Category: Robert Klein Engler

Chicago: Don't Ask Those Who Caused the Problem to Solve the Problem


Last weekend, Chicago saw 74 people shot and thirteen killed, some of them children.  At the same time, a music festival attracted thousands to a lakefront Grant Park, where they danced with little regard for the deaths and chaos happening just a few miles west.

For some, outside the Chicago cultural bubble, questions are asked.  How could this happen?  What can be done about it?  Why doesn’t the mayor care?

Perhaps there are answers to these questions, but so what?  The truth is, given the social, political, and cultural history of Chicago, no one who could do anything about the murders and chaos in Chicago really cares.  Nothing will be done, because death and chaos in Chicago are just part of the cost of keeping the power structure in place.

Perhaps a biological analogy is in order.  Consider an anthill run by a Democratic queen ant.  There will always be a certain amount of death and waste among the worker ants.  That’s just the way the biological order is.  Chicago, like an urban organism, is not at all different.  If a few are shot every day, that’s the price the Democrats pay for political party survival.

Look at the history of the power structure that runs Chicago to see why no one cares and no one wants to change the social order there.

Chicago is an urban culture unto itself.  For an outsider, that urban culture is hidden behind the façade of an “American city,” yet little things like not putting catsup on a hot dog show us that Chicago is a unique place with its own traditions and political history.  Add to that that about 20 percent of Chicago’s population, today, is foreign-born.  These foreign-born individuals often come from cultures different from the ethnic Democrats who populated the city after WWII.

The structure of evil that is the Democratic Party in Chicago has ruled the city longer than the life of the old Soviet Union.  The point of the party is political power, not charity or social justice.  Most people who live in Chicago are progressive and do not see the structure of evil that daily closes in on them.  Consider, for example, how the Catholic Church in Chicago has surrendered to the party platform to hold and keep political power.

The transformation of the Catholic Church in Chicago from a church of conservative Eastern Europeans to the religious arm of the progressive Democrats is one of the most important ironies of our age.  Most of this transformation can be placed at the feet of Irish Catholics, who are involved in both the hierarchy of the Church and city politics.

It is a great irony that Chicago Catholics voted in large numbers for Obama, who supported both abortion and the redefinition of marriage.  This vote shows how many Catholics in Chicago put party over religion.  They do so because the party delivers the goods.

The price for those goods is segregation, murders, the destruction of old neighborhoods like Englewood, and a failed system of public education.  But no one cares.  No one really wants to do anything about the reality that the fog of Democratic ideology masks, because that’s the way all the pieces fit together, and you get your piece of the pie.

The day-to-day reality of life in Chicago is that most people who live there really don’t want change.  For change to happen in Chicago, it must be brought into the city from the outside.  The established political order has to be overturned by an outside force, the same way the Soviet Army brought change to Nazi Berlin.  How likely is that to happen?

For change to come to Chicago, at the very least, illegal aliens have to be deported along with the influx of illegal drugs and the gang activity drugs support.  Really, who will do this?  These are future Democratic voters we’re deporting.

Chicago has some of the most rigid gun laws in the nation, yet year after year, hundreds are shot.  How can that be?  It can be because no one wants to enforce the law.  In Chicago, you get along by going along.

Chicago is the most segregated city in the nation, yet it is run by Democrats who proclaim civil rights and affirmative action.  What a living contradiction that is.  If change comes to Chicago, then it may have to be brought about by the federal government, but that government is slowly being reshaped into the Chicago political model for the nation – a permanent ruling class of Democrats.

Besides that, who has a plan for undoing a hundred years of segregated neighborhoods in Chicago?  What can be done to help an entire generation of minorities whose family structure has been destroyed by Democratic welfare policies, or whose young men have been irreversibly damaged by a failed system of public education?

No.  Chicago is what it is, and it ain’t gonna change.  Take your moral outrage elsewhere.  In the words of one Chicago alderman, who turned away a young man who was from outside the ward and wanted to help, “We don’t want nobody who nobody sent.”

Nothing will be done to change the death and chaos in Chicago that is troublesome to those who read about it in their east-coast newspapers.  The rock concerts will continue in the parks.  Sailboats will tack up and down Lake Michigan.  More towers will rise in the loop as the neighborhoods decay.  The talking heads on the news will shake their finger into television cameras, but Chicago will keep being what it is.

