A Class Act

 

Julie London (1926-2000)

Many of you who followed me for a long time know that I am an avid collector of vintage big band records, and have been since I was 12.  As I have recounted on several occasions, many of the records I used to get as a kid were from a junk shop in Rio, WV, we locally called the "Rio Mall."  With an allowance of about $5 per month then, I could go to that store and really stock up on stuff I had an interest in, as each record cost me approximately a quarter then.  At about a year or so into collecting, I came across an album with a strikingly beautiful female singer on it and it caught my attention.  That album was this one:

The singer featured on the album was Julie London, and it was originally released in 1956 on the Liberty Records label (album ID LRP-3012).  At that point in time, I was just starting my collection and didn't have a clue to who Julie London even was, but it looked interesting so I got it.  A short time later, I was listening to Henry Boggan's Sunday night program on WBT-AM, and he played the only charting hit she ever recorded - "Cry Me A River," which was released in 1955 as a classic torch song composed by Arthur Hamilton. The song was melancholy, sultry, and actually perhaps one of the best recordings of vocal jazz I ever heard.  It was recorded with simple instrumentation - string bass ("dog house") and guitar playing softly in the background while fully showcasing Julie London's voice, which was excellent.  The arrangement of it was simple yet sophisticated, the type of music you would hear on a romantic date with your girl in a dim candlelit cafe.  Personally, I liked it.  Over the years, I didn't really think much about Julie London until I heard another song she recorded, Cole Porter's classic "You'd Be So Nice to Come Home To."  I had a history of appreciating this song too, as the first arrangement I had heard of it was a more upbeat one by Ray Conniff and his singers that I found on one of the first records I ever purchased in 1982, a Columbia Special Products release (these were often released as promotional items for stores and other businesses) that was made in the early 1960s under the serial CSP-160 titled Fall Festival of Stars.  Another good arrangement of this song could be found as part of a medley on a Freddy Martin LP that also came out in the early 1960's on Capital.  Julie recorded this with a small jazz combo organized by her husband, Bobby Troup (a songwriter and actor who also composed Sammy Kaye's 1942 hit "Daddy") and it got my attention.  Realizing her wonderful voice now and also her gorgeous looks, I began to look more into who Julie London was, and to be honest, I was pleasantly surprised at the person she truly was. 

In this day and age when you have freaks like Miley Cyrus and Katy Perry, and fake beauty like Taylor Swift, dominating the music scene, it is rare to see anyone of real talent.  In recent years, the only singer I think that embodied real talent who made a significant presence on American culture is probably Michael Buble, but even he has compromised some of his standards by hanging out with faux country artists like Blake Shelton.  Looking at modern music in the past 30 or so years, I am honestly not impressed with it - it is too commercial, too fake, and in the case of female "artists," it is all about AI-manipulated vocals, twerking, and showing their boobs (yes, I said it - call me sexist, but they diminish themselves) indiscriminately while also embracing bizarre political agendas that many of their listeners do not relate to.  The "diva" seems to be mainstream in today's music, and at times it is overrated and not really classy - that tub of lard called Lizzo comes to mind here.  This crass oversexualization and diminishing of classic femininity is disgusting frankly, and it also is devoid of actual talent.  This is nothing new though, as my generation had their own share of slutty divas like Madonna and Cyndi Lauper.  This is one reason I stood out in my early teens from many of my own classmates.  Because of my tastes in music, I was often the target of bullying and ridicule by others in middle school and it could be rough.  But, thankfully, my musical tastes remained resolute.  Of course, nowadays Cyndi Lauper looks mild compared to the likes of Lizzo, but the same over-commercialization and garbage is still there which characterizes both of those "singers."  This is one reason why I also think that Simon Cowell is overrated as a music expert - the man is as tone-deaf as a cat being neutered by a buzz saw, yet he is the one determining "talent."  My guess is that ol' Simon has more of a hangup with butts and boobs than he does vocal talent, and that is why I have little respect for the fool.  Some have tried to compare Simon Cowell to Gordon Ramsay, but to be honest that is insulting to Ramsay - Ramsay is at least a talented chef, whereas Cowell don't know jack about actual music.  If I saw Simon Cowell in person, my hope is that I would have a rotten tomato ready to aim at his smug, arrogant face. I know that critique of contemporary culture is harsh, but I am not apologizing for it.  Agendas and artificial enhancements are way too prevalent in much of today's culture, not to mention the "woke" ideology that many of these faux "artists" promote and pander to.  It is time to go back to a few basics, so here is a little lesson in what true art and music should be. 

During my Master's program at Franciscan University of Steubenville, I took a very insightful course as a required part of my curriculum called Philosophy of the Human Person.  One of the texts we used was Fr. Norris Clarke,  The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001).  Fr. Clarke is a Jesuit priest who at one time served as Professor Emiritus of Philosophy at the Forham University, and although I don't agree with all the book (he supports, for instance, a Tielhardian view of theistic evolution), the majority of his work is actually quite good and in concord with Thomistic philosophy in general.   In Chapter 4 of the book, Fr. Clarke initiates a discussion on what are called the "Transcendental Properties of Being," and they are traditionally understood as being the following:

