Since the last, the first Mises University was last summer about this time, and since the, since that, since that event, we've had, we've gone through cataclysmic changes in the world, and the, what we've seen, I think, in this last part of last year, and continuing this year, is the most exciting event in the 20th century, certainly in my lifetime, I think in the 20th century, namely the total revolutionary collapse of socialism dash communism. And it was just, it was just fantastic, and that's part of the, part of the case for optimism about the future, excuse me, is the, is the fact that something happened, which nobody, nobody had predicted what happened in any sort, at least at that time, in that sort of way, is that we had a totalitarian monolith, one, one friend of mine claimed about two, three years ago that communism has succeeded in brainwashing all the people, all their subjects, so they created a new socialist man, the man that they were trying to achieve, and therefore everything was hopeless. And typical of this person is he's not exactly a very good prophet, and shortly after the, his article was written, you know, came the beginnings of the whole collapse of communism. And one of the great things about it, in addition to the fact that it shows that the spirit of freedom cannot be wiped out in mankind, is that it shows the power of ideas, you know, that it's very difficult, we tend to get pessimistic sometimes, some people do, some laggards, some of the faint of heart, because here we're pouring forth ideas, and Mises, for example, I'll get to that in a minute, that, well, there's life that's fighting for freedom, and opposed to tyranny and socialism, and you think, well, how can ideas affect history? And we're locked in, you know, that's what we all know about the public choice trap. The public choicers who tend to be free market people are trapped in this extremely gloomy pessimistic world outlook, namely that special privileges, of course, as we all know, special privileges out to shaft us 24 hours a day, they're constantly working for lobbying and special privileges and monopoly and contracts and all of that. And the rest of us, the consumers, the average person, is not interested in any one particular focus, like the sugar market or the grain market or whatever, 24 hours a day, and therefore, the consumers quote rationally ignorant, ignorant unquote, and uncaring about these particular fields and areas, and therefore, it's inevitable that special privileges always went out, and tyranny and statism went out, and that's it. There's no hope. And every person, since every person is only interested in their narrow, short-run economic interests, there's no way of getting out of this trap. George Stegler, for example, the distinguished dean of Chicago School and being a mix of one of the two deans at least, the view was that ideas have no influence on history whatsoever. I mean, since if everybody's writing in sort of a vacuum or writing for each other, other professors, and there's no point to any of this as far as affecting history goes. And coming from a story of economic thought, it's kind of a depressing picture. So why are you doing all this? None of this has any impact. So what we find out here are dramatic examples of the exact opposite. In other words, here was a communist, he was the communist system, totally locked in, let's say a legend monolith, special privileges of nomenclatura, totally dominant. Everybody had to have to work for the state, everybody's lives were organized by the state and commanded by the state. And therefore, it seemed to be no hope. And obviously something, and here's a situation of people like Ludwig von Mises, for example, Etienne Labeau of Tee, David Hume of Ludwig von Mises always kept insisting that in the long run, ideas are the things that account. It's not short-run economic interests. It's the ideas held by the public that determine historical events. No government has, however much force they command, however much instruments of terror they use on the population, no government can last any length of time unless the public supports it. The majority of the public endorses it one way or the other for whatever reason. And this seemed to be outmoded in the days of totalitarianism, the days when the government has always read instruments of torture and high technology at their command. How can the average person resist this? And you know, we've all read Orwell's 1984, of course, it's a very gloomy picture. Everything is shot. Everything is finished. The totalitarian elite will win out. And then at the beginning of all this process, Ludwig von Mises in 1920 wrote his famous article on economic calculation of socialist Commonwealth, beginning of this whole monstrous collectivist process of 20th century, and he said, it's not going to work. In other words, in addition to the moral ideas, the moral failures of socialism and the, and all the other and the political, philosophical failures and sociological failures, it's ain't going to work. Socialism is impossible, if you put it, and cannot plan a modern industrial system. It's going to fall apart, can't calculate. And this was allegedly rebutted. The socialists, by the way, in those days took this very seriously. This is the first time that they come to their attention. There's a problem, other than the incentive problem. You know about the incentive problem. Everybody acknowledged that from the very beginning of socialism, even before socialists. And the great socialist experiment of the Soviet Union was established. The center problem is, if everybody's equal, if everybody takes according to his needs and gives according to his ability, who's going to take out the garbage? Who's going to do the dirty work? What's going to happen? And the answer, basically, if you think of the socialist was, we will create, socialism will create a new socialist man, which will be cheerful and robotic, and dedicating his whole life for the service of the state apparatus. And essentially means that, look, even setting that aside, whether or not you can do that, even having a bunch of robots would shifly rushing to obey the commands of the state. What will the state be able to tell them? What will the state tell them to do? How will they be able to plan and calculate, and where some production should be established, and what processes should be used, and what combinations and so forth? They said they can't do it, because there's no free market on the means of production. There's no genuine market which establishes a genuine price system, and therefore they won't know their course, they won't know if they're doing well, or badly, and hopefully they'll fall apart. Socialists taking this very seriously, tried to refute it. We had about 20 years, or 15 years of debate back and forth, especially in Europe where Mises, of course, was published. The conclusion which was acceptable