Even if a new political party of Latinos or blacks takes over the city, do you really think they want to stop the flow of drugs or illegal aliens, or move away from the ethnic politics that has characterized the Democratic Party for more than a hundred years?  From the Fort Dearborn Massacre to the Obama Presidential Library, Chicago Democrats rewrite history to favor their political objectives.

Just be careful when you visit Chicago.  At first you may not notice the compromise with evil most Chicagoans have made to live and work in the Windy City.  When you visit, know where to go safely, and don’t be caught putting catsup on your hot dog.

Last weekend, Chicago saw 74 people shot and thirteen killed, some of them children.  At the same time, a music festival attracted thousands to a lakefront Grant Park, where they danced with little regard for the deaths and chaos happening just a few miles west.

For some, outside the Chicago cultural bubble, questions are asked.  How could this happen?  What can be done about it?  Why doesn’t the mayor care?

Perhaps there are answers to these questions, but so what?  The truth is, given the social, political, and cultural history of Chicago, no one who could do anything about the murders and chaos in Chicago really cares.  Nothing will be done, because death and chaos in Chicago are just part of the cost of keeping the power structure in place.

Perhaps a biological analogy is in order.  Consider an anthill run by a Democratic queen ant.  There will always be a certain amount of death and waste among the worker ants.  That’s just the way the biological order is.  Chicago, like an urban organism, is not at all different.  If a few are shot every day, that’s the price the Democrats pay for political party survival.

Look at the history of the power structure that runs Chicago to see why no one cares and no one wants to change the social order there.

Chicago is an urban culture unto itself.  For an outsider, that urban culture is hidden behind the façade of an “American city,” yet little things like not putting catsup on a hot dog show us that Chicago is a unique place with its own traditions and political history.  Add to that that about 20 percent of Chicago’s population, today, is foreign-born.  These foreign-born individuals often come from cultures different from the ethnic Democrats who populated the city after WWII.

The structure of evil that is the Democratic Party in Chicago has ruled the city longer than the life of the old Soviet Union.  The point of the party is political power, not charity or social justice.  Most people who live in Chicago are progressive and do not see the structure of evil that daily closes in on them.  Consider, for example, how the Catholic Church in Chicago has surrendered to the party platform to hold and keep political power.

The transformation of the Catholic Church in Chicago from a church of conservative Eastern Europeans to the religious arm of the progressive Democrats is one of the most important ironies of our age.  Most of this transformation can be placed at the feet of Irish Catholics, who are involved in both the hierarchy of the Church and city politics.

It is a great irony that Chicago Catholics voted in large numbers for Obama, who supported both abortion and the redefinition of marriage.  This vote shows how many Catholics in Chicago put party over religion.  They do so because the party delivers the goods.

The price for those goods is segregation, murders, the destruction of old neighborhoods like Englewood, and a failed system of public education.  But no one cares.  No one really wants to do anything about the reality that the fog of Democratic ideology masks, because that’s the way all the pieces fit together, and you get your piece of the pie.

The day-to-day reality of life in Chicago is that most people who live there really don’t want change.  For change to happen in Chicago, it must be brought into the city from the outside.  The established political order has to be overturned by an outside force, the same way the Soviet Army brought change to Nazi Berlin.  How likely is that to happen?

For change to come to Chicago, at the very least, illegal aliens have to be deported along with the influx of illegal drugs and the gang activity drugs support.  Really, who will do this?  These are future Democratic voters we’re deporting.

Chicago has some of the most rigid gun laws in the nation, yet year after year, hundreds are shot.  How can that be?  It can be because no one wants to enforce the law.  In Chicago, you get along by going along.

Chicago is the most segregated city in the nation, yet it is run by Democrats who proclaim civil rights and affirmative action.  What a living contradiction that is.  If change comes to Chicago, then it may have to be brought about by the federal government, but that government is slowly being reshaped into the Chicago political model for the nation – a permanent ruling class of Democrats.

Besides that, who has a plan for undoing a hundred years of segregated neighborhoods in Chicago?  What can be done to help an entire generation of minorities whose family structure has been destroyed by Democratic welfare policies, or whose young men have been irreversibly damaged by a failed system of public education?

No.  Chicago is what it is, and it ain’t gonna change.  Take your moral outrage elsewhere.  In the words of one Chicago alderman, who turned away a young man who was from outside the ward and wanted to help, “We don’t want nobody who nobody sent.”