1. Truth

2. Beauty

3. Goodness

He defines a transcendental property of being as essentially an attribute that can be predicated of every real being (p. 60).  He further notes that activity is the outer face of being, and is expressive.  Taking that into a theological realm then, it means God created us with these attributes, and thus we all possess them in a unique way that reflects the person God made us to be. These particular properties are completely and perfectly personified in God himself, as he is perfect Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.  But, because we are created in his image, we are endowed with the creative ability to express those in our daily lives in the form of specific giftings and talents.  However, the process of cultivating those talents is often not as pretty - I remember years ago in a life coaching course I had which was sponsored by the company I worked for then in which an analogy was given of beautiful roses growing over a sewer.  The point of the illustration was that a pretty appearance often belies something ugly underneath.  Over the years I have taken that to have two meanings.  The first is obvious, and has to do with false fronts people put up to hide their own evil - in the classic sitcom Designing Women (I love that show, by the way!) an episode was broadcast where one of the main characters, Julia Sugarbaker (played by late actress Dixie Carter) was miffed at her beau Reese Watson (played by Carter's real-life husband Hal Holbrooke) because he attended a country club dance with a pretty young junior partner in his law firm named Shannon.  Shannon was gorgeous too - beautiful long black hair and smoldering brown eyes - but she was not a good person and wanted to seduce Reese to advance her own career.  Julia confronts her in a bathroom, and when Shannon says what she wants to do with Reese, Julia gives her a lesson in the presentation of manure and concludes like this as I paraphrase it - "I know compost, and I have never seen it wrapped in such a pretty package, yet it is still compost."  The roses over the sewer could be interpreted in the same way. But, there is also another interpretation too - the worst of adversities are what makes the most beautiful of characters.  Yes, sewage is stinky, disgusting, and generally unpleasant, but it has the right nourishment to fertilize either beautiful roses or delicious tomatoes too. Something beautiful can emerge from something evil or bad.  This brings to mind Nat Hentoff's 1965 fictional book Jazz Country, where noted (fictional) jazz pianist Moses Godfrey and his bass player Bill Hitchcock give the young protagonist, 16-year-old aspiring trumpeter Tom Curtis, a bit of wisdom in this statement - "your blues are like a new pair of shoes if you don't get some dirt on them."  Many of the best pieces of music - symphonic works, classic popular songs, and hymns and gospel songs - are beautiful testimonies of adversity that are expressed from the heart of the artist or composer.  This is what underlies true beauty.  Much of today's music lacks that - it is shallow, stupid, and is often produced by spoiled, privileged nudniks who have no actual life experience in anything. That is why much of this crap called "music" today will never become eternal and generations from now it will be largely forgotten because it lacks actual beauty.  And, that includes a lot of so-called "Contemporary Christian Music" that is showcased in Evangelical megachurches.  Lyrics such as "Ooh-ahh-ooo-ooo heaven!" mean very little, and they actually sound kinda stupid. And, they are not exalting God or encouraging a deeper Christian walk, no - they are just something that some aging Boomers can prance around to because they have midlife crises and somehow think that appeals to younger people. The evidence though shows otherwise.  Now that those preliminaries are out of the way, let's get back to Julie London.

California-born Julie London started her career as an actress in the mid-1940s, and was married to Jack Webb (of Dragnet fame) as her first husband.  Early accounts of her described her as a committed wife and mother who actually prioritized her family over her career (rare in itself) but Webb didn't share those priorities, which led to their divorce in 1953. The divorce really hit Julie hard, but then she met a young jazz pianist/composer/actor named Bobby Troup, and he really took an interest in her especially after hearing her sing.  They were later married and had a happy marriage up until his passing in 1999. 

In looking at Julie's life, there are a few interesting facts about her:

1. She cherished being a wife and mother

2. She displayed a sincere humility in her own life and didn't think she was as talented as she really was.

3. She was a very private person - her life was not a Hollywood tabloid feature.

Julie looked very beautiful too - not the artificial Hollywood image-boosting, but a truly natural beauty that was all her own. And, she also sang amazingly.  She originally started out as an actress, but with her husband Bobby Troup's encouragement she began recording a series of albums, first on the Bethlehem label and later on the Liberty label, and although most had modest success she did hit upon a gem when in 1955 she recorded "Cry Me a River," which today is still considered a classic recording.  However, most people remembered her from a 1970's show called Emergency, in which she co-starred with her husband as a nurse named Dixie. Her quiet, unpretentious life was centered around a love of classic jazz and her family - she perfected the "torch song" as an early fan of Billie Holliday, and her sweet, sultry singing style was the perfect late-night romantic mood music that one could relax to.  This makes her stand out as a good representation of the transcendental properties of being - she was true to herself, had natural beauty and talent, and was a decent human being as a person.  Of course, like all of us, she was not perfect - the one vice she had was that she was a notorious smoker, as it was reported that she smoked up to 3 packs of cigarettes a day.  That eventually did affect her voice, and in due time she retired from singing after making her last album in the early 1970s.  However, compared to today's "artists," Julie's smoking habit was trivial in comparison.  She remained a person who wanted to live her life, was properly humble, and was also devoted to those things that mattered most, especially her family.  The smoking habit did eventually take a toll though, and after several years of recuperating from a debilitating stroke she had in the mid-1990s, she developed lung cancer and it led to her untimely passing at the age of 74 in the year 2000, just one year after her husband, Bobby Troup, had passed. I recently came across a published biography of Julie entitled Go Slow - the Life Story of Julie London (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2017) authored by Michael Owen.  I have plans to purchase this in the next few weeks and give it an engaging read, and perhaps I may review it here just to follow up this discussion.  Let me recap my own story of being introduced to Julie London's talent.

As I mentioned, I found the first album of Julie's at a junk store in Rio, WV, for a quarter.  At the time I did not know much about her, and was like, "well, she's a good singer, but meh..." In recent years though as I really came to know more about who she was and as I came to appreciate her singing talents, I really fell in love with her - turns out she was actually an amazing and talented woman, and it would have been nice to have had the privilege of meeting her in person.  I can actually say now that I am a fan of her stuff, and one thing I want to do in the near future is maybe watch her show Emergency.  There is also a good documentary available on her life entitled The Julie London Story that anyone can actually watch for free on YouTube.  Watching it earlier today inspired me to write this.  I think that along with Lena Horne and Keely Smith, Julie London is one of my favorite female vocalists now.  And, thankfully there are some of us old Gen-Xers who still know about this great music, which is often obscured by the garbage that passes as "music" today as many Millennials and Gen-Zers don't have a clue as to good music.  It isn't their fault, as their parents and grandparents - the Boomer generation - were into drug-induced hippie acid rock anthems or subpar country music post-1965. But, as more gen Zers in particular are beginning to gravitate toward more traditional things, I do have hope.  Let's hope that my hope is well-placed.  Thanks again for allowing me to share and hope you all have a good and safe Memorial Day weekend as we are positioned on the doorstep of the summer season now. 

The Challenges of Research

 I have been talking more and more about my dissertation process as I finish up my Ph.D., and in doing so there are often some practical tips I wish to share.  One of these is in regard to my own approach to research, and I thought I would talk about that today.

The largest part of doing a dissertation - and indeed, any type of research project - is the actual research.  Research is important as it does provide vetting for your own work, and it is integral to not just bandy about theories without evidence to back it up.  If one does that, then it ceases to be research and becomes editorializing.  Editorializing has its place as well obviously, but if you are engaging in academic writing, editorializing is looked down upon.  Therefore, researching the topic is integral to producing work on it. 

