Photo-Propaganda – Weapons of Mass Deception
Photo-Journalism Trumped By Photo-Propaganda
Bush’s codpiece serves exactly the same propaganda purposes as Barrett’s womb
[Updates below]
The powerful cultural and political influence of a visual image (photograph) can not be denied.
Professional photo-journalism is built on this fact, as is propaganda.
But there is a huge difference between photo-journalism and visual propaganda.
We leave you with these two egregious examples of photo-propaganda to ponder:
The first is from today’s NY Times story on Trump Supreme Court candidate Barrett, announced – without a hint of irony – as an “heir to Scalia”
Source: Doug Mills/The New York Times (9/27/20)
There’s a lot going on in this photo.
Note the cameras on the lower right. They were placed there to provide a “pussy level” shot, so the visual focus would reinforce the abortion rhetoric and illustrate a fertile womb (the role of women being to replicate the white race). At the same time, it subtly legitimizes the “virility” of pussy grabbing Trump (and if you look closely, it almost looks like her female genitalia are as pronounced as Bush’s).
[Update – 10/16 – Jeffrey St. Clair is on point:
+ Since Barrett is a self-described textualist and English Lit major it might be worth exploring the etymological evolution of her middle name, “coney,” which before the latest vowel shift was pronounced “kunnie,” to rhyme with money. A coney was a domestic rabbit raised “for the table,” but by Shakespeare’s time it was also slang for “vagina”, a poetic pun for “cunt”, an origin for cunnilingus, or coney-licking. ~~~ end update]
The confident stride says “fuck you, liberals! I’m being confirmed!”. Pure power.
Note that Barrett is walking in front of her kids (who seem distracted) and looking at the flag, which signals her loyalties and priorities (and then there’s the ethical issue of using your kids as props – but, anyone who would accept a nomination from Trump under these circumstances has no ethics at all).
The conservatively dressed kids – including a black adopted son – say “I’m a traditional (fertile) mom, so fuck you feminist, careerist, child abusers, infertile LBBTQ perverts, and BLM identity politics racists!”.
[Update: I was hesitant to explore the meanings of Barrett’s adopted black Hatian son. Why Haiti? Why a black boy? It’s not white liberal guilt.
No, it reflects a twisted stew of Christian white settler colonialism – The White Man’s Burden to civilize the barbaric natives. Same reason why native American children were taken from their parents and sent to Christian schools (i.e. destroy culture, language, history, and identity as a means of social control).
But the Haitian origin has a special significance. Haiti is the symbol of black revolutionary struggle and liberation:
In the midst of the French Revolution (1789–99), slaves and free people of color launched the Haitian Revolution(1791–1804), led by a former slave and the first black general of the French Army, Toussaint Louverture. After 12 years of conflict, Napoleon Bonaparte’s forces were defeated by Louverture’s successor, Jean-Jacques Dessalines (later Emperor Jacques I), who declared Haiti’s sovereignty on 1 January 1804—the first independent nation of Latin America and the Caribbean, the second republic in the Americas, the first country to abolish slavery, and the only state in history established by a successful slave revolt.[26][27
Barrett’s adoption of a black Haitian child signals the restoration of white settler colonial power.
Just like Barrett’s legal views reflect 18th century legal notions, so too her entire worldview.
Additionally, a black adopted son sends a message that solutions to poverty, racism, inequality, opportunity, justice, and social mobility are best solved by individual voluntary Christian charity, not collective politics, government intervention, legal mandates, and redistributive economic and social policies.
[Update: 10/16/20 – Jeffrey St. Clair at Counterpunch nails it:
+ NYU sociologist Ann Morning: “Amy Coney Barrett on her white kids: ‘smart,’ ‘math gene,’ likely to go to law school. On her black kids: he is ‘happy-go-lucky’ and she ‘deadlifts as much as the male athletes.’ Judge Barrett’s 2020 description of her kids echoes 18th-century scientist Linnaeus: Homo europaeus is ‘acute, inventive’–i.e. smart–while Homo africanus is ‘relaxed’ and ‘indolent’–not smart.” ~~~ end update]
Capitalism, private property, markets and corporate power are at the core of American life and law, not government and social democracy:
The corporate interests funding the growth of the Federalist Society probably weren’t especially interested in abortion, but they were almost certainly committed to crippling the regulatory state.
This is the twisted stew of white christian settler colonialism – probably best illustrated by Orwell in “Burmese Days” and Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”. ~~~ end update]
The flags and the Trump say “Onward Christian Soldiers – We are a Christian Nation!“.
In other words, “Mission Accomplished!”.
Just a few of the visual messages being not so subtly conveyed.
[Update #2 – A much more learned and detailed analysis can be found in this superb essay:
- How Christian Nationalism in the US Legislates Evil and Punishes the Poor ~~~ end update #2]
Compare that work of propaganda with the infamous Bush “codpiece – Mission accomplished” shot:
Of course, you can’t miss the codpiece. Bush shows that he has balls (unlike his wimpy father, who refused to crush Iraq when he had the chance to).
Bush’s codpiece and balls serve exactly the same propaganda purposes as Barrett’s womb.
And the assholes at the NY Times put them in play at a time when:
1) Trump is packing the Court with right wing judges (by Trump’s own words as a way to provide “insurance” to assure “re-election”), including Barrett who swore an oath to or made a covenant with a religion cult and
2) Trump and Republicans have openly announced plans and are in the process of stealing the election.
Recalls how Bush got in Iraq in the first place: lies, reprinted and legitimized by the NY Times.
At some point, Fascist tactics and Fascist tendencies produce a Fascist State.
We’re far down this road and the folks at the NY Times seem either oblivious or in denial about that.
[Update 3 – 9/30/20 – This New Yorker piece raises critical issues: