is it NICE or is it NICK? I read it as NICK. Is Nick her husband? Is he a doormat? Is that part of the message, that she lacked a sufficiently strong man at home and thus fell into…

Oh surely not. It must be NICE. But if not… if it really is NICK… is that the core message? Is that the second level under “She’s a prescription drug addict and an alcoholic and also a smoker so needs Jesus to get out of it?” I mean, that’s Alcoholics Anonymous version 1.0 since forever, and they absolutely do assert that this is basically what happens with basically every single mom and that every marriage not dominated by a strong man is doomed to collapse and ruin. So is that the subtext here?

That’s a lot to hang on a doormat hung on a wall over where either a sink or a stove should be, so I’m not going to leap to that with assurance. But… it would fit.

Honestly, all cards on the table… I’ve spent so much time on this one because I just can’t get over the AI-ness here. It’s even on the central figures. If there’s a photographer involved, as they say there is, there is something very, very wrong with their camera.

I didn’t describe the scene, so: the image is of a small kitchen, old, intensely cluttered except for a clear spot on the floor in centre where our Sinner and our Saviour are placed. Our Sinner is a “mom” figurine, broken down, her feet being washed by our “Saviour” who is kind of signalled to be her daughter. There are a fleet of prescription medication bottles higher up on the counters, alcohol bottles everywhere, and an assortment of ashtrays scattered about the room; all the cigarettes appear to be tobacco.

And there’s an absolute avalanche of AI-like whatthefuckery, even in the main figures, even in the figures who are supposed to be the entire point of this image. I mean, look at this:

(one billion dollars. a one billion dollar ad campaign. billion. with a b.)

That’s six slides down of twelve, just like the apostles. Despite how shoddy this mess is in some ways, that’s probably not a coincidence. It’s not unlikely that this has theological ties I’m not catching. But that’s okay; I’m just here for the politics.

Next slide, please.

Posted via Solarbird{y|z|yz}, Collected.

Let’s talk about that superbowl foot-washing ad from the far-right fundamentalist network trying to recruit more minions into far-right Christianity by teasing them in with a centrist and even liberal-attractive billion dollar ad campaign.

The top level organisation behind it funds anti-LGBT hate groups, the most extreme anti-abortion groups, etc etc etc. You know, the usual worst of everything. The Texas Observer has all the details – and how they don’t believe the very theme they’re selling – and you can read about it in their well-documented writeup.

But I’m not writing about that today. That’s covered already. I want to write a little about the imagery; what it means, what they’re saying, and how they’re saying it.

First, let’s talk about the whole foot-washing thing. It’s not complicated. Jesus washed the feet of his followers just before all the shit went down. It echos baptism in a common practice of the day, God in the form of Jesus washing away the sins of those who follow the Christ, a.k.a., the saviour-king.

(Christ isn’t a name, it’s a title; I don’t know how many people get that, but there it is. It’s Jesus, the Christ, not first name Jesus last name Christ, Jesus T. Christ or Jesus H. Christ as someone might exclaim in an old comedy.)

When you wash the feet of someone, you’re standing in for Jesus, communicating the idea of that forgiveness of sin. That’s the role of a priest, in Catholicism; in other versions of Christianity, who can do it varies. In American fundamentalist evangelism, it can be anyone – or no one, if you decide you’re being moved properly by the holy spirit of Jesus yourself.

But what’s left out of this ad is the critical follow-up – now, go and sin no more. That’s why the fundamentalists and their co-travellers are upset about the ad. It’s meaningless – religiously, spiritually – if you don’t agree you have sinned, and pledge that you will stop sinning.

Critical to that saving is the acceptance of Jesus, as represented by accepting the washing of the foot – and the sins. Without the vital, absolutely necessary part of accepting and becoming a follower of Jesus as they see him, by their rules, none of it means anything.

So when you see Person A wash Person B’s feet, what’s happening here is that Person A is being put in the position of the literal saviour, and Person B is being put in the position of the sinner, the one who must come to redemption through Jesus or burn in hell forever. The one apparently serving – by washing someone else’s feet – is, in reality, the one in the position of power over the one whose foot is being washed.

Now, keeping all that in mind, let’s take another look at those pictures. Buckle up, this is gonna be a long ride.