漫步在伯罗奔尼撒半岛上，我驱车进入了中世纪风格的瑙普里奥小镇。 它的海港被一个灰色的小岛守卫着，舒适的咖啡馆在海滨排成一排，而在它们后面，狭窄而弯曲的小巷迅速爬上陡峭的山峰，威尼斯堡垒加冕。 城市街道清新雅致，保留着希腊的魅力。 希腊大陆上没有多少地方可以如此轻松地吸引陌生人。 希腊人称它为“Nafplio”，可能是为了纪念 Nafnaf the Pig。 对希腊来说不寻常的是，它是由十字军在前往雅法和阿卡的途中建造的，由雅典公爵统治的威尼斯人、土耳其人、法国人和巴伐利亚人雕刻而成。 瑙普里奥曾一度是独立希腊的第一个首都，但幸运的是幸免于雅典的严峻命运：它没有成为过度拥挤的喇叭城市蔓延的中心。

这是侦察阿尔戈利斯平原的好基地。 在它的主广场上，有一座古老的威尼斯建筑。 它现在是当地的考古博物馆。 它的收藏始于伟大的迈锡尼文明，它是克里特岛米诺斯文明的孩子。 这种艺术在不远处的迈锡尼和梯林斯城墙中蓬勃发展，曾经由被诅咒的厄崔德国王统治。 这是一个美妙的自由和灵感艺术时期，有性感的女神雕像（就像巴洛克风格的仙女挤在我酒店房间的天花板上），罐子上的快乐章鱼（珍妮弗的章鱼）和让人想起代尔埃尔巴勒斯坦工作的壁画 -巴拉赫。 迈锡尼人会读会写，建造城堡和宫殿，在首都大门上雕刻雄伟的狮子。 但当一个人继续游览时，突然间一个人目睹了巨大的崩溃。 艺术消失了，它的位置被简单的几何形式所取代。 世纪会过去？？ 从 12 c BC 到 6 c BC，直到当地居民重新获得发达的艺术形式、写作知识和古老的复杂性。

在阅读奥德赛时，人们会感受到这种时间的空白。 荷马在崩溃大约四百年后创作了他的不合时宜的杰作，他不知道他的英雄可以写作和阅读，他们的公主不必自己洗衣服。 倒塌后，人们发现艺术品与我们的现代创作奇怪地相似。 在雅典卫城的小型博物馆里，有一件贾科梅蒂小雕像的精确复制品，大约在 2700 年前制作。 那个时期的几何形式现在被复制为现代艺术的最佳例子。 因此，在 Nauplio 的小博物馆里，我找到了一块拼图。 艺术之死是文明崩溃的征兆。

为了解决另一个难题，我去了欧洲的另一端，巴斯克首府毕尔巴鄂，伟大的犹太裔美国古根海姆家族在那里建造了一座巨大的现代艺术博物馆。 它可能是现代西班牙最大的建筑，看起来就像是商船队的旗手进入比斯开海岸。 它的形式独特，没有直角，曲线过于复杂，难以定义。 这是一座旨在给人留下深刻印象的建筑，它给你留下了深刻的印象，就像村庄街道上的一艘宇宙飞船。

在里面，它不那么壮观。 一些波纹铁片、视频屏幕、裸露的几何形状被提供为现代艺术的主厨。 一位纽约艺术家带来了十五吨生锈的铁板，一位日本艺术家在一个大房间里，几十个电视屏幕显示着无尽的空虚。 五楼超越了四层空无一物的大楼层，陈列着阿玛尼西服系列。 每一件都可以很容易地换成另一件。 没有??生锈的铁的拉斐尔??，作为艺术创造者的艺术家消失了，让位给了博物馆馆长，收藏所有者。 由他决定展示什么样的垃圾，在罐头汤或死老鼠的照片下写上谁的名字。 只有阿玛尼品牌至高无上，不受策展人意志的影响，或者是策展人的理想艺术。