Nothing will be done to change the death and chaos in Chicago that is troublesome to those who read about it in their east-coast newspapers.  The rock concerts will continue in the parks.  Sailboats will tack up and down Lake Michigan.  More towers will rise in the loop as the neighborhoods decay.  The talking heads on the news will shake their finger into television cameras, but Chicago will keep being what it is.

Even if a new political party of Latinos or blacks takes over the city, do you really think they want to stop the flow of drugs or illegal aliens, or move away from the ethnic politics that has characterized the Democratic Party for more than a hundred years?  From the Fort Dearborn Massacre to the Obama Presidential Library, Chicago Democrats rewrite history to favor their political objectives.

Just be careful when you visit Chicago.  At first you may not notice the compromise with evil most Chicagoans have made to live and work in the Windy City.  When you visit, know where to go safely, and don’t be caught putting catsup on your hot dog.



Source link

Remember When Chicago Aldermen and Police Seized a Portrait?


The destruction of our heritage is all part of a Soviet-style purge of the arts, brought to you by Marxist Democrats and the Left.

The destruction is part of a movement to redefine the role of public art.

Where did this start?

Some say it started in our universities and made its way to the streets of our big cities.

More specifically, like Obama politics, the social unrest over public art started in Chicago.

Few remember when the great, first act in U.S. Marxist art criticism took place. It was 1988.

The headline in the New York Times read, “Chicago Aldermen and Police Seize Portrait That Blacks Deem Offensive.”

Into the Art Institute they stomped, those Democrat alderman, and pulled the painting off the wall.

They were offended.

There was no discussion of what makes a work of art great, or why some say the purpose of art is to offend and to challenge the viewer.

Nope.

If the painting offends someone, especially a Democrat, it must be removed.

But wait.

What if you are offended by a work of art that shows a Christian crucifix suspended in a jar of urine?

“Serrano, who has faced censorship and violent threats for nearly three decades, argues that we must protect all speech—whether we agree with it or not.”

That defense of his “Piss Christ,” does not work in Chicago or among the Black Lives Matter crowd, today.

As soon as they finish with the slaveholders they will start in on the Christians.

Back in Chicago, Carl Rohl-Smith’s masterpiece is still in a Chicago warehouse. It was removed from public display because it offended some, even though it is one of the best examples of 19th century sculpture in the city.

At the Chicago dedication of the monument in 1893, Pullman wrote a letter to be read. In it Pullman states he desired to erect “an enduring monument, which should serve not only to perpetuate and honor the memory of the brave men and women and innocent children—the pioneer settlers who suffered here—but should also stimulate a desire among us…to know more of the struggles and sacrifices of those who laid the foundation of the greatness of this city.”

You would expect that artists who believe in freedom of expression would defend statues like this ands the one in Charlottesville.

They don’t.

They don’t because Marxist art theory has taken over their minds.

What is important, now, is not art for art sake, but art for the sake of so-called social justice. Defending freedom of speech in the arts is not politically correct.

Aimee Tomasek, chair of Valparaiso University’s art department, said, “You can argue that any sculpture is art in some way, but it’s a loose argument. I don’t know that these statues are worthy of preservation as art objects so much as historical objects — made to preserve a lost cause, a lost war. They weren’t made with great artistic intent, but with political intent. And intent matters in this case.”

No artist seems willing to challenge Tomasek’s statement, a statement made with obvious political intent. One thing the Marxists aren’t, is accepting of loose arguments. It’s all roped and tied, all black and white for her, the proletariate against the bourgeoisie.

She should be reminded that when we make all art political, our art criticism becomes political, too, a politics that turns the world on its head.

Many Marxist art critics reverse the critical process. Like the criticism coming out of Indiana, these critics start with Marxist theory and then work backwards to the art object.

The results would look very different if they started with the art object and worked forward to a critical theory.

Has anyone come forward and defended the statue in Charlottesville’s Lee Park (now called Emancipation Park) as a work of art that has to be judged, not from a political or Marxist point of view, but simply as a work of art?

You’d expect some artists to do so, but many are afraid. Like the Soviet art world of old, the present art world is so dominated by Marxists under the banner of multiculturalism or feminism, that artists risks their career by going against the tide.

Other artists are so committed to the politics of progressivism that they cannot see how someday their own art may be destroyed by a changed politics.

