Marina Abramović, “I’m an artist, not a Satanist!” screams a recent article in the Guardian about Marina Abramović.
So far, I haven’t seen much reaction to that. For some reason, don’t ask me why I keep seeing Bill Clinton, in my mind, when he said, “I did not have sex with that woman!.” But anyway … any guesses as to why Miss Abramović felt she needed to make that statement that she is not a Satanist? I mean, do most of us need to say that? Here I will say it, “I am not a Satanist.” You probably are not a Satanist either and would have no problem saying so as well. Why would this “artist” feel the need to say that she isn’t some crazy person who worships the devil, in particular? And why would it make headlines?
Maybe you are wondering, “Who is Marina Abramović, and why should I care?”
Marina Abramović is the infamous “artist” who runs dinner parties for the elite, the very tippy-top of Hollywood, and the political and social world. At these gatherings, Marina writes repulsive statements about sperm and breast milk and blood on walls, and features simulated human sacrifice, people’s bodies presenting “party foods” for her guests presented on tables as corpses, that are then carved and eaten. And she isn’t doing this just for shock value, like a teenager. She’s 74, and she’s been doing this sort of theme for decades without wavering.
Ms. Abramović is known for what she has dubbed “imponderabilia” which means literally, “unthinking” or “not to think about.” I can see why she would name it that. I certainly don’t want to think about it. But since it’s a big fat headline across the mainstream news, it’s kind of unavoidable. Moreover, if as the NY Times article about this artist says it’s just “conspiracy theorists” that have thought Marina Abramović is a “Satanist,” certainly that’s just a handful of people. There are all kinds of people who think whacky things, including that many celebrities are Satanists. You can find “conspiracy theories” about Satanism and the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George Bush. Why give them any airtime?
Could it be because her gatherings for the elite that feature horrific and deeply disturbing, dissociated images, death, and strange displays for the public appear so depraved, to the average person, that she elicits a public response that claims she is demonically influenced? Or that enough people have finally said about her “art,” that “this looks like someone who worships Satan created it?” Or perhaps when Microsoft tried to feature her in one of their marketing schemes, the public outcry was so loud that they canceled it? This makes you wonder about Microsoft – but let’s remember Bill Gates is on the Epstein flight manifests – more on this later.
Moreover, how many art pieces given over to the images of Satan, cannibalism, hellish, demonic images does one “artist” have to produce, to finally be serving someone other than Man, or “art?” If Marilyn Manson is any measure, after long periods of doing the same appears to cause people to lose their minds, literally. So at what point does the medium no longer become the message?
The definition of what constitutes “art” is challenged here, truly, as art surely hasn’t been synonymous with “beauty” for a long time. How this started was when art had been used to justify soft
pornography, back in the 1960s, that’s what the big fight about Playboy magazine and the ability to buy it behind the counter or out on a magazine rack was about, and was finally settled with the statement, “It’s art.” Somehow, using that one phrase makes it immune to criticism. But the fact is that simple, Teflon-coated defense in the name of freedom of speech – now being used against us — and the art world led us straight down a slippery slope, where the artist Mapplethorpe’s work is being considered “art” – he could put across in urine in a jar and call it “art.” People would love it and buy it for whales of money.
Recently, a solid 18 karat functioning gold toilet was considered art in the Guggenheim because it’s got “America” written on it, and people are invited to use it. Someone stole it as if you couldn’t see that coming. And tampon-art is acceptable to honor Ruth Bader Ginsberg. No wonder the founders of this nation, deeply Christian, said that these freedoms depended on a “virtuous
public.” Our public today is far from that, and here’s maybe one reason why; If all this disgusting so-called “art” starts to seem purposeful to you, as though someone planned it – you are right on the money. Perhaps a plan to confuse what is considered right and wrong (see “The Marxist Plan to Destroy America” – step 1 Degenerate society) and not just having the artistic community losing its mind. In fact, right around the time that the “45 Communist goals” were published, art turned from beautiful into hideous, and people were scratching their heads as to why. They hadn’t read the “45 Communist goals for America.” And our congress just let it slide right on by. So did the media, because they loved it, as it may have served their purposes so well. Yuri Bezmenov, a high-level KGB Russian defector, said it would take three generations for this to be completed. That was in the 1980s, and he said demoralization was already pretty much done. Video of Bezmenov warnings can be viewed here.
This is how this ingenious plan worked. See step #23 in these 45 steps; “Control art critics and directors of art museums. Our plan is to promote ugliness, and repulsive, meaningless art.” When dealing with any sort of objection on the grounds of nudity, depravity, or anything of a sinister nature, turn your attention to #24, which states, “Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.” The more you read the 45 Steps, the more successful you know they’ve been, especially in looking at our young people’s confusion and their inability to think critically. Marina Abramović tics all three boxes in this step #23. Isn’t her work ugly, repulsive, and, ultimately, meaningless? For most, it’s certainly not uplifting, and for some, it’s unholy. As for meaning? One of Marina’s displays had her sitting in a chair for 8 hours a day. For three months. That’s it. People stood in line to sit in a chair opposite her. I wish I were kidding. But how dare I criticize. It’s art!