毕尔巴鄂现代艺术博物馆应该包含 热尔尼卡，毕加索？？最后审判的现代版本。 相反，它塞满了波纹铁。 这是一个思考欧洲视觉艺术目前衰落，不，消亡的好地方。 一如既往，古根海姆树立的榜样无处不在。 在威尼斯双年展上，比利时人展示了一排椅子，日本人？？ 两百码的细胞照片，以色列人？？ 书架上放着过去便宜的书，英文的？？ 废弃的旧车。 在我穿过米兰的路上，我经过一辆载着十几辆被压扁的汽车残骸的卡车，来到了废品场。 它可以成为双年展的好艺术品，也可以成为一堆垃圾。 我敢肯定，如果提供艺术家、他的国家和他的媒体的名字，没有人会觉得它不合适。

在阿姆斯特丹博物馆，我看到了一堆腐烂腐烂的猪鼻子。 报纸上写到，某根浸泡在甲醛中的树干看中了一位美国私人收藏家，并以五万美元的价格售出。 它成为了一件艺术品，是由两位玛蒙人，策展人和收藏家决定的。 在哥本哈根的圣尼古拉斯教堂，我看到的不是麦当娜的鼓舞人心的图像（被善良的新教徒禁止进入教堂），我看到的是巨大的全彩全色裸体老妇人照片，旁边是一张门大小的女性生殖器照片，旁边是一个同性恋口交的照片。 阿姆斯特丹的一座教堂举办了海滩快照展览。 它传达了双重信息：教堂必须被亵渎，艺术也必须被亵渎，它达到了它们的双重目的？？ 阿姆斯特丹和哥本哈根的教堂空无一人，他们的艺术家制作垃圾。

立即订购

这些令人作呕的版画、腐烂的尸体或廉价色情片怎么会被认为是一种艺术形式？ 现代艺术的前辈古斯塔夫·库尔贝和爱德华·马奈反对浪漫主义对现实生活和真正的人的拒绝。 现代艺术的先驱马塞尔·杜尚和卡齐米尔·马列维奇，打算 资产阶级报，延伸艺术的边界，展现人的无限精神。 但是他们自相矛盾的笑话？？博物馆里的一切都是艺术？？ 被严肃对待并被接受为真理。

对于古根海姆这个在纽约、毕尔巴鄂、威尼斯建立现代艺术博物馆的伟大家族来说，这是一个很好的原则。 他们有足够的钱建博物馆，他们知道自己喜欢什么，他们不介意成为最高仲裁者。 古根海姆成为艺术的品牌。 他们宣称的任何艺术都是艺术。 一开始，这些都是一些价值可疑的作品，比如杰克逊·波洛克的“抽象画”，最终我们来到了烂猪、波纹铁和阿玛尼西装。 艺术被摧毁了。

II

从毕尔巴鄂驱车一天，在古老的皇家城市莱昂，可以看到欧洲最古老、最美妙的大教堂之一的彩色玻璃杰作。 教堂和寺庙是艺术的第一个也是最重要的存放处，艺术是为他们生产的。 他们不是？？客户？？ 在某种程度上，现代银行从艺术家那里订购了一幅画。 视觉艺术与寺庙和教堂有着内在的联系，它是一种精致的崇拜形式，宣扬着神与人的亲和。 克里姆林宫教堂的墙壁上挂满了中世纪的俄罗斯圣像； 在意大利的教堂里，人们发现了一幅卡拉瓦乔或拉斐尔的画作，佛像的神圣人脸从异教和京都寺庙的壁龛中闪耀。 阿芙罗狄蒂完美的大理石身体、圣母的安详面孔、基督的严肃形象、上座部寺庙中优雅的佛像是前现代艺术的流行形式。

The artists are still inspired by God, and still ready to build cathedrals and fill them with painting proclaiming our love of God. 星夜 of van Gogh could be an altar-piece, Gauguin painted but 圣诞 和 天堂 in Tahiti ; and the Dove of Picasso is the one that John the Baptist saw on the banks of Jordan River . Gaudi spent years of his life to create the uncompleted Barcelona Cathedral, while on the other end of Europe , in the one-thousand-years-old first capital of Russian civilisation, Kiev , the unique St Vladimir Cathedral was built and decorated. Outside, this cathedral is quite an ordinary church in Byzantine tradition, but inside it is a miracle. All the walls and ceilings of the church are decorated with frescoes by the great painters of the fin-de-ciecle, Surikov, Nesterov, Vrubel. It is the Sistine Chapel of the Eastern Christendom, and it is almost contemporary with Malevich.