As to the Marxist art critics in New Orleans, remember that New York sculptor Alexander Doyle was hired to sculpt the statue, which was first installed in 1884. Born in Ohio, Doyle went to Italy to study sculpture in Bergamo, Rome, and Florence. While in Italy, Doyle’s talent was so recognized that he was made an honorary member of the Royal Raphael Academy of Urbino.

We don’t know if any of Doyle’s relatives owned slaves of any kind. But no matter. In the eyes of Marxist critics, he should have identified with the proletariat  and had enough good sense and moral virtue, especially retroactive moral virtue, to have declined the Lee commission.

Like Carl Rohl-Smith’s Chicago statue, the Lee statute in Charlottesville started out as a memorial and gift to the city. In 1917, “McIntire gave the site to the City of Charlottesville in order ‘to erect thereon a statue of General Robert E. Lee and to present said property to the City as a memorial to his parents…'” 

“Henry Shrady was commissioned to execute the sculpture in 1917.”  For those who don’t remember, Henry Merwin Shrady was an American sculptor, best known for the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial on the west front of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.

Writing in the American Review of Reviews for 1922, Albert Shaw says of Shrady’s work, “Mr. Shrady’s modeling of horses in action has hardly been equaled by any other sculptor.”

Would Aimee Tomasek reply to this loose evaluation of Shrady’s work by saying, “O.K., but it not the horse we object to, but the man riding the horse?”

This suggest a compromise. Mutilate the art by leaving the horse and taking the man. But that will not work for Marxist critics. They are driven by a new purity.

In their quest for political purity, when will BLM ask for Shrady’s statue of Grant in Washington, D.C. to be removed?

Should we not preserve Shrady’s public works, no matter what politics surrounds them?

It has been said that Henry Merwin Shrady also created some of the finest bronze wildlife and Indian sculptures of the American West. 

“Too bad,” the Marxist art critics say. “Melt down those bronze buffalos.”

How many slaves did Shrady’s relatives own? And if he did own any slaves, so what, he was white so by definition he was a racist.

It has been asked how can their be art after Freud and Marx? The attacks on public art in Chicago, New Orleans and Charlottesville show us that the future of public art and memorials is dead.

Marxist art critics are going to make sure we have a city that is gray, modern and filled with gigantic puppies by Jeff Koons.

Memory by its very nature has become offensive.

In the meantime, don’t forget that the Coliseum in Rome was built by Jewish slaves captured when Jerusalem fell in 70 AD.

Does it offend your Marxist eyes to gaze upon those arches?

The ghost of Alaric rides with the Democrats.

 

 

It’s not the so-called Confederate statues that are the problem.

The problem is the hold that Marxist art theory and criticism has on the U.S. art world.

The destruction of our heritage is all part of a Soviet-style purge of the arts, brought to you by Marxist Democrats and the Left.

The destruction is part of a movement to redefine the role of public art.

Where did this start?

Some say it started in our universities and made its way to the streets of our big cities.

More specifically, like Obama politics, the social unrest over public art started in Chicago.

Few remember when the great, first act in U.S. Marxist art criticism took place. It was 1988.

The headline in the New York Times read, “Chicago Aldermen and Police Seize Portrait That Blacks Deem Offensive.”

Into the Art Institute they stomped, those Democrat alderman, and pulled the painting off the wall.

They were offended.

There was no discussion of what makes a work of art great, or why some say the purpose of art is to offend and to challenge the viewer.

Nope.

If the painting offends someone, especially a Democrat, it must be removed.

But wait.

What if you are offended by a work of art that shows a Christian crucifix suspended in a jar of urine?

“Serrano, who has faced censorship and violent threats for nearly three decades, argues that we must protect all speech—whether we agree with it or not.”

That defense of his “Piss Christ,” does not work in Chicago or among the Black Lives Matter crowd, today.

As soon as they finish with the slaveholders they will start in on the Christians.

Back in Chicago, Carl Rohl-Smith’s masterpiece is still in a Chicago warehouse. It was removed from public display because it offended some, even though it is one of the best examples of 19th century sculpture in the city.

At the Chicago dedication of the monument in 1893, Pullman wrote a letter to be read. In it Pullman states he desired to erect “an enduring monument, which should serve not only to perpetuate and honor the memory of the brave men and women and innocent children—the pioneer settlers who suffered here—but should also stimulate a desire among us…to know more of the struggles and sacrifices of those who laid the foundation of the greatness of this city.”