That being said, the research process can be murky.  Broadly, there are two types of source material used in doctoral-level research in particular - primary sources and secondary sources.  Primary sources are those written by the subjects of the research themselves, and can be decades or even centuries old.  Many universities require language proficiency, as many of this category of sources are often not in English.  Speaking of editorializing, much primary source material is editorial in nature, as it houses the worldview of the original author.  While some primary source material can be more academic in nature, it is not necessary in this case.  Secondary sources are those written by others about the subject, and they are often researched themselves and can be of an academic nature.  A subcategory of these are what is called "peer-reviewed" sources, and in all honesty those change over time.  I am a bit adverse to peer-reviewed sources because in many cases the "peers" reviewing them are of a particular bias, and thus little objectivity exists in peer review.  You have heard me sound off on academic societies before about this, and in all honesty the modern process of "peer review" is somewhat elitist - if you don't share the worldview of the reviewer, you are blackballed from scholarly discourse.  This reflects generally on the polarization and politicization of much of academia in recent years.  If good peer-reviewed sources are found, then by all means prioritize them.  But, I also feel these sources need to be vetted before they are utilized, as in general they can be more platform pieces rather than objective academic writing.  That is my perspective on peer-review.

And, this leads to the second part of this discussion as to what secondary sources are to be used?  In general, books are directed to one of two audiences - academic/scholarly and popular.  What is often meant for popular reading is often also not looked upon as serious literature in academic circles, and thus its use in research is often discouraged.  However, at times those popular sources may actually be of value, because although not geared toward an academic audience nor are they peer-reviewed, they can prove useful for finding primary source material as well as maybe arguments within the text of your own research showing how a certain question on an issue is relevant to address.  There are some of these popular sources which are, for lack of a better term, somewhat speculative or even conspiratorial in nature.  When it comes to World War II history in particular, there are a lot of theories about Nazis and other issues which can be a bit outlandish at worse, or they may be factual in substance but perhaps not researched enough to make them more attractive to academics.  I use these sources all the time, and over the years I have learned how to use them properly.  Sources like that are gold mines for finding primary source material, they pose interesting questions that merit further examination, and they also are good for getting demographic information such as birth and death dates of individuals central to one's own research.  The rule of thumb for using such sources however is to try to track down and read for yourself the primary sources they reference, as more than likely the author may have interpreted things to reflect their own biases.  I am not going to be harsh on authors for doing that, as I have done it too on occasion, but in empirical-based academic research, it is important to cite just the information as stated and not try to isogete it.  That is also a good rule of thumb for studying Scripture as well - a lot of heresies over the centuries could have been averted had there not been any reading into the text as written.  That being said, let's make a final couple of conclusions.

Reading a popular source that has a bias in its writing is OK in and of itself - the author may actually be correct in what they conclude, but their premise needs to be backed up and also it needs to be verified by the primary source material they themselves use.  I have a distant relative, Perry Stone, who is a very well-known Pentecostal televangelist.  I know Perry's work well, and in many cases it has inspired me personally. But a weakness in Perry's writing is that he tends to throw out things in what he says without having proper back-up for his statements.  That naturally has gotten him into trouble on occasion, and I myself have called him on a couple of things too.  Perry is intelligent for sure, and I do believe some of the things he says and writes is inspirational.  However, Perry needs to be a bit less sloppy and more responsible when doing his homework on these things. But, I also still enjoy reading some of his stuff, as it does motivate me to look into certain topics more, and often I find a more detailed examination to the topic itself. I write this to academics in particular - do not be too quick to dismiss the value of popular literature, as in its context it can also be a useful tool. 

Thank you for allowing me to share briefly, and that tells you a little more of my own journey as an academic writer as well.  See you soon. 

A Few Matters to Discuss

 It has been a busy week for me, revising dissertation chapters and dealing with another potentially critical issue that has been looming over me for the past couple of months. I need your prayers for both of these, as they are a source of a lot of decisions to be made and also a lot of concern with the latter one.  It has also been a busy week here as well, given that I am actually doing three posts here this week.  After some thought as well as updating my blogsites and such, I am going to do an announcement here for something very important.

I know I have had readers for all three of my blog sites over the past 14 years, and I appreciate all of you who do follow me. I also had to restrict comments due to scammers and spammers who were posting idiotic comments into my pages, and I took actions to stop those. My policy here is that I only will allow those who subscribe to my blogs to post comments.  I don't get a lot of traffic, but if a comment catches my interest, I will definitely respond to you and can also provide you with any information if you have questions about things I post.  I am understandably careful regarding how my blog is propagated, as I want to avoid conflict with those individuals who inevitably have something to grouse about and who tend to get offended at the stupidest things.  I have no time or patience for trolls, Karens, and other troublemakers, either in my blogs or on social media where I am present.  I have addressed these unsavory topics before, so no repetition is necessary here.  That being said, I mentioned last month that I am streamlining my publishing activities and want to consolidate them all into one site, which I am exploring now.  It is much easier to keep up with in all honesty, and I feel as if it also makes it easier for those who actively follow me to stay abreast of my various ramblings and musings. Along with that, I am also exploring monetization of this particular site in order to generate a bit more income for myself, and I am doing that three different ways.  Let's detail each of those now.

The first means of monetization is perhaps the easiest, and that is allowing advertising on my site. I spent the time this morning setting that up, and we will see how it works.  Eventually, I do want to include custom ads for services and products I use regularly and can endorse to a degree as an influencer maybe.  I am actually looking into that now.  As that comes together, I will post more here about it, but you should also be able to see those ads soon.  If you see one, please click on that, as it will help me generate some income.  

The second means of monetization has to do with publications.  Over the years, I have published for myself compilation books of blog posts for a given year.  The first five years were published in two volumes back in 2015, and since then I have printed a bound book of blog articles every year (or recently, every two or three years as I have not been as active in the past 5 or so years).  Given they are already published, I am planning on making those available to those who would like them, as well as copies of my other books over the years. I will be working on a sort of catalog or even an ad link to my publishing page on Lulu.com and will make those available for sale.  Right now, they are printed as on-demand, and thus an order would have to be placed to get one on that site.  I am also planning on publishing a recipe book as well as making my Genesis study I published a few years back available as separate books, and the latter I will be working on upon completion of my doctoral degree in a few months.  The Genesis articles will need formatting and also I have a lot of new material I want to add as well as a discussion question section at the end of each lesson.  I will let you know at a future date when this will be available for purchase. 