The Russian painters used the traditional scheme and subjects of Orthodox church decoration, but their manner of painting was new, strong, fresh. Who knows, if the Soviet revolution of 1917 would not be so brutally anti-Christian, the great fire of Christendom could be lit again by the Russians. It did not happen, and the Russian churches were destroyed, turned into warehouses, or – in case of St Vladimir Cathedral – into a Museum of Atheism . But the spirit did not die so easily, and the noble and inspired Pilots and Sportsmen of Deineka, a Russian Soviet painter of 1930s, and of his Nordic contemporaries, proclaimed divinity of Man created in God’s Image. Nowadays it is contemptuously called the Totalitarian Art, though Stalin and Voroshilov by Gerasimov is not more totalitarian than 拿破仑 by David or 亨利四世 by Rubens.

There is no totalitarian art, but the totalitarian regime in art, totalitarian domination of single tendency in visual art connected with virtual ban of other tendencies. For Guggenheim curators and for the modern art critics, only their ‘art’ is acceptable, while figurative art is ostracised.

A leading figure of British art establishment, Ivan Massow, the Chairman of the Institute of Contemporary Arts , rose against this totalitarian trend. In an article in the New Statesman titled It’s All Hype, he noted the totalitarian regime established by the closed gang of art curators:

Totalitarian states have an official art, a chosen aesthetic that is authorized and promoted at the cost of other, competing styles. In the Soviet Union, the official art was socialist realism. Working in any other mode was considered — and treated as — an act of subversion. In Britain, too, we have an official art — concept art — and it performs an equally valuable service. It is endorsed by Downing Street, sponsored by big business and selected and exhibited by cultural tsars such as the Tate’s Nicholas Serota who dominate the arts scene from their crystal Kremlins. Together, they conspire both to protect their mutual investments and to defend the intellectual currency they’ve invested in this art.

Massow noticed the damage it causes, for the artists are forced to fit into Procrustean bed of this anti-art:

It seems sad that so many talented young artists, clawing to be noticed for their craft, are forced to ditch their talent and reinvent themselves as creators of video installations, or a machine that produces foam in the middle of a room, in order to be recognized as contemporary artists. In this, if nothing else, the arts establishment is guilty of conspiring to make concept art synonymous with contemporary art.

Thousands of young artists wait in the wings to see whether the taste arbiters will relinquish their exclusive fascination with concept art. It’s a crime. We need art lovers to tell artists that they’re not obliged to reinvent themselves into creators of piles of crap, or pass their work around like samizdat.

He felt that he is breaking the rules of the game:

By outing this opinion in public, I realize that there will be plenty of people waiting, like Madame Defarge with her knitting needles next to the guillotine, for my head to roll into their laps. The ‘arts establishment’ (what a weirdly oxymoronic phrase that is) is terrifyingly powerful and, like all centres of power, it is no friend to heterodoxy.

立即订购

His prediction materialised: immediately after the publication of the article he was sacked and ostracised by the British art establishment led by the Jewish cultural tsar Nicholas Serota, and by the Jewish art collector and advertising magnate, a friend of Pinochet, Thatcher and Conrad Black, Charles Saatchi. His power is unique, and an art critic, Norman Rosenthal of the British Royal Academy suggested that “the Saatchis are probably the most important collectors of modern art in anywhere in the world.”[i]

III

“Does it matter that they are Jewish?”, asks the annoyed reader. “So there are a few Jews in the thoroughly anti-Christian, profane, totalitarian world of modern art. So what? They are still a tiny minority”. Well, not really.

The large database on Jewish influence in the US , www.jewishtribalreview.org gives following names and numbers (Incidentally, the database uses exclusively Jewish sources):

The Jewish influence in modern art is well attended. By 1973, some estimated that 75-80% of the 2500 core “art market’ personnel of the United States – art dealers, art curators, art critics, and art collectors — were Jewish[ii]. In 2001, according to ARTnews, at least eight of the “Top Ten” US art collectors were Jewish: Debbie and Leon Black, Edythe and Eli Broad, Doris and Donald Fisher, Ronnie and Samuel Heyman, Marie-Josee and Henry R. Kravitz, Evelyn and Leonard Lauder, Jo Carole and Ronald S. Lauder, and Stephen Wynn.