You would expect that artists who believe in freedom of expression would defend statues like this ands the one in Charlottesville.

They don’t.

They don’t because Marxist art theory has taken over their minds.

What is important, now, is not art for art sake, but art for the sake of so-called social justice. Defending freedom of speech in the arts is not politically correct.

Aimee Tomasek, chair of Valparaiso University’s art department, said, “You can argue that any sculpture is art in some way, but it’s a loose argument. I don’t know that these statues are worthy of preservation as art objects so much as historical objects — made to preserve a lost cause, a lost war. They weren’t made with great artistic intent, but with political intent. And intent matters in this case.”

No artist seems willing to challenge Tomasek’s statement, a statement made with obvious political intent. One thing the Marxists aren’t, is accepting of loose arguments. It’s all roped and tied, all black and white for her, the proletariate against the bourgeoisie.

She should be reminded that when we make all art political, our art criticism becomes political, too, a politics that turns the world on its head.

Many Marxist art critics reverse the critical process. Like the criticism coming out of Indiana, these critics start with Marxist theory and then work backwards to the art object.

The results would look very different if they started with the art object and worked forward to a critical theory.

Has anyone come forward and defended the statue in Charlottesville’s Lee Park (now called Emancipation Park) as a work of art that has to be judged, not from a political or Marxist point of view, but simply as a work of art?

You’d expect some artists to do so, but many are afraid. Like the Soviet art world of old, the present art world is so dominated by Marxists under the banner of multiculturalism or feminism, that artists risks their career by going against the tide.

Other artists are so committed to the politics of progressivism that they cannot see how someday their own art may be destroyed by a changed politics.

As to the Marxist art critics in New Orleans, remember that New York sculptor Alexander Doyle was hired to sculpt the statue, which was first installed in 1884. Born in Ohio, Doyle went to Italy to study sculpture in Bergamo, Rome, and Florence. While in Italy, Doyle’s talent was so recognized that he was made an honorary member of the Royal Raphael Academy of Urbino.

We don’t know if any of Doyle’s relatives owned slaves of any kind. But no matter. In the eyes of Marxist critics, he should have identified with the proletariat  and had enough good sense and moral virtue, especially retroactive moral virtue, to have declined the Lee commission.

Like Carl Rohl-Smith’s Chicago statue, the Lee statute in Charlottesville started out as a memorial and gift to the city. In 1917, “McIntire gave the site to the City of Charlottesville in order ‘to erect thereon a statue of General Robert E. Lee and to present said property to the City as a memorial to his parents…'” 

“Henry Shrady was commissioned to execute the sculpture in 1917.”  For those who don’t remember, Henry Merwin Shrady was an American sculptor, best known for the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial on the west front of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.

Writing in the American Review of Reviews for 1922, Albert Shaw says of Shrady’s work, “Mr. Shrady’s modeling of horses in action has hardly been equaled by any other sculptor.”

Would Aimee Tomasek reply to this loose evaluation of Shrady’s work by saying, “O.K., but it not the horse we object to, but the man riding the horse?”

This suggest a compromise. Mutilate the art by leaving the horse and taking the man. But that will not work for Marxist critics. They are driven by a new purity.

In their quest for political purity, when will BLM ask for Shrady’s statue of Grant in Washington, D.C. to be removed?

Should we not preserve Shrady’s public works, no matter what politics surrounds them?

It has been said that Henry Merwin Shrady also created some of the finest bronze wildlife and Indian sculptures of the American West. 

“Too bad,” the Marxist art critics say. “Melt down those bronze buffalos.”

How many slaves did Shrady’s relatives own? And if he did own any slaves, so what, he was white so by definition he was a racist.

It has been asked how can their be art after Freud and Marx? The attacks on public art in Chicago, New Orleans and Charlottesville show us that the future of public art and memorials is dead.

Marxist art critics are going to make sure we have a city that is gray, modern and filled with gigantic puppies by Jeff Koons.

Memory by its very nature has become offensive.

In the meantime, don’t forget that the Coliseum in Rome was built by Jewish slaves captured when Jerusalem fell in 70 AD.

Does it offend your Marxist eyes to gaze upon those arches?

The ghost of Alaric rides with the Democrats.

 

 



Source link