by every right-thinking economist by late 30s was, that's okay, we can have a market socialism, we can total managers to play, play market, and so forth and so on. This was generally accepted by the establishment, and everybody sat back, well that problem was disposed of, they don't have to worry anymore, socialism is okay, we just have this artificial market, so-called market, and Mises kept refuting that in human action, and but the economic establishment, so to speak, determines the whole problem was over, don't worry about it, socialism can do it. Well here we are, and at the end, one of his last articles in his life, Oscar Longa, a monstrous little article called The Computer on the Market, really refuted his whole approach, he had set on his economic theory of socialism, we don't have to worry, socialism doesn't have to worry about calculation, we just have a phony market, we have trial and error, and we can do it very easily, and then in 1963, just before he died, he said, we don't have to worry, now if I was writing my answer to Mises and Hayek today, I'd simply say, look we have a computer, a great new institution, great new mechanism, which will plan everything in two seconds, in fact it's better than the market, I don't have to worry about it, and then he passed on. At any rate, we now find in Eastern Europe and Soviet Union, a fantastic demonstration of vindication of Mises' whole approach, the whole thing collapsed, it turns out socialism is indeed impossible, and popping up from this rubble, we found a whole enormous, I mean unbelievable, unbelievable to all of us, enormous outcropping and outpouring of Mises, Hayekians, all over Eastern Europe and Soviet Union, and one of the physical embodiments of that, of course, was here this week, wonderful Yuri Maltsev, I'm sure you've all met, and here he is, he's now honored on the Soviet Union as a prophet, and they want him back, come back and help us plan and so forth, of course, Yuri's too shrewd for that. To me, one of the most moving, and this is by the way an example of how the Mises' Institute works, one of the most moving examples of both of Mises' Institute and this unbelievable desocialization occurred this spring, April or May, when Mises' Institute put on a desocialization conference in Washington, and it was like a people's international, we had a discussion of a planet, socialist planning in Eastern Europe, Yuri talked about the Soviet Union, and Hans Hoppe talked about Germany, and we had a great guy, he was a Polish-American, emigrated from Poland in the early 80s, talking about the Polish planning, and we also had a top economist from Lithuania, it was a very moving, one of the most moving experiences I've ever had, because everybody thought the Russian tax would be moving in about any day, and we had a Lithuanian economic delegation, not worried, not seemingly not worried about the tanks at all, what they want to do, how do you privatize, how do you get to a total privatization, total free market, how do you do it? Interesting question, it's a question of course, that orthodox economists have never thought about, because they never thought what happened, never, and only these millions of dollars that have been poured into anti-communist think tanks over the last 40 years, for 45 years or so, figuring out about missile weights and throw weights and who should bomb, who's missile first and where and so forth, the whole thing seems to be, right now you're looking back at it, seems to be like a 16th, looking back at the 16th century, the whole world has changed in one year, and the whole through way thing looks like a fantastic waste of resources poured into this stuff, and in the midst of all this anti-communist research, nobody, as far as I know, none of these think tanks, none of these anti-communist foundations or whatever, nobody ever sat down and thought, well what would happen if the Russians suddenly had red human action or red Milton Friedman or something, and came to the western economists and said, okay, here's the key, do something about it, we surrender, right? Communism is finished, what do we do next? And none of these guys ever thought about it, because for one thing they thought, they never absorbed the lesson of living on measles, they never absorbed the fact that socialism can't work, and eventually it is going to collapse, and eventually they are going to surrender one way or the other, they are going to ask, what are we going to do, and they had no answer for it, if they are 45 years of anti-communist scholarship. And well what happened to the Lithuanian economists, a whole delegation I think headed by Vice Premier, they were going around the United States, the East Coast, trying to find out, what do we do? And other think tanks, and I might add, what they did was they showed them the great offices, Wookie Talkies and the Plush Carpets, they were of course very impressed with the Lithuanians, but they weren't interested in knowledge, they knew that the West was a great technological shape, how did we apply that here? And only the Measles Institute, a great ideological entrepreneurship of Jeff Tucker, immediately whipped together a prompted one-day conference of a whole bunch of economists lecturing to these Lithuanians on different economic topics, and they loved it, this is knowledge, this is what we came for, we didn't come to admire Plush offices, we knew all about that. And when I was at this Measles Institute conference a little bit, a few weeks later, the first delegation, I'd say it was one of the most moving experiences of my life, because all these people talked about the different aspects of Eastern Europe, and the Lithuanian gentleman who thought he couldn't speak English well enough, obviously he did, but he was hesitant about speaking English to the group, he spoke in Russian, and he already stood next to him translating into English, marvelous, because he was the Lithuanian Russian people's free market solidarity, while Soviet tanks were threatening to march in. And one thing the Lithuanian economist said, he said, well, this was wonderful to hear today, because Professor Semmelson at MIT told us we should have a central bank, the first thing we should do is establish a central bank of Lithuanian, and we did that, now we find out today we should repeal the central bank, we're going to do it, not going to have any central bank. So he's an exact, you know, a beautiful example of influence of ideas on history. And he said that, well, that's he said, one thing I should say is that the remark before, that the whole, the whole implosion, the whole revolutionary implosion in Eastern Europe shows the powerful influence of ideas, because they simply said, not to you, we're not going to obey orders anymore. It was like nonviolent, mass civil disobedience, fantastic scale. And so here we have, as I say, nobody could predict the exact form of this, but here it was like a domino effect, one country topples, communism topples, and the rest of them topple. The, and the form it took was once it's, well, for example in Romania it was a dramatic example, because the troops were shooting and the Ceausescu troops were shooting into the square.  