A third means of monetization I have in mind involves podcasting.  I have the equipment for that now, and have done a test run on Spotify of my format, but I haven't invested the time into developing that further yet.  I am actually planning on expanding these blog posts into podcasts and thus making my content more multimedia, and I feel it will carry more impact later.  As I refine that, I also want to add broadcast collaborations and interviews to it as well, and when I do, I will be posting here about it.  Obviously, many of the blogs are not quite designed for podcasting, but several are, and I want to make sure that they are showcased properly.   As an official historian now, I feel that the time to expand my "brand" is upon me, so I am looking into those options.  If I can manage to get more adequate settings and some equipment, I may also extend into special video productions.  

This shows where I am at, and what I am working on, and I have one further item of interest.  My dissertation will be completed and defended by the end of the summer by all indications, and once it is I will be conferred my Ph.D. I have been working on for the past four years or so.  In addition to the formatted dissertation I am going to receive as a bound copy, I am thinking of actually making it into a paperback book and having it available to a wider audience. Again, I will keep people posted on this as everything starts to coalesce,

Thank you for allowing me to share these news items with you.  There is a lot of change happening right now, and I am having to reconsider a lot and find ways to not only make the income I need, but also to create a sort of "brand" for myself to increase my personal following.  I feel I am doing a service for many, as one thing I have learned is that God calls us all to evangelization, but many of us are uniquely destined to reach a certain audience.  There are people out there that only I can reach, and likewise, there are people only you can reach.  Our mandate for evangelization is to be that witness to that particular individual who may resonate with our testimony, and in doing so, we must also exercise a degree of empathy and openness.  You never know what your experiences - both good and bad - will do to impact someone else.  A person unknown to you could stumble across a blog post like this, and it is a way for them to get answers to their own situation.  We need to pray for those unknown souls, as they are out there somewhere, and we may be the hope they have been seeking. 

On that note, I will conclude and hope to see you all again soon. 

Dissertation Update

 As I proceed with my doctoral program, I am in my last class now of the dissertation phase.  If all goes well, I will defend during the summer at some point, and will officially be a Ph.D.  At this point, I am in the process of revisions of chapters per the professor's recommendations, and that is going smoothly.  But, there are details worth mentioning, as I do have a somewhat unique topic. 

I haven't delved into the topic itself in detail, as there are a couple of reasons why.  First off, I don't want to have to explain to some well-meaning but nosey older friends of mine what anything is.  A big pet peeve I have is when someone like that wants to know what is on every inch of a homemade pizza, as if I have the time to delve into that.  As I said, I don't think they are ill-intentioned or anything, but it does sort of rub me the wrong way on many of those issues.  Secondly, the complexity of the topic is such that it would almost take five pages to try to explain it all to everyone who would ask.  This is really true of any dissertation in all honesty, regardless of authorship.  Someone who has not actually done doctoral-level research at times doesn't grasp that - they are looking for a Reader's Digest synopsis of a topic that is more detailed than a paragraph or short answer can provide.  It isn't their fault, and it doesn't reflect on their personal intelligence at all, but it is just territory they have not ventured into and thus they may not fully understand what is entailed in the process.  This is true of any type of work in all honesty - a brain surgeon cannot give short answers of what he does, and an electrician cannot do that either.  There is procedure, rubric, and vocabulary unique to each one of those fields, and not everyone is as familiar with it.  So, if you are one of those well-meaning people who has to ask "what is your dissertation about?" I would say don't - and for someone compiling research for a dissertation, it works the other way too. Do not expect everyone to have the levels of knowledge and interest in a topic that you do, because it can make you come off elitist.  It is best to not try to "toot your own horn" and give a discourse on a topic that many don't know or even care about.  I think if more doctoral candidates understood this, the level of hubris could be reduced dramatically. 

For the sake of satisfying curiosity though, the topic of my research is ideological streams that shaped National Socialism.  I have essentially focused on four areas - occultic societies, eugenics, the political movements that contributed to the evolution of National Socialism, and the philosophical movements and figures that contributed to its narrative.  In doing so, I have decided to go with Brian Walsh's and Richard Middleton's model they used in A Transforming Vision which is called Central Narrative Convictions, or CNCs.  Additionally, I have appealed to the field of Personalist philosophy to attempt to delineate what is unique to National Socialism versus what it assimilated from earlier movements (the communicable vs. incommunicable discussion).  The idea of a doctoral dissertation is that it should be a culmination of all of one's learning over the course of their academic career, and in doing so it means pulling from other disciplines to create a thesis.  While National Socialism was a very evil movement, it does share in common with any other group or movement one thing - it has a "story" that animates its agenda, and in doing so the story is built upon CNCs - questions such as "who are we?", "where are we?", "what's wrong?", and "what's the remedy?"   Any movement - good or evil - draws upon these CNCs to create its narrative, and in the case of political ideologies, this means essentially turning the narrative into a platform, and then into policy if such a movement achieves power in a nation.  This formula is called NPP, and it is integral to how a group forms as well as how it evolves.  Nazis had this process as well, as they didn't appear out of a vacuum either.  And, that leads to a couple of issues I have had to address during the whole course of composing this dissertation. 

Nazism is an evil ideology, and in general it is looked at critically as it should be.  The problem though is that having a critical approach to an evil ideology like Nazism can take for granted that it was not just the ramblings of a few mentally unbalanced psychopaths. While some participants in this movement certainly were psychopaths (Hitler definitely was), there were also ideologues who were constructing a system of thought which led to Hitler and his party coming to power.  I had a professor early in the dissertation process (this was not my Research Director, but another instructor) who basically was dismissive of the Nazis having an organized ideology.  I understand why he was, and in principle I would actually sympathize with him on this. However, the problem was that he didn't think Nazism was a coherent (albeit evil) ideology, and he actually said as much.  I don't know if that is a way of an instructor gauging how serious a student is about their topic or not, but the dismissive aspect of his attitude was not something you would expect from scholarly inquiry.  In a way though, encountering this is sort of a proofing ground for the formal defense of the dissertation later, as part of the reason why it is called a "defense" is that it does compel the author of the dissertation to be able to explain his or her position on the topic, and thus questions should be anticipated as it helps prepare the defense better.  If you are fortunate enough to get a defense scheduled, it means that you are being recognized as an expert on that topic, and thus there is an expectation to know the substance of what you are presenting.  Naturally, after spending a year or more drafting approximately 300 pages of material, as well as reading over it, revising and editing, as well as the research behind doing it all, one should have at least a casual familiarity with their topic. The formal defense is a way for the doctoral candidate to display that. My own dissertation took approximately one year thus far to construct, and I am currently in the revision phase of it now.  In a couple of months, I will possibly be scheduled to defend, and after that a few last-minute edits will make the dissertation ready to present to the university library.  At that point, one can call themselves "Doctor."  If all goes well for me, I will have that distinction by mid-September at the latest. 