“Today,” wrote Gerald Krefetz in 1982, “… Jews enjoy every phase of the art world: as artists, dealers, collectors, critics, curators, consultants, and patrons. In fact, the contemporary art scene has a strong Jewish flavour. In some circles, the wheelers and dealers are referred to as the Jewish mafia since they command power, prestige, and most of all, money.”

In 1996, Jewish art historian Eunice Lipton explained that she went into a career of an art historian in order to be in a field dominated by Jews:

“I wanted to be where Jews were — that is, I wanted a profession that would allow me tacitly to acknowledge my Jewishness through the company I kept.”[iii] The field of art history… was filled with Jews. One might even say it was shaped by them[iv].

At the Metropolitan Museum of New York, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger (former publisher of the New York Times) eventually became its chairman. He oversaw an institution in which Jews, says George Goodman, “have enriched every area of the Museum’s collections, including pre-Colombian ceramics (Nathan Cummings), African art (Klaus Perls), ancient Mediterranean and Middle Easter Art (Norbert Schimmel), Old Masters Paintings (Lore and Rudolph Heinemann), French decoration arts (Belle and Sol Linsky) modern European Art (Florence May Schoenborn), modern American art (Muriel Kallis Steinberg Newman; Edith and Milton Lowenthal), Indonesian bronzes (Samuel Eilenberg), and South and Southeast Asian Art (Enid Haupt and Lita Hazen, Walter Annenberg’s sisters).[v] Throughout the Met too, galleries, rooms, theatres, and gardens are named after Jewish sponsors including Iris and B. Gerald Canter, Helene and Michael David-Weill, Lawrence and Barbara Fleishman, Howard Gilman, Leon Levy, Henry R. Kravis, Janice H. Levin, Carroll and Milton Petrie, Arthur, Mortimer, and Raymond Sacker, Laurence Tisch, and Ruth and Harold Uris. (Among the various Jewish curators at the Museum is Barbara Weinberg, head of American Paintings and Sculpture).

By the 1980s, four of the ten board members that dole out the MacArthur Foundation “genius awards” were also Jewish; two Jews also sat on the board of the Russell Sage Foundation.[vi] The Kaplan Fund has also had an important impact on the art community in divvying out awards. One of J. M. Kaplan’s daughters was the Chairman of the New York State Arts Council.[vii] Joan Kaplan Davidson was appointed as chairman of the $34 million New York State Art Council in 1975 despite the fact that she was “not professionally trained in the arts.” Her mother, Alice Kaplan, was once president of the American Federation of the Arts.

The Getty Museum , founded by the non-Jewish oil mogul, J. Paul Getty (and with $4 billion of funds, the richest museum on earth) has consistently had Jews at the economic helm. In 1998, after 17 years, Harold Williams left the presidency of the J. Paul Getty Trust. Williams, notes George Goodman, was “raised in a Labor Zionist home in East Los Angeles.”[viii]. The new president of the J. Paul Getty Trust is another Jewish administrator, Barry Munitz, formerly the chancellor of both the California State University system and the University of Houston .

The fact that Jews are so dominating in the art world is very rarely publicly acknowledged. It is forbidden — as always for anyone, anywhere — to discuss the subject for fear of being branded “anti-Semitic.” Typically, as example, an entire 1989 academic volume on the “Sociology of the Arts” fails to mention Jews as sociological entity in the modern art dynamic. There are analyses of art galleries, “artist groups,” art patrons, and art audiences, broken down into gender, age, income, occupation, and even “racial and ethnic minorities.” We can find that, negligibly, “blacks, Orientals, and persons of Spanish origin constitute about 7% of the art audience,” but there is nothing whatsoever about Jews, even their own percentage of that “art audience,” let alone how many art galleries they own, museums they direct, and articles they generate about art value.[ix]

Why did it happen? What is the reason of Jewish success in the field of Modern Art? It is not due to great achievements of Jewish artists: they are quite modest, and despite the PR support of Jewish art collectors, curators and critics, they are well within what could be expected for a fifteen-million-strong wealthy community. Interaction of wealthy Jewish collectors and philanthropists with Jewish critics active in the Jewish-owned media provides us with a partial answer.