And that was it. At that point, the soldiers turned their guns on the officers and the whole thing. And we had a point where Ceausescu issued orders and nobody listened to them. This is the great libertarians dream, you know, that the guys on the top of ordering and butchering millions of people, all of a sudden they issue orders and nobody, everybody says, that's to you. That's the, we listen to them no more. So we have this impossible thing not to be optimistic when we see this. We're, we're, we're, we have a lot of things to gripe about here. We have a lot of monstrous trends at work and in the United States. When we see what's, what happened with the under totalitarianism, people just said, how will that, we quit. And looking for free market solutions and, and, and the Misesians, Hayekians popping up, it's a magnificent experience. And simply we should never forget, if we ever, ever tend to be pessimistic about trends in the United States, we should realize what they, what happened in Eastern Europe. In 1989, 1990. So in, in looking at this and in looking at the, the victory of freedom in Eastern Europe, I'm not saying all, obviously not all problems are solved. This is unbelievable and fantastic thing we should always remember. Ideas can always con, ideas in the long run can trump interests, can trump economic interests. The, looking back at this, at Mises being the, the originator of this, of the, of the knowledge that socialism is impossible and can't work. I think we should look back on Mises's life and, and, and what happened in the events in the, in the Austrian economics to see, to engage the future, we have to look at what's, what's been happening in the recent immediate past. As I said, after my collectivism was being established, and socialism was being established in the, in the world, in Europe, Mises wrote this article. In addition to that, he was discriminated against, he was, couldn't get a university post, an Austrian paid university post. He got an unpaid post, prestigious but unpaid, which meant, of course, he had to find work elsewhere. Largely because he was opposed to socialism and collectivism, and there were only two kinds of economists or social scientists who received paid university posts in Austria at the time. Either Marxists or Fascists or corporates, that's it. They were the only respectable. Those, those, that was the wave of the future. And the laissez-faire was, was reactionary in the end of the fall and part of the 19th century which was being displaced by the great progressive new century, the 20th century. So in addition to that, the second thing which disqualified Mises from a paid university post was he was uncompromising. He was a great guy. I mean he was, he's sometimes been accused of being personally abrasive. I never saw those of us who studied under him in, in the United States. He was unbelievably sweet. He was, he was constantly urging people, finding research projects for people to do which he usually didn't do, of course, but always coming up with, with ideas and always being unfailingly courteous and, and, and unfailingly and non-bitter about what happened to him. And so here he was and it, but he refused to compromise one iota. In other words, he didn't, he didn't bend with the wind with intellectual winds which all too often happens in the world as we all know. He didn't say, well, let's, let's try to work within the system and say, state isn't as OK, but you should have a little bit of tinkering here and there, like a little currency reform or a little wage reform or something like that. He was absolutely uncompromising and, and kept developing his ideas and his, and his great works. And in the meantime, not having a paid university post, he had a full-time post as a economist, chief economist of the Chamber of Commerce which in Austria was a, quasi, a government agency which were businessmen elected representatives of this Chamber and they would have a staff and they would advise the government. As a result, Mises became the major economic advisor although his advice wasn't listened to very much. He was tremendously respected. So he almost single-handed, he and a couple of friends of his were essentially single-handedly stopped the Austrian inflation which is rampant as well as the German after World War I. Stopped it from a runaway inflation. He stopped it about 1200% or whatever instead of, instead of, you know, becoming one, as in Germany, one quadrillion marks to the dollar but it was only 1200 Austrian shillings whatever, fennigs whatever the currency unit was to the dollar. Later in his memoirs which was written in the midst of his flight from Europe in 1940, he said, now he's looking back on it. He wishes that he hadn't fought it because it was better because it was hopeless in the long run anyway because they just lengthened on the time of the inflation just slowed it down and the result was the part of, you know, the banking crash and collapse in 1931. But as a matter of fact, one of the very sweetest things one of the most charming and moving passages in his book, he said he's always been accused of being too uncompromising. If he only had waffled, he might have been more influential. And looking back on it, he said, no, no, I wasn't hard, I wasn't hardcore enough. I wasn't uncompromising enough looking back on it. I should have been tougher. He comes to the United States as a refugee. Again, guess, no paid academic post in the United States. His fight is tremendous creativity and not an unbelievable, unbelievable area of addition. At a time when every Marxist, semi-Marxist, social Democrat, Menshevik, Trotskyite, whatever, with Horner Knight refugee, got top academic posts, was fed and welcomed at top universities. Fortunately, that time we had but he got a small foundation grant in New York, penniless, small foundation grant to work on two great books which came out a couple of years. Meases, by the way, the sort of person I've got a grant and in two years it was a book. And something many of us try to emulate. And two great books, Bureaucracy, I'm still a magnificent book explaining the difference between working as a profit operation, private profit and loss operation and government operation, which has to be bureaucratic, as he said, and nonprofit organization. I'll get back to that in a minute because there's a whole uncharted area which Austrian economists haven't dealt with and nobody else has dealt with, really, is of the economics of nonprofit organizations. How do they work is it possible for them to be efficient and Meases pioneered in that? And also his book on Nippon and government, which at