So, one question that will inevitably be asked of me is how and why I chose this topic?  To be honest, I have been interested in World War II history since I was a kid and have read extensively on many aspects of it over the years.  At the age of 9, as a matter of fact, I was reading Robert G.L. Waite's psychological history of Adolf Hitler entitled Adolf Hitler: The Psychopathic God which was originally published when I was 6 years old in 1975.  At age 13, I got a copy of William L. Shirer's The Nightmare Years, which was published in 1983 and was a prequel to his better-known work, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, published some 14 years later.  I have also watched dozens of documentaries on the topic, and those have stimulated my interest as well.  Therefore, doing this as the capstone of my whole academic career is a natural choice.  So, what do I hope to do with this after I have the degree and the dissertation becomes published?  Let me now talk about that briefly.

My dissertation on this topic is the academic dimension to my actual work I want to do with this.  There is a bigger reason why Nazism and its "story" are crucial, as many of the ills we see in society now have the same roots in many cases.  That case was made by authors such as Jonah Goldberg, who actually delved into that in his book Liberal Fascism, and less-scholarly but equally significant sources such as Joseph Carr's 1983 book The Twisted Cross and Kevin Abrams' and Scott Lively's 1995 book The Pink Swastika dealt with occultism and homosexuality respectively being part of the Nazi legacy.  While those sources would not be considered "peer-reviewed" by academic standards, they are significant in that they do ask the questions that need to be asked and also challenge academic scholarship to look into the connections more. I had some difference of opinion with my own Research Director when I chose to use such material, but after he saw what I was doing and where I was going with it, he understood and said that essentially it was an important tool as long as I didn't rely on it for the main body of research.  Oftentimes, more popular and/or "conspiratorial" literature, while somewhat editorialized and with a certain view to get across, does provide a rich reservoir of primary source material for research.  Also, the fact that these popular works are well-known and widely read also suggests that they are raising important issues and perhaps they should be taken with some degree of serious interest. Additionally, if one takes the academic research after the doctorate has been conferred and utilizes it for a more focused purpose, that means the research done was productive and thus will maybe stimulate discussion.  Let me go into that briefly in my case. 

If you intend to be a commentator on things such as the book of Genesis in the Bible, social issues such as abortion, transhumanism, and the LGBT agenda, and Darwinian evolution, then knowing what animated Nazism and led to its rise to power is integral to the process.  Many of those big social issues today were also issues that created the Nazis, and the American political Left does share a lot of ominous similarities to the Nazis and the movements they sprang from.  You also begin to see the Nazis in a different light - while the Establishment tries to discredit Christians and political conservatives by lumping Nazis in with the "right-wing," the evidence shows that the Nazis were in reality more left-leaning than right-wing.  As a matter of fact, the Nazis could not even technically be called "conservative" because they were often at odds with who the actual conservatives were at that time in Germany - the actual conservatives were the Monarchists, and in Austria the Monarchists were also very influenced by Catholic spirituality and faith, and not the occultic/mythological worldview that the Nazis and their Volkisch predecessors held to. And, many prominent early Nazis even identified a socialists, hence the name "National Socialist Party."  Looking at movements such as BLM, Antifa, and the campus riots going on in support of terrorists like Hamas today, the similarities between them and the earliest Nazis are eerie.  Now, even overt antisemitism has become a tenet of "leftist woke" protesters today, and that should cause us to have red flags raised.  Educating others about this complex topic is integral, and it is the reason I chose the topic for my dissertation.  In future posts, I want to begin maybe delving into all that from a less-scholastic perspective, as I feel it will bring valuable insight into current discussions.

Any rate, that is my update on the dissertation process.  Very soon, I will have the privelege of having the title "Dr." in front of my name, and it also means that a "career" of almost 50 years as a student off and on will finally be completed.  If you are a fellow person of faith, I covet your prayers as I tackle this home stretch, and thank you from the bottom of my heart in advance.  Have a good remainder of your week, and will see you next time. 

Refocusing as Therapy

 

I wanted to write something a bit more positive, as the past few visits have been somewhat emotive.  It is just that as I am writing this even now a lot of stuff is going on in my life, much of which I don’t have any plausible solution for.  So, writing in many ways is an encouragement.  And it is also why today I wanted to write this, as it touches upon another issue related to my own experience.

In his book, Leisure: The Basis of Culture, Catholic philosopher Josef Pieper makes the case that leisure is integral to the human experience.  By “leisure,” Pieper is not speaking of the cardinal vice of sloth – in reality, the contrary is true.  Recently, when I was facing a huge issue that almost cost me my home, I learned an important lesson about this which I believe is also a point Pieper is trying to communicate to his readers.  The realization I had was that I needed to stay focused on the task and not let circumstances paralyze me.  For instance, I have a dissertation to finish, and am in the final revisions of the manuscript before being scheduled to defend it later in the summer.  Therefore, being focused on the bigger picture and not letting present trials derail me is essential.  I also am responsible for the upkeep of my home – I have a menagerie of pets to care for, a lawn to keep mowed, etc.  Last week, when I was really feeling some emotional duress over a circumstance which has been beleaguering me for months, I decided to stick to routine and mow my grass.  Now, mowing is not one of my favorite chores by a longshot – it exerts a lot of effort to even mow a small yard like mine is. And, as a younger man, I used to be a professional landscaper and worked at a retirement park in Florida where I had to mow in excess of 60 lawns a week, but at 54 now I am not quite in the same shape I was in when I was 23.  However, when I was mowing my grass last week, it actually felt therapeutic to me, and although I was physically exerted from the task, I felt better inside. I get the same feeling as I work on my dissertation now too – there is a satisfaction one gets from accomplishing something.  And, that is what I wanted to write about this week, as it sort of is a bit of a life lesson for me that I feel should be shared.