立即订购

Still, the Jews were extremely ill equipped for their conquest of Olympus . For many generations, Jews never entered churches and hardly ever saw paintings. They were conditioned to reject image as part of their rejection of idols. In the course of two thousand year long selection process, visual gifs of Jews were not developed, as opposed to abilities to learn, argue and convince honed to perfection in Talmudic environment. Rejection of Christ – this main fountain of creativity – is even deeper reason. There is no visual art or poetry outside of God, at best, a godless person can imitate art. For this reason, Jews are, as a rule, poor painters and sculptors. (Chagall and Modigliani embraced Christ, and Chagall made the stained glass of Chartres ). While their mastery of word and ideology is very high (well above average of 100, at 130), their average visual ability is only 75, extremely low. One can consider it a scientific proof of ‘no art without Christ’. Indeed until recently there were no important Jewish painters or sculptors. The Jewish temple was supposedly built by Phoenicians and Greeks, and it had a very few images. Even illumination of medieval Jewish manuscripts was usually done by non-Jewish artists, who made very obvious errors trying to copy Jewish letters.

Jewish success in the Art world is amazing. If the Olympic Sports committee would consist of handicapped persons, and a fair share of sports commentators would be lame, and even some winners of the games would be lame, we would have reason to be astonished. But probably, looking at it carefully we would find that the main Olympic sport is Run in Bags, or chess.

Visually handicapped Jews created a similar anomaly – that of non-visual ‘conceptual’ art. A piece of ‘conceptual’ art is describable and explainable. It is a narration. Tracey Emin’s ‘Unmade bed’ fully describes the object, while another beauty, Alighiero Boetti’s sculpture ‘Yearly Lamp’, a light bulb that illuminated itself only once every twelve months, is fully described by this description. Preparation of these items places no demand on artistic abilities. They can be done by anybody. Such art is perfectly within Jewish abilities. Moreover, Jews with their good ability to produce ideas and read iconography will surely succeed in it. Thus, the Run in Bags, the kind of sport that began as a new entry into Olympic games, eventually is promoted to the position of an all-important one.

We can easily dismiss demonising talk of ‘the Jews who destroy art in order to break Aryan spirit’. Jews bend art to fit their abilities, in order to succeed in this difficult (for them) occupation. Breaking (or not) the Aryan spirit is quite irrelevant for them. While there are wealthy Jews able to buy art and provide for an artist who makes what they like, while there are witty Jews in the media that approve of the art Jews like (one that is easy to tell about), they would create bias in favour of the art they like and understand. But how did they get into this position in the first place? How the lame runners of our example have got their opening into the Olympic committee?

Despite their wealth and media domination, the Jews would not ‘make it’, but for a few previous developments.

1. Photography and reproduction. Recently I visited an excellent photo exhibition of Hagia Sophia mosaics, made to the highest standard. The photographs are so good that one has to touch it in order to recognise that these are not real mosaics. But for a strange reason, the photocopies do not inspire. One can look at them all day long but the soul is not stirred. And then, one comes across the real thing, and the heart turns to God.

Photography is to painting as pornography to real women. Both create an illusion of real thing, but leave a lingering emptiness. In the long run, the ‘real thing’ suffers. Pornography undid many happy unions. Reproduction of art conditioned us to view uninspiring beauty. It is difficult to view a painting of Mona Lisa without instinctively comparing it to its endless reproductions. In a way, the modern art was a botched response to reproductions, for an artist needs to attract attention of blasé viewers.

Photography was an important stepping stone to demise of art. Great paintings were reproduced in albums, and caused no great uplifting in the hearts. Purely materialistic vision of the age precluded even to referring to the vast difference between original and copy. Painting lost its uniqueness.

2. Museums. Removal of paintings and sculptures from the churches into museums was fatal for the West. A painting lost its context, it was de-contextualised and de-constructed. Paintings and sculptures of Annunciation and Passion were given into the custody of the new priesthood, the curators and critics. It undermined the living practice of faith: despoiled of their precious art, empty churches did not attract visitors.

De-contextualisation of art was done under cover of not-too-sophisticated sophisms. “God needs no paintings, true faith needs no adornment, art will be safe in museums” etc. As if the organisers of mass confiscation wished to strengthen faith, as if they wished to bring people to the church!… It reminds me the favourite Jewish sentence so frequently used: ‘It (whatever you are doing or saying) is undermining the Palestinian cause’, as if they wished to help Palestinians.