A year ago, Marina had a showing where people had to squeeze by fully naked people standing in the doorway of the gallery, in order to get inside. “Overcoming” what Abramović claims is her theme. “From her earliest work, she has explored physical and emotional endurance, confronting fear, and exposing vulnerability.” It seems to me we could get the same experience by just spending time in a NY subway. Moreover, how is doing that sort of “experience” in a false, financed setting supposed to imitate a “real” experience at all? This is, pardon, looking like a bunch of rubbish, all apologies for the pun, the irony, and the plagiarism when I boldly say, if this art were an emperor, it would have no clothes on.
Any “deeper” meaning here escapes me beyond the staging of some old theater of the absurd or guerilla theater, from French existential art from a century ago. I remember thinking in high school how sophomoric it all sounded, yet is celebrated by the elite, the same way they do their bizarre dances at CERN.
I must ask, in the final analysis, Is this type of art really necessary? Does it really teach us anything “new” to be “uncomfortable?” Well, the communists said yes in 1963 – that they would fund and create ugly, repulsive, meaningless art. And they would put into place art critics that would deem it worthwhile and good for society. Is that why her insane artworks go unchallenged?
I am old enough to remember the arrival of ugly art. It wasn’t much after the 45 steps to communism was given to our congress. It has found funding among the elite because they naturally love things that drift into the surreal and meaningless; confusing values are enjoyable when you aren’t anchored to any sort of moral compass. So they like to buy this kind of unattractive, so-called “art” and foist upon us all, as though we’re just not “hip” enough to understand. There are many examples of this public affront but many points to the murals commissioned for the Denver Airport to make their case, see video presentation here. The critics told them it’s “art,” who are they to think for themselves? They’re afraid to be called unsophisticated, a prude, to stand up and call it what it is – ugly – and mature enough not to care what a bunch of planted “critics” think. There are many reasons why people would do this type of subversion to our society, without turning to Satan for an answer. But ultimately, that is who these people appear to serve no matter what they say.
Beyond this, from a spiritual aspect, if I was a person that believes in Heaven and Hell, like many Christians, and for that matter many Satanists do, – don’t think it’s just some religious or Hollywood invention like an atheist might, there are certain questions I would have. Like, what would a demon say, if cornered? Would it admit to being a demon, I must wonder? If truly demons exist in our world, or Satanists, humans who serve them, or are controlled by them, wouldn’t they want to deny that publicly? Even just a person who had been lured into “serving Satan” or worshipping him, in today’s society, wouldn’t the sheer embarrassment make them deny it publicly? I don’t feel a need to make this statement, would you? But I guess Marina feels she does. And the media made it a top story last week, while so close to an election. I am left wondering why this is important to highlight, to the world, when it’s just a “handful of conspiracy theorists” with tin foil hats on their heads, that she has to announce she is NOT, not, not, a Satanist. These are things that make me go “hmmm.”
It seems to me that regardless of whom we claim to serve, good or evil, our actions speak a lot louder than our words. And this kind of ugly display of art – across the board – should be recognized as what it is step #22 – in the march toward communism. Should we be brave enough to say so, and stop giving credence to it as art at all? Is it really art or garbage masquerading as art? One wonders why any human beings would go along with this plan. You might recall back in the Bible where it talks about that war that we “cannot see,” that is about “good and evil.” Ephesians 6:12: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
Moreover, looking at this from an atheist view, isn’t the theater of the absurd kind of getting tired? I mean, it’s been going full steam since the hippies of the sixties. As an atheist, I would
think one would object on the grounds that ugly art is tiresome. But because of the “agenda,” good art doesn’t get much funding while ugly art gets center stage. The spiritual nature of this struggle is beginning to show through to the tangible, the physical, so we can literally see it through the art of Marina Abramović. Whether or not she wants to be a conduit, she appears to be, for the denizens of hell, to display their wretched images.
Isn’t it interesting that while Abramović claims to “be an artist, not a Satanist,” we have those same people, that are also accused publicly of Satanism, cannibalism, listed on the Epstein flight manifests, child trafficking, attending her “parties?” If you believe the alternative press, these people all seem to be connected – what a coincidence.
If those are her guests, dear reader, those are also her friends. My grandmother, who today would be almost 120 years old, would say:
“Show me who your friends are, and I will show you who YOU are.”
Marina Abramović provides these same alleged perpetrators … I mean, “friends” like Jon Podesta – in whose released private emails we see references to the artist provides entertainment, signature artwork that continues to embrace and produce disturbing Satanic type images for the public to see. One has to wonder if there’s any difference, that it matters at all, what we claim? In the end, announcing who we worship or who we “do business for” on this Earth is actually quite meaningless, while what we actually do, and whom we associate with, in retrospect, is what we actually “are,” and whom we have served.
Well, I have had my say, what about you? Please give your thoughts in the comment section of this article.