“Work” is a word that is often treated on the same level as the F-bomb by so many people.  The thought of investing work and labor into something is often exhausting in itself.  If you remember the old Dobie Gillis sitcom for instance, you will recall Bob Denver’s wacky beatnik character Maynard G. Krebs yelping in distress when the word was mentioned, and it made for a hilarious story line in that show.  The thought of having to work evokes things – we don’t want our body to be strained or pained from the labor, we don’t have the patience to work toward the result because we are interested in the final product rather than the process, and our concupiscent nature is rather resistant to work.  But, in all honesty, work is actually good for us.  In Genesis 3:19, as a result of the Fall, God decreed to Adam that “by the sweat of your brow you will eat.”  This is traditionally understood to be a curse, but is it really?  You have also heard the old adage “idle hands are the devil’s workshop,” right?  It goes along with this passage in Scripture and gives us a new perspective on work.  Rather than a curse, work should be seen as a protection for us – imagine in this world if you didn’t have focus and standards, things would be boring.  Sure, there are mundane, unsavory, and other aspects of work that we don’t necessarily enjoy, but again, it is the end result – we are rewarded.  Also, think about what no work would do – our minds and spirits have to be stimulated, and if nothing does that, then our proclivities to create and have activity will not be channeled properly and the result is that we end up in trouble.  Bored people end up in several unfavorable situations – they can get sick from inactivity, they begin to do naughty things due to boredom, and they will ultimately become a burden upon their own society. As much as we fantasize about sleeping in until noon on a lazy Saturday, or lounging on a beautiful beach in a hammock, these are but temporary pleasures.  After a while, we have to do something.  Proper rest is essential, but excessive inactivity is not.  Oddly, there are times actually when in work we may actually find rest!  Let’s unpack that paradox a bit.

One of the things Pieper talks about in his book is something called Acedia.  Pieper defines this term in his book as “despair from weakness” on page 44, and what he means by this is quite simple. Acedia is an enslaving condition in which man obsesses over something, and it does not necessarily as it has been interpreted mean that one is aggressively seeking career goals over anything else (although it can mean that too).  The feeling of being overwhelmed by a problem and obsessing over it to the point it paralyzes your own daily life is really what acedia is, and in that regard it is a type of slavery as well as a form of idolatry.  Sitting and obsessing over a problem doesn’t solve the problem – if it is out of your control, you need to do two things.  First, a trust in God is essential.  This is not as easy as it sounds, as over the years I have gotten into some one-sided battles with God over situations I felt powerless against, and it is a human thing to do that in all honesty. Trusting in God is a daily effort, and it doesn’t come overnight.  But, you know you are on the right track when despite the circumstance, there is something deep inside you that just says “it’s gonna be OK.”  That feeling is one we should take seriously, as it could be divine direction.   Secondly, one mustn’t lose focus. This means that despite circumstances, one must keep up with their tasks at hand and not let fear or despair paralyze them.  This is why even mowing the grass is technically a form of rest, as one is focusing on the task at hand rather than the circumstance they are facing.  And, speaking from experience, it does help tremendously.  Work, in this case, may be our saving grace rather than a curse.  The strength God has given men in particular is being able to not let adversity control one’s life, and even in the face of overwhelming odds, you keep looking ahead and focused on your life responsibilities and routine tasks.  Some would call this self-discipline, and it could be that I suppose.  However, there is more to it than that.  It is in many ways also a type of spiritual warfare.  When the enemy is trying to derail you with adversity, your persistence in maintaining order and discipline in life is a lethal weapon.  It is telling Satan that you don’t have time to waste on his tricks and deceptions, as there are more important things to do.  And, that is another aspect of this discussion.

Having come out of the Pentecostal tradition, the topic of spiritual warfare was a common theme in sermons, televangelist rants, and reading material.  This is one reason why Frank Peretti became a very successful Christian author, as many of his books dealt with that specific topic.  Many Bible passages are used in relation to spiritual warfare – Ephesians 6 comes to mind, as does James 4:7.  This second passage is one I want to talk about in relation to this topic.  When studying this verse, it has two components to it:

1.      Submission to God

2.      Resisting the devil

Notice that these are connected to each other.  By submitting to the will of God, often that is resistance to the devil.  But, there is more to it than that too.  Submission to God means we do what God guided us in Scripture to do, and being diligent in our work is a huge part of that.  If we manage to do that, then God will make sure we are focused on him and not on the enemy, and thus the enemy is resisted by that mere action.  So, when Satan tries to make you feel depressed because you cannot meet the monthly rent due to a reduction in income, mow the grass.  Mowing the grass, as mundane and routine as it is, in this case does become an instrument of spiritual warfare.  Spiritual warfare then is not just about loudly rebuking evil spirits or performing exorcisms – it has a less mystical and more practical side as well.  If we start maybe viewing meaningful work as a weapon against the enemy, many of us may appreciate it more. 

The same is true of more long-term goals.  Maybe you are pursuing that Ph.D. you always wanted to earn, and God opened up a door to do that.  But, in the course of the four years working on that, you face unemployment, bills piling up, and even opposition from some family members.  Yet, you stay the course and excel in your efforts. When you graduate from your program with that 3.9 GPA, you have won a victory of sorts despite the odds.  And, as a result, the enemy is defeated and the overcoming you experienced out of this whole thing makes the win even more special, as your efforts were worth it.  This is why also you should never give up, despite the circumstances of life.  This too is actually a type of spiritual warfare, as Satan does not want us to succeed nor does he want us to be fulfilled.  Therefore, he throws a lot of garbage at us.  But, when we can dodge the missiles and forge on, we will win in the long run.  Please don’t confuse this with the “blab it and grab it” nonsense of people like Kenneth Copeland either, because it is definitely not the same.  In that type of theology, any adversity is always looked at as “hidden sin” or “lack of faith,” and thus you always have to be farting rainbows to be a true believer in the eyes of characters like Kenneth Copeland.  That is not realistic, nor is it even Biblical.  In many cases, God allows the adversity to strengthen us, and we can view it in that context as a test to see how we overcome those adversities.  Life is not promised to be easy, and you will not always fart rainbows while riding unicorns, despite how many books Joel Osteen sells trying to tell you otherwise.  God often uses adversity – which can come from Satan – to build our personal character, and it can be painful at times for sure.  But, fruit will be produced, and that fruit will be sweet despite the bitterness of adversity.  And, that is why work is a blessing in many instances rather than a curse – work can be a type of salvation (not in the eternal sense that Christ’s Passion represents though) and we may actually be thankful for that one day as well.