the time was extremely important and influential because he was the first one to show those days the ruling doctrine here promulgated by Marxist refugee from Europe, Germany, was that Nazism was the simply the last final stage of evil capitalism. And it was a capitalist turn to the Nazis to crush the rising proletariat. And that's the basic explanation of Nazism. And what Meases pointed out was, this is ridiculous, what Nazism really is, is national socialism. It's a form of socialism and collectivism in the German nation. After that, he was really adrift. And what happened was there was a small group of, there's a foundation, small group of conservative and libertarian businessmen who banded together and actually the William Volcker Fund, which is the head of this, the William Volcker Fund is an unsung, forgotten institution which really was like the candle in the catacombs or whatever. It preserved, maintained and fostered over the 1950s and early 60s, late 40s and early 60s, libertarian and conservative scholars. That was a period you have to realize there ain't no such thing as free market economists or social scientists or anything. Everybody was either in the ruling fashion or you either communists or communists following travel or you're a social democrat. That's it. That was the only, that was the range of debate.   So, Harold Luna, the head of the Volcker Fund, was searching around for his first task he felt was the fine of Tate University Post in the United States for Mises and Hayek. Hayek was in England. I had a post in England. Mises had no position at all. The result of which, of this detailed search was he couldn't find a paid university post for either of them, interestingly enough. And in other words, this replicates Mises experience in Austria in us. And Mises, the best he could do for Hayek was University of Chicago Economics Department, rejected Hayek as being reactionary neanderthal and whatever. But they found an unpaid post form in the Committee of Social Thought in Chicago which is a highly prestigious graduate department. But the problem of that is if you graduate with a PhD in social thought, where do you teach? I mean, there are no departments of social thought in any place. So it's very difficult to get a teaching position and do anything with it. Usually they end up at history departments. But it's kind of difficult. You're not a certified a star in, which we all know is very difficult in any field to break through the crust. So but Hayek has an unpaid post. In other words, the Volcker Fund paid for a salary. Hayek's salary in Mises, the Volcker Fund paid for a salary visiting professor at NYU in the Graduate School Business Administration. But the major influence the Mises had was a private seminar which he gave in his every week in the Department of Commerce offices, Chamber of Commerce offices and was a magnet for all the top students in Europe, all the top young social scientists and economists and philosophers in Europe and even the United States in England came to this because this was a great center of research from the early 1920s until 1934. And he tried to replicate this with us in the United States. And unfortunately, I felt very sorry about it because the caliber of the students they were not exactly up to almost Vienna par so it's a foot of very kindly. He was totally uncomplaining that news was pressed on and it was very best to stimulate, as I said, research in students. And this was a period from 19, when he was here from the mid-40s until he died in 1973. It was sort of like, as I said, candle in the darkness. So very few Austrians and very few free market people. Even when the free market became more respectable, there were almost no Austrians. And he, as I say, pressed on extraordinarily productive and extraordinarily cheerful in this whole process. When he died in 1973, just coincidentally, the next year, that was the year of 73, 74 of a great collapse of Keynesianism because that was the first year when the process of so-called stagflation or inflationary recession became evident. It happened before a little bit but it wasn't evident. All of a sudden, 73, 74 is an inflation, 13, 14 percent inflation, so-called double-digit inflation. And at the same time it was a big recession with unemployment and bankruptcies and all the rest of it. What are you supposed to do about this? Keynesian doctrine, of course, is very simple. I mean, the equations are complicated but the practical conclusion is very simple. The government is the great macro-steering wheel or whatever. The economic system is wonderful in the micro-sense, but in the macro-sense it's totally without an anchor, without a rudder. It needs a great helmsman, namely, of course, the government. Provider the government is steered by Keynesian economists. That's, of course, a key. And looking at the controls and the indicators and statistics, if the Keynesian economists finds that it's a recession and prices are falling and all that, you're pumping spending. Usually, of course, meaning government, increasing government budgets. If you find there's a boom and there's prices going up and so forth and inflation, then you take out spending. Namely, almost always, of course, by increasing taxes. Never by cutting the government budget, by the way. This is part of the Orwellian memory whole of original Keynesianism. So you increase taxes by sopping up, quote, excess purchasing power. In other words, we have the excess purchasing power after the government has already inflated the money supply and we've all gotten it. Then we become excessive and they have to sop it up, sop it away again. So sort of a one-two punch to the economy, to the people. So here we have a situation, however, where they had two things happening at once. Inflation, prices are going up and yet there's also a recession. What are you supposed to do? You pump in spending and you take it out. You can't do both at the same time. It's by only equations and computer or whatever. You can't pump in spending and take it out at the same time. I said they were finished.  