In France , churches lost its riches in the beginning of the 20th century, and since that time both faith and art (after a short splash) went downhill. Need to ‘protect art from thieves’ was frequently used as a pretext for undermining it. It was similar to locking princess away in a Maiden Tower of so many legends. The Tower protected her, to be sure, but it turned her into an old spinster.

The chef d’oevres of the human spirit were removed from the churches to museum, – to jail. People go and visit the jailed dear friend for a while, and it brings profit to jailers, while the churches brought no profit; but eventually they forget the jailed man, and it is even more profitable, for spirit interferes with profit.

立即订购

3. De-sacralisation of art. It was achieved after removal of art into museums. From this point of view, while Bilbao Guggenheim is quite repulsive, its mother institution is even worse. New York Guggenheim Museum of Modern Art carefully mixes sacral art and junk. Exposition is done in a way saying: they are the same. Sacred images of Brazilian Virgins are placed next to rude idols, or to erotica. Indeed, pictures of Christ and His Mother are plentiful in the modern art. But as a rule, they are aimed to profane their image. Made of faeces, or presented in indecent poses, they are part of the war on art and Christ. A photograph of crucifix in a container of urine, entitled 撒尿基督 was exhibited in the Whitney Museumwhich is headed by a great friend of Ariel Sharon, a member of Mega, Leonard Lauder. Recently I saw in Stockholm an image of Christ presented as the poster for the week (or was it the month?) of gay pride: a crucified black man was erotically embraced by a white muscular Nordic man. He even placed the inside of his leg on the crucified man’s body.

If one wants to shock people one can follow the example of a small Russian city that placed the icon of Christ on its coat of arms. All Moscow-based American correspondents visited the dashing rebels and asked them whether they are not afraid of Jews. Probably that is the only ‘sacrilege’ that still has some shocking value. Alternatively, one can envisage a model of the Wailing Wall with urinals in public toilet.

It is impossible to rule whether the Jewish participation (surely very active) in the processes of de-uniquisation, de-contextualisation and de-sacralisation of art was decisive. Consider a city with a big oil company which supplied the citizens with oil. There was also a tiny kerosene shop that provided a few diehards with the stuff in an old-fashioned way. It was impossible even to compare the two companies. But eventually the big company was streamlined, broken to pieces ‘to enliven competition’ – surely in the best interests of the customers, – forced to tender some of its operations, and was undermined. The tiny kerosene shop received the same status as the once great corporation, and when the corporation’s plant was burned down, it rose to unexpected greatness. Was it achieved by the kerosene sellers, or did they enjoy the windfall?

Now we come to a stumbling block of ‘conspiracy’. Can one believe that the Jews, ordinary Cohens and Levys, actually conspired to remove art from churches, develop photography and place sacred images in juxtaposition with profane things in order to kill art and the European civilisation? Should we consider a possibility of Jewish conspiracy against art as a part of the warfare against spirit?

In order to unravel this mystery we shall introduce a concept of a Group Interest. Groups (classes and nations) have interests which do not coincide with the sum of interests of its individual members. Moreover, individual members are not always aware of this Group Interest. Let us consider Mammon – personification of capitalist Class Interest. A capitalist may wish to sell drinking water, but Mammon wants to poison all water in order to force everybody to buy drinking water. A capitalist may build the mall, Mammon wants to destroy the world outside the mall, for the outside world interferes with the only meaningful occupation, shopping. While a separate capitalist can do a lot of damage, his Class Interest, Mammon, is more dangerous, nay ruinous for the world. Mammon will try to eliminate every distraction to shopping, be it churches, art, forests, rivers, seaside, fresh air, mountains. An individual capitalist probably is not aware that he follows his Class Interest when he dumps chemical poison waste into a river.