This will conclude my thoughts on the issue, and if you are struggling, it is time to utilize true leisure in the sense that Josef Pieper and others write about it and focus your energies on what matters more, not on problems that can cripple you.  In doing the work too, your mind is active, and you may actually get inspiration for a solution to a problem while pushing a lawn mower across your back yard.  Have a good week everyone.

Toxic Relatives and Other Woes

 Family is a bedrock of civilization - without the family, basic social structure is not possible in society.  But, there is a fundamental problem with this.  Not all families are equal, and indeed, there are times when some family members may do more harm than good.  How does one navigate those treacherous waters?  I wanted to talk about that and a few other things today, as it has some very strong relevance to my own life right now. 

I mentioned that prior to a divorce, I was married for 28 years.  One of the biggest issues throughout the course of that marriage (which also was a contributing factor in our divorce) was dealing with certain of my in-laws.  My ex-wife (with whom I am actually still close despite no longer being a married couple) comes from a fairly large family.   She is one of six kids from a large Midwestern family of primarily Polish/German origins. My ex-wife was the youngest of her siblings, and as a result over the years she had an interesting relationship with all of her older siblings.  For me, this was a radically different concept, as I was an only child.  However, I was more than willing to adopt my in-laws as family of my own, but unfortunately a number of them were openly hostile toward me before I even met them.  There are some details I will get into momentarily but let me just say this especially to my younger readers who may have recently gotten married or are contemplating marriage.  In-laws can be a blessing or a curse.  There is a reason for instance why for many years popular TV sitcoms often made as part of their plot lines an almost adversarial relationship between a man or a woman and the mother-in-law: it happens, believe it or not.  But, it is not just with the parents that issues can exist, but even with the siblings of one's spouse, and sometimes that is even more intense.  Growing up, the adversarial in-law dynamic rarely existed in our neck of the woods, as often the people who got married to each other generally had grown up together and therefore everyone knew each of the families.  I have seen mothers-in-law treat their daughter's husbands like their own sons, and it ended up being a beautiful extended family dynamic.  Had I married someone from my own hometown, no doubt that same dynamic would have existed for me too and I would have had a happier marriage and maybe even have been a grandparent and still in love with my spouse today.  But, as life happens, I was one of the people who unfortunately married into a family with a whole different set of values than I grew up with, and as a result almost from day one of my ex-wife's and my marriage, we had issues.  I don't blame my ex for this either - frankly, she was in the awkward situation many times of having to navigate through contrived family drama and I don't envy that at all.  No spouse needs to be put in a position where they are being pulled this way or that by their spouse or their family.  That will ultimately create some serious trust issues, and in time it can drive a couple apart - my ex and I unfortunately experienced that, and we both still have scars from a myriad of inflicted wounds.  Having experienced that, I now want to share some things with you that maybe will be either an encouragement or a bit of direction when you are catching flak from hostile in-laws.  I will begin by telling the story of my own experience in this regard.

As I mentioned, my ex-wife comes from a very large family - her mom and dad brought six kids into the world.  A tragic thing happened when my ex was still relatively young, and that was that her father - whom she really thought a lot of - died as the result of a tragic motorcycle accident.  After this happened, her family just sort of disintegrated.  Two of her older sisters who were already at that point adults ended up going off and making careers in their own respective fields, and while they were very successful at that, it also made them very prideful and they wanted to gain as much power over the rest of their family as was possible.  Their attitudes were such that some of their cousins nicknamed them "The Queens," and they became a very nasty thorn in the flesh for their other siblings and their mother as well.  About 26 years ago, my ex's other sister went through a tragic divorce - the story behind that was very intense and it was sad, and it took years for that particular sister to overcome a lot of the fallout of that.  Now, as for these "Queens," they have a nasty habit of trying to swoop in and take control of things they are not being asked to be involved in, and much like two ravenous vultures circling a rotted wildebeest carcass on the African savannah, these two will resort to actually kicking someone while they are down.  While their other sister was still stinging from what had happened in her life, these two buzzards started essentially attacking her for no good reason, and they even threatened to have her committed to a looney bin.  They gossiped about their own sister to their friends, and they made some very vicious lies and accusations against her that honestly were so sick that it is even hard to imagine the lack of empathy those two possessed.  The sister that was targeted was very hurt and wounded by these other two, and she eventually passed away never resolving the issue.  The two buzzards, on the other hand, never acknowledged their guilt, and they never really had a transformation of their own hearts.  And, those two had another co-conspirator who worked with them, and that was their brother - he at times was as bad, if not worse, than they were.  There is yet another dimension to their behavior which made this more shocking, and I want to talk about that now.