It doesn't mean they quit. Nobody ever quits. It's one of Rothbard's laws of sociological laws. I have a whole bunch of them which I've evolved over the years. And one of them is nobody quits. It's not an apodictic law like praxeology. And once in a while, somebody does quit. But it's a tremendously good empirical generalization of high predictive value. So it's coherent and it has great predictive value. And anyway, so they hang in there. They try and do their best they can. They pump in a little bit of spending, take out a little bit of spending. Hope if something works. In this situation, in this real collapse of Keynesian, I mean, Keynesian theory had a lot of weaknesses before. Ever since Modigliani's first equations, it became evident that it assumes the wage rates are fixed downward, which nobody really realized before. But a practical political collapse is much more important than unfortunately in real life than theoretical collapse. So with this political collapse, Keynesian, as I say, was really bankrupt. And this begins to dissolve a ruling hegemonic paradigm and people looking around for other answers. Next year, Hayek has an Ogo Prize. And one of the interesting, in tandem, of course, with the left-wing socialist Gunnar Meerdahl. It's not to make it too terrible and reactionary. And the interesting thing, this is a big shockeroo to the economics profession. One thing I want to stress here, I don't know if this illusion any young students here, but economists are almost all obsessed with the Nobel Prize. I mean, there's betting pools in the early fall. Who's going to get it this year? And there's all sorts of stuff going on. Everybody's very interested in the Nobel Prize and who's getting it. Before Hayek, as I remember, all the recipients, almost without exception, were mathematical Keynesians, Keynesian econometric types. And all of a sudden, Hayek gets it.  Nobody had ever heard of him. You see, one of the things about the economics profession, they're not exactly steep in their own history. I mean, if something was written 10 years ago, nobody knows about it, because it becomes, it's part of the model of physics. If economics is a hard science, like physics, which all these people hope and think it is, then physicists don't read 1930s physics unless they're antiquarians, which is what Einstein did or something. Basically, you leave the latest journal article, the latest textbooks, and that's it. I'm going to talk about what some bozo thought 20 years ago. And so, trying to make this, the paradigm in economics, results in tremendous loss of knowledge in the part of most economists. So who's Hayek? How can this guy get an Nobel Prize? Who is he? And then it becomes a resurgence because people look back, they want to find out what did he say and earn him the Nobel Prize and find out, well, this is interesting. I never heard of this. So with this research, unfortunately, some of us conspiracy theorists, this is, of course, prove hypothesis and cherish my many. I don't necessarily hold it, but some of my friends do, is that the point is that Hayek got his Nobel Prize not for this later stuff, not for evolution and rule of law, that sort of thing. He got it for his Misesian business cycle theory, which he had expounded and elaborated in the late 1920s and early 1930s. That's what he got it for explicitly.  It was much more of a compromiser. If you read his Constitutional Liberty, for example, there's pro-planning stuff, pro-status stuff all over it. So at that point, this sort of sparked a regeneration of revival of Austrian economics. It might not be a total causal connection, but certainly is an impressive coincidence that the first Austrian seminar since old Austria occurred, a week-long conference occurred in Royals in Vermont in 1974. Well, all the younger, whatever Austrians there were, were gathered together. It was a wonderful thing, because we all met each other for the first time, mostly.  And Austrian is flourished as, of course, it was a shame that Mises didn't live to see this, and after fighting it all was life for these ideas. And then we had annual conferences for several years after that. It was a big flourishing movement, and Austrianism was becoming known and widely interested in England and the United States. And then something happens, light suddenly goes out. See, the history of thought and history in general is not an onboard operative light, it's a series of glitches. It's sort of like a, I wouldn't say a business cycle, but ups and downs, a zigzag effect. So suddenly there was a big zag after this impressive zig of the late 70s. Something happened, and the Austrian, younger Austrians at the time started saying, well, trouble with Mises is he's too dogmatic, too uncompromising, too extreme. How do you get respectable in the mainstream of economics if you keep pushing these ideas that nobody really likes? We should try to become respectable, we should drop all this stuff about praxeology and laissez-faire and talk about market, market process, whatever. And the dread name Mises begins to slip out of sight. And this is, of course, really replicating in death what Mises had suffered in his life, except this time it was essentially a stab in the back by people who had called themselves Misesians who understood the situation, and then basically sold out, if you could look at it very bluntly, sold out for potential respectability funds, mainstream publications, 10-year and all the rest of it. Well, in this rather red-dyer situation, and it's not an accident, by the way, that the funding sources, almost a single funding source for this whole revived Austrian movement in the late 70s, which was flourishing very nicely, was one person, one billionaire, and the billionaire had a paradigm shift in his head and all the other acolytes, so to speak, or fundees for the billionaire, suddenly, coincidentally, shifted with it into this idea of, and we began to hear, as I say, not only Mises was too extreme and too dogmatic, talk about him, began to talk about synthesis with Marxists. This has been the latest developments in 1980 or so. It's important for Austrians to really have to understand the great contributions of Marx and Lenin and so forth, and we should have a continuing dialogue, as I'm sure Yuri would appreciate this, and fight for the Soviet Union to come to the United States and for Austrians to find out, hey, we should have a synthesis with Marxists, right, let's join in, or a synthesis with nihilism, and there's no truth, how do we know anything is true, almost sort of fashionable, philosophic guff, Marxo-Freudian nihilist guff from the continent, and this became, it was probably the ruling paradigm because the billionaire funder was in favor of it, basically, I don't want to have a simplistic, monocausal analysis here, but that's the way it looks to me. In this situation, this is a rather pretty grim and depressing situation where Austrianism has really collapsed, but Austrianism, as I said in the first, last week, is really Misesianism, in this situation, one person decided to do something about it, this person is Lou Rockwell, this person is responsible for everything we have today. Well, Lou had been, all these other people, the Austro-Marxists, so if you want to call them, were moving to Washington, and I like Washington, I thought this is where the power is, this is where you can get goodies and respectability. Lou had spent a lot of time in Washington, hated it and wanted to get out, both spiritually and physically, okay, and he decided that he wanted to found Mises Institute, which was the dream of his life and he decided this is the time to do it, and he wanted to revive the Misesian paradigm, the name of Mises and all the rest of it, and he went