For Mammonites, Art is a distraction from the most important occupation, adoration of Mammon. Mammonite reviews of Art concentrate on price of Art. Recent discussion of a possible fate of the Pink Madonna by Raphael in the NY Times and in the Guardian was limited to the price tag and ownership. A modern Russian writer Victor Pelevin described[x] an exhibition of receipts, where the masterpieces are left in crates in the storehouse, while the walls of the exhibition hall are adorned by an art dealer-issued documents asserting that the painting was bought by the private collector for, say, 15 million dollars. It is the most advanced tendency in design, monetarist minimalism, says a character in the novel. Indeed, judging by many art reviews, such an exhibition would do nicely, as it keeps the most relevant items, price tag and ownership of the piece of art.

For Mammonites, every art exhibition is a monetarist minimalist exhibition, as they notice only the bottom line – price tag. Mother of a Jewish American Princess is supposed to meet her potential son-in-law wearing mink replete with price tag, says a cruel Jewish joke. In the modern art, mink is removed, but the tag is preserved. Thus the Capitalist Class Interest supports Conceptual Art; moreover, it turns every kind of art into Conceptual art.

For Jews, their Group Interest lays in undermining visual art for they can’t compete in it. Even deeper group interest of Jews is to undermine Christianity, their main enemy. We see this interest satisfied now by relentless attack on Mel Gibson who dared to produce a film about Christ. Not about Jesus – a kind Jewish Rabbi, neither about whoring Jeshu from jolly Nazareth – but about God Who Died on the Cross. As sacrality in Europe is unavoidably Christian, profanation of art is certainly within Jewish Group Interests. It does not mean the Jews, or even some Jews understand that they act in their own group interests.

However, they did it before, as well, for the Eastern Christianity experienced a similar development twelve hundred years ago. The Jews were prominent in the great tragedy of Byzantine art, the iconoclasm. In the beautiful and spacious Church of Hagia Sophia , the arguably greatest achievement of the Eastern Orthodox Christianity, lovingly restored in 20th century by Turkish masters, in vain one seeks mosaics of Justinian and Theodora copied at Ravenna . One finds only relatively late mosaics and frescoes. Everywhere, with a very few exclusions, the sacred images of that fruitful period were destroyed, when the rejection of images became the official doctrine of the Empire. They survived in far away places: in St Catherine of Mt Sinai, in remote monasteries, to haunt us with their sublime beauty and with feeling of irreparable loss. The contemporary writers leave us no doubt: Jews (a powerful community in these days as nowadays) were extremely active in promoting this concept.

However, this comparison brings some hope, for after two hundred years of iconoclasm, people got tired of boring non-spiritual churches, and brought the visual art back. Until now, the Church celebrates Sunday of Orthodoxy, when the Art Came Back. We also can do it. The sacred images should be returned to their rightful place, in the church. All of them, the delightful Annunciation by van Eyck from Washington Museum , and Trinity by Rublev in Moscow Museum of Old Russian Art, should be re-contextualised. We should not be cruel to collectors: in my opinion, Saatchi may keep all formaldehyde swine he likes.

And while at it, other cultural properties should be re-contextualised as well. Let us return the mosaics of Pompeii to their place from the boring museum of Naples , and the Greek marbles to Athens , let the treasures of Mesopotamia go back to Iraq , and the statues of Hisham Palace back to Jericho . Let us empty the Grand Louvre and fill small French towns with art. It will repair the broken fabric of spirit. Art objects can’t be owned by private persons, they are our connection to Divine. Restoration is possible: during last few years Russia restored vast amount of churches, and precious icons were returned to them. In Old Ladoga, an old Russian town, (70 miles from St Petersburg), restored churches of 12th century shine again on the bank of Volchov River after years of neglect. With gruesome complaints the Russian museums give up church properties swallowed in 1920s. The West can do the same: there will be thousands of visitors in the churches after their art pieces will be restored to them, the fountain of faith will supply us with endless creativity, and the Aberration will be over.

[i] FALLON, p. 335 This and following data is quoted by the great compendium of Jewish activities,www.jewishtribalreview.org with much gratitude.

[ii] BURNHAM, p. 25.

[iii] RUBIN- DURSKY, p. 289

[iv] LIPTON, p. 285

[v] GOODMAN, #2, p. 73

[vi] CHRISTOPHER, p. 121

[vii] KREFETZ, p. 153

[viii] GOODMAN, #2, p. 142

[ix] FOSTER/BLAU, 1989

[x] Pelevin, Babylon, Faber and Faber 1999.