The "Queens" and their brother (I called him the "Golden Boy") have also projected a lot of hostility toward me over the years, and they actually hated me in such a way that it defies logic.  The ironic part of this is that all three of them claim to be Christians, yet in their actions they act more like agents of Satan himself.  All three are always using religious jargon - "Golden Boy" has even adopted a sanctimonious tone when he talks which is frankly nauseating - and they also hate Catholics, and the oldest sister of this trio will jump on any fad that blows through American Evangelicalism and she doesn't manifest the spirit of someone who sincerely follows Christ.  People who know them are turned off by their religious act because most can see through it.  I actually call the oldest one "Pope______ (name withheld for confidentiality compliance)" because she sets herself up as the ultimate religious authority in her family - in all honesty though, she lacks even basic knowledge of both theology and Biblical literacy, and it shows in her attitude.  In all honesty, if I were her - she is approaching her 69th birthday in a couple of months - I would be doing some serious auditing of my life and re-evaluating a few things.  The other "Queen" and the "Golden Boy" are also approaching their mid-60s as well, and they also should maybe rethink a few things.  This false religiosity is something I have seen in people before, and I devoted a whole chapter to it in my recent book. The lingo, the attitudes, and the crass lack of empathy they display are contradictory to anything remotely and genuinely Christian, and it is one reason I will refuse fellowshipping in any way with them.  I don't know if any of you have encountered these types, but if you do, get as far away from them as you can, because they are venomous snakes who will poison your soul if you allow them an open door into your life.  I know this was harsh, but it needed to be said.  These individuals may have their pastors fooled, they may have their friends fooled, but many of their own family see how they really are, and they just do not look that great in the eyes of their own blood relatives, much less their in-laws.  Ultimately though, it is God who will judge them if they don't fix all that, and if they continue on that trajectory, his words to them at the Final Judgment will be harsh - "Depart from me, for I never knew you."  That is a sobering thought which should be something we all keep in mind, and especially as one gets older, pondering that question should be part of the package.  All three of these people actually though hold to this idea of "once saved, always saved," an idea they incorporated from Calvinism and that is in reality bordering on heretical.  Oddly though, for someone they don't like, even if that person is more sincere in their faith than they are, it is easy for them to consign such a person to hell essentially and incorporates a phrase from popular Evangelicalism that means something different than it suggests - the phrase is "I'm praying for your salvation," but what that really means is "I hate your stinking guts."  People like them have a hard time imagining that someone they despise so much could actually be in heaven, because just like on earth, they exclude others who don't share their own sentiments or who they personally dislike.  Thankfully, God is bigger than that and far beyond the prejudices of fake religionists - he loves all and offers salvation to all who accept him. The problem is maybe the bitterness and unforgiveness they tenaciously cling onto in regard to people they personally don't like, and the opposite may be true for them.  Their enemies that they hate and despise may make it to heaven before they do.  The heaven they constructed within their own minds is thankfully not the true place of eternal reward, and thankfully that is the case - heaven would be a lonely place for them if they had the say-so over who gets into it.  And, in all honesty, a "heaven" of their construct is not something I want to be part of anyway - I want the real thing and not the wild utopian nonsense these "arbiters of salvation" carry around in their heads.  The bottom line is that fake Christians like the "Queens" are anything but Christian - if anything, they are in reality unwitting tools of Satan to destroy vulnerable people they cross paths with.   And, that leads to a personal story.

There is no question that the past four years or so have been perhaps some of the most challenging I have faced in my life.  After losing my marriage, my parents, a lot of my sources of income, and so much else, I have frankly taken a beating.  My ex and I though remain close, and she too has gone through some serious storms.  Recently, one of those came into her life, and she attempted to reach out to the "Queens" and the "Golden Boy" to get some help.  Now, family is supposed to be there for you, and judgment and condemnation, especially when one is already dealing with so much, is not warranted and can even cause more harm.  The response she got back from them was one of the most nasty and critical screeds I have ever heard from someone who is supposed to be a blood relative.  The three of them "conferred" to "prayerfully" consider my ex's need, and then they sent this long list of demands to her about needing to do this, and that, and they even tried to drag me into it (and after my divorce, they have no right nor business bothering me) by attacking my character.  Fortunately, another solution was found, and their help was not accepted thank goodness - God never wills for someone to sell their souls to Satan for help. These people seem to revel in the chance to control and manipulate everything in another's life, and they depersonalize even their own blood kin.  It is toxic, destructive, and it violates the dignity of personhood and individuality of another.  It also is cruel in that it really kicks a person while they are down in the first place, and far weaker people who have been attacked in this way (including by them) have been driven to suicide or a mental breakdown. In all honesty, I contemplated initiating a defamation suit against these three for their attitudes, and to be honest, that may be an option. While often it is a better option to be the "bigger person," there comes a point where an attacker will overstep boundaries and a lesson for them is merited.  So, I told my ex flat-out that if my name was brought up in a defamatory way again, I would plan on pursuing a legal injunction against them to shut them up once and for all.  Altruism is good in some cases, but there comes a point with certain individuals where the altruistic approach no longer is feasible - a more strident course of action to let the bullies know they can't do what they are doing any more needs to be implemented to give them a life lesson.  I am hoping it does not come to anything like that, but I am to the point where I am just sick and tired personally of putting up with bull guano from people like this, and I am ready to make my own stand against it. We will see what happens. 

Many people who attack others based on their own issues don't understand the experiences of the targets of their attacks.  They resort to personal defamation, accusations, and even gossip to justify their own bloodlust against their enemies.  I dealt with this a couple of weeks back in my mini-lesson about bearing false witness, and what my former in-laws have done is a classic case of this sin.  They don't know anything about me, nor have they attempted to get to know me over the years, yet they resort to these nasty attacks and faulty judgments to condemn me.  I have been through too much, and have also accomplished a lot, and to be honest their vitriol means nothing to me and nor should it.  But, when you are already facing other issues in your life, the last thing one needs is a bunch of micromanaging, venomous human buzzards trying to pick you apart when you are trying to recover from other adversities.  It means that the individuals engaged in such behavior lack empathy, grace, and even love for anyone outside themselves and their elite circle of groupthink.  In this case, my former in-laws were blessed with a pretty good life - they don't know the struggles others face, and they frankly don't care unless it means a tax write-off for them or something.  People like that can never be true servants, and in all honesty it also makes whatever Christianity they claim to have very sterile and weak on compassion but extremely heavy on judgment and self-righteousness.  If many of them were put into the same situations I have had to encounter over the years, they would not be able to survive.  They lack character also, because character is built through being able to overcome adversity and challenges in life.  I am - in a correct way - proud of where I came from, how I overcame many obstacles to get to where I am now, and what I have accomplished.  I have to remember and remind myself that we will always have enemies - not everyone will love us, and there is always someone out there ready to attack whether they have valid reasons or not.  The thing is, we cannot let our enemies destroy us like they want to, and we press on despite their venom and we overcome them too.  My former in-laws are my enemies - they have declared themselves as such, and they circle like the buzzards they are to try to pick me apart when they see an opportunity to attack any vulnerability. But, the best way to shield the vulnerability is to do as I have talked about over the past couple of weeks - recollection and self-assessment, as well as staying the course even when things get overwhelming.  We don't give our enemies an open door, and we don't let them dictate to us our own success or anything else.  Again, as a preacher said years ago and I fully live by, "our present position does not dictate our future potential."  May those be words to live by.

Thank you for allowing me to share again this week, and will see you next time!