to the fore-said billionaire, and he thought it was a Misesi, and he said, well, I want to find a Mises Institute, and he was ordered not to do it. Kind of interesting point here, how could he be ordered, since he was an employee of this person? He was ordered not to do it, you can't do it. Of course, Lou, if you know Lou at all, doesn't accept these kind of orders very neatly, so Lou went ahead with no donations, no endowment, no pledges, no big daddy, billionaire, and nothing, just an idea and tremendous energy and organizational genius, entrepreneurial genius of the highest order. And as a result, we have all of us today, we have a fantastic Mises Institute, and we have just to run down some of the things that Misesi is doing, which I think is important, it publishes a quarterly, oh, by the way, in addition to the, it publishes a quarterly annual journal, the review of Austrian economics, which is now going semi-annual, by the way, I'm happy to report, it's, and by the way, the Austrian journal was boycotted by these aforesaid ex-Austrians, organized the boycott, which happily was not successful, and it has, it publishes a quarterly Austrian economics newsletter, which is sort of like a quarterly discussion magazine in Austrian economics, it publishes a monthly free market, which is a marvelous, for application of Austrianism in general, and extremely successful, and it publishes books, which are getting even more, we're gonna be even more books in the future, talking about the future of Austrian economics. Cluer publishers, which have taken over the review of Austrian economics, is extremely excited about the future of Austrian economics, about Misesi Institute, and the future of Austrian economics, not because they're ideological buddies, I don't know what they are or not, but they see it as a great marketing, great prospect for the future, and publishes a very astute in this, and they're particularly quite astute. I mean, if they found, for example, Hans Hoppe's Theory of Capitalism Socialism, which they published, they were amazed, let's say, under Misesi Institute auspices, they're amazed that he was a best seller, an academic best seller, being translated in many languages, so this deeply moves the Cluer people. So, and we have, we're gonna have three books a year, I think Cluer wants to publish, or Misesi Institute books, we have all sorts of books we publish in our own pamphlets, monographs, and conferences we've been putting together for a long time, and building up to the present one. Also, special conferences, like the Desocialization Conference I mentioned last year, conferences on Keynes, on Marx, on the Federal Reserve System, and only these conferences are going into books, in other words, we believe in the contrast of many other institutions, there's another institution which I won't mention, which is believes that every conference is an end in itself. You've got a conference, and everybody should go home, and nothing should be published out of it. Sort of, and we believe quite the opposite, every conference should build on previous conferences. You have a conference, everybody loves it, they go home, and they publish books out of it, and it keeps the whole movement going, and the idea is going. And, in addition to that, we have these annual conferences, the summer conferences, and the interesting thing about that is that there's a certain orthodox mold, you know, things tend to fall in traditional customary molds. The customary molds from about, which started I think in 1977, you have a summer conference for one week, okay? You get four professors, or something like that, around four, and each professor teaches to the whole plenary group, and each one teaches three times, or four times, or whatever. Well, this theater worked pretty well, so everybody sort of fell into this mold. And, what Lou realized a couple of years ago, Lou Rockwell realized a couple of years ago, this is limited, okay? In other words, you've got, you only have four professors, you only have a certain amount of students, everybody gets the same thing. Why not have a university concept? Why not have it so you can have a lot more professors? And we had a lot more, the thing is more professors are coming into the movement, so you have a lot more people growing up into it.  So, why should we have these people also give, and be here, and also give their own particular expertise? In other words, have courses, like a real university, okay? And then we always had a problem in the old days in Austrian courses in the summer, somebody would teach Austrian economics, and the level was always bad. In other words, there'd be all sorts of people there from high school students, the business man, the graduate students, the young professors, and everybody was always griping about the level, because some people thought it was too tough, other people thought it was too easy, how do you get the level, it was okay when they were teaching political philosophy or history, because everybody was more or less the same level. What do you do about economics? And so, Lou got the idea, you separate it, you have elementary courses, you have intermediate courses and advanced courses, you tailor each course to the needs of a particular student, and we wound up with a Mises University concept, which is a blockbuster, it's an unbelievable example of creative ideological entrepreneurship and innovation in this field, a field which is not really recognized as a field, which should be. So we had, and last year was a fantastic success, everybody loved it, and this year even more so, each year is better than preceding one. In this case, the wig theory of history seems to work. And the only thing I don't like about it, in the sense that it's like a real university, you don't see that you want to talk to people, you want to talk to my friends or whatever, oh, sorry, I have to go off to the next class. But that's inevitable as university takes over, so to speak. We have more faculty, more students and different segregation, so to speak, by quality and depth of courses. As a result, people can come back year after year because they can take more advanced courses or different specialties and whatever. The, in addition to that, we have a, by the way, I should say that there's an unexplored field, I think I mentioned the media bureaucracy, unexplored field of economics and non-profit organizations, almost not been worked on. People are interested in what can they work on in terms of economics, here's an area. How do you calculate, it's easy to see how you calculate a profit-making institution, profit and loss, how do you calculate efficiency, how do you make sure that you don't have a bloated organization, it's very difficult. And unfortunately, many ideological organizations, whether libertarian or other, tend to become bureaucratic, they tend to be overweighted with dead wood, overstaffed, underproduced, underproductive. The quality has to go down, the emphasis has to be on show rather than content. And what Lou has done as part of his entrepreneurial magnificence, I think, what he's done is, is to have an organization here, which has the highest marginal productivity of any organization in the country, or more none, a non-profit organization in the country. In other words, fantastic output, every person here has a very tight ship. I mean, the staff is about, I don't know, one third of any comparable organization. Each person is dedicated, extremely competent, and works very hard, and as you probably all know this week. And the result of this is the growth of the Mises Institute, both in content, and quality, and in quantity, and in influence. Essentially, we've beaten the Austro-Niolus and the Austro-Marxists, they're out of the picture, they've had it, and doing it against tremendous odds, in a sense, against the odds of a billionaire opposition. In a sense, it's very much like Mises conquering in the long run over the odds that he faced. And one interesting thing about it, and also about Mises' strategy and general strategy and outlook, we've wanted to form a graduate school in economics, I forget now, it was the 1950s or 60s, somewhere around this dark ages, and Mises was gonna be the president of this graduate school, he was gonna be called American School of Economics, and any system, us younger people were on the board of trustees, because they wanted younger, young blood. I mean, you know it was a long time ago when I was young blood, right? So, and Mises kept saying, well don't forget, as you're doing this high theory and scholarship, don't forget to have continuing lecturers, the businessmen, and the general public. At the time, I didn't really understand that, but why does he keep making this point? But I understand it very well now, especially since Joe Salerno was pioneered and looking back over the Mises' Hayek differences between Mises and Hayek on the economics of socialism, and also on the economics, on the rational versus the irrational of the view of exchange and specialization. The point that Mises was really making was that since he believed that people do change history, that ideas do change history, that people are conscious actors, and their decisions really determine events. It's very important for everyone, not just scholars, not just philosophers and economists, it's important for everyone, all the general public, businessmen and the public understand the importance of the free market, to understand the crippling of the free market as death, I mean, literal sense. It leads directly to the terrible situation in Eastern Europe from which they finally got rid of, getting rid of, so that it's very important, not just to get the high-flown journal articles, it's also equally important to spread the basic truths of free market and laissez-faire, and the evils of collectivism and interventionism, to spread that to the general public and the business. And that was the point. It wasn't just sort of a peculiar whim on the part of Mises, it was rooted in his general strategic theories, the theory of life and the importance of reason and ideas on historical events. The interesting thing about Mises is the more I read them and go back and read the stuff, the greater it looks, I mean, it's fascinating. More insights come in as I reread a human action or socialism or those great works. So looking to the future and looking to what are the prospects for Austrian economics, I think it's inherent in the current situation. Obviously it's not determined by, but certainly we get great leads to what we can expect in the future. Namely, I mean, just look at the fact that in Eastern Europe, the economists of Soviet, Russian, Eastern Europe, Mises and Hayek are revered figures. Nobody reveres Keynes and Galbraith out there. Had it with socialism and statism. They're just trying to figure out how to get to what we've been advocating in all this time. If that's true in a system where human nature is supposedly transformed, obviously it wasn't, it should be also true, of course, in the West and in the United States. We haven't gotten to the socialist stage yet. With the growth of the power of ideas, I really think in the long run, truth wins out. Of course, this could be a very long, too long a run for us to worry about, but I think it's winning out right now in the short run. That's a medium run. I'm gonna put it that way. And we have, with the growth of the influence of Austrianism and Mises Institute, and the prospects look terrific. I mean, with continuing growth, as I said, in quantity and quality. And I think one of the lessons of looking back on the Mises himself and the Mises Institute itself is not the cave in. Not to think that you're gonna, don't sell your soul for a mess of pot-edge, so to speak. That's what you're gonna get, a mess of pot-edge. If that, what happens is that in a long run, which is not very long, these compromises and cave-ins simply don't work. Don't work pragmatically. In addition to the moral aspect of it, they just simply don't work. They're finally repudiated, and whereas if you follow what you believe, not only is it a very joyful thing to do it, you also win out, which I think we're gonna win. Ben Sirin most. Thank you. Thank you.


I've just started the recording. Okay, the recording is on. Let's take a moment to pray and then we'll get started and hopefully others will be able to join the class. Okay, let's pray together. Can I ask, whom should I ask? Rebika? Rebika Mahato. Okay Rebika, can you pray a quick prayer for all of us in the class as we start? I'm not sure Rebika's heard us. Okay, Robert, go ahead please. Father, we come to the Son of Grace, Lord. Thank you for this opportunity, Lord, as we are going to learn about the topic, Lord, we are learning about your word, Lord, that it should be used for the Kingdom expansion and whatever we are learning, it should be an add-on. It should be used for Kingdom expansion for the Gospel sharing, Lord. Thank you for this day you have given us. Thank you for the new month you have given us, Lord. You have water suit the second day of this month, Lord. Thank you for all the blessings you have given us, Lord. As we will be learning, Lord, we thank you for the privileges you have given us, the blessings you have given us. We thank you for the pastor and thank you for all the students. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. Amen. Thank you. Sid, all right, welcome everyone. Thank you for connecting to class. I appreciate everyone joining. So we have been joining through this study on our identity in Christ and today may be our last set of lectures. Let's see. We may be able to finish the final lesson on living the in Christ life. How do we live out of our identity? So that's the plan for today. I just want to talk a little bit about that and we may be able to finish it. Otherwise we'll wrap it up next week for sure. So, so far in this course on our identity in Christ we have, and we will do a quick review as well before we finish, we have a journey through the scriptures, primarily the episodes, looking at what the Apostle Paul, primarily the Apostle Paul shared on who we are in Christ. And so we traced, or we have been tracing key phrases like in Christ, in Christ Jesus, in him, in whom, in the Lord, through him, and so on. And in relation to the believer, of course. So all of this we put together and then we can understand who the believer is in Jesus. What is our spiritual identity and what is the other spiritual inheritance? And so this is reality in the spiritual realm. And so we need to understand this receiver revelation of it. And then of course, the last lesson today which we're going to talk about is, how do we live out of that? It is important to have the revelation. It is important to have that spiritual understanding of our identity and our inhabitants in Christ. But it is also important to learn how to live out of that in everyday life, in day-to-day life, in all the things that we face. You know, there will be different situations and we have to learn to live out of our identity. So in view of that, so that's what we are looking at today. So in view of that, I just want to, you know, take us through several insights that will help us. So that's what we're going to look at in this final chapter on living the in Christ life. So let's go to the notes. Okay. Living the in Christ life. The first thought I want to share with us is that we live out of what has been completed. And we said this in the very beginning, right, that the way God works is, he completes the work in the spiritual realm. And then he tells us to live out of that in the natural, which is the realm that you and I are living. So we know the key scriptures that because we are in Christ, we are a new creation. So we, it's done. All things have passed away. All things have become new. All things are of God. So that's a work that's been completed. It's done. He's made us new creation. And yet, in everyday life, we have to learn to live out of that. And that's what we're trying to answer. And the first thing I want us to understand is to live out of what has been completed. And one way of communicating that is, in this phrase, we are born from above to live from above. So we know in John chapter three, verse one to 13, and I'm not going over this passage because it's familiar for all of us, that we have been born again. We have been born into the kingdom of God. We've been born of the word of God and the spirit of God. And when we are born again, literally that phrase means to be born from above. That's born from heaven. That means we have received life from God. We have received life from above from heaven. So here we are in this natural world, but we have life from above. We have been born from above. And so we have to live in this world out of the life that we have received from above. So we are born from above to live from above. And I think in verse 13 of John 3, let's read that particular verse. John 3 and verse 13. Could somebody please read that for us? John 3 verse 13 is very interesting verse of how Jesus speaks of himself. John 3 verse 13. Could somebody read his loud for us please? Jesus had come down from heaven. Was in his earthly body. What is the description? Oh no, no, no, no, sorry, sorry. I just want us to read the verse. Sorry. The verse, the John 3, 13 scripture verse, sorry. No one has ascended to heaven, but he who, John 3 verse 13. All right, let me read it. How was somebody? But I'll read it. Okay, go ahead. No one has ascended to heaven, but he who came down from heaven, that is the Son of Man who is in heaven. Okay, so just an interesting insight here. What Jesus is saying is, no one has gone into heaven, but the one who came from heaven. That is the Son of Man. So he's talking about himself. And then the last part, who is in heaven? Who is in heaven? Notice that. And I understand that some manuscripts may omit that last part, but it's found in majority of the manuscripts. And it says there who is in heaven. That means he's come from heaven, he is going to go back there, but at this time he's on the earth because he's talking to Nicodemus and the people. And he's saying right now he is in heaven. So he's here on earth, but he's also there. And that's just one place where you find that. But in many other places we find in Scripture where Jesus recognizes that he is on earth, but he's also connected with the Father. He's intimately one with the Father. So just giving a few references here. And Jesus tells him, you are from beneath, I am from above. You're of this world. I'm not of this world. So he's here on earth, but at the same time he's saying I'm from that realm. You are in this world and he's living in this world, but he's yet from a realm that's outside of this world. So we know that when Jesus walked the earth, he was living from that place of union with the Father. So this is what I want to impress on our hearts at the very beginning. Is we live out of the spiritual into the natural. As we live from above, we've been born from above to live from above. We live out of the spiritual into the natural. We live out of the heavenly into the earthly. So that's how we're going to learn to live this life that we have in Christ. And just as, so let's say this now, the spiritual and natural life of the believer. So let's start to understand this whole aspect of, you know, God has completed things in the spirit and he called us to live out of that in the natural. We mentioned this earlier in this study that there's several dichotomies, so to speak, in scripture in relation to the life of the believer. Because you'll find the scripture saying you're complete, but yet you're a work in progress. And I've just given the scriptures here the references. So we are complete, but yet we are being changed. So if we are complete, why do we need to be changed? That's because that completed is in the spiritual and in the natural. We are being changed into what we have already been completed. So the work is completed in the spirit and in the natural, we're being changed into that same image. So it's an apparent dichotomy. Let's understand it. So we are perfected, yet being perfected, you know. So we'll find Hebrews 10 14, we have been perfected and then it says we are being perfected. That means the work is still going on. We are sanctified and yet being sanctified. So in the spiritual, it's done in the natural. I'm living out of that and I'm growing into it, right? I am being sanctified. We are hidden yet visible. The Bible says we are hidden in Christ and yet the Bible says we are naked and nothing is hidden from God. So both are true. My life is hidden with Christ and God. And yet everything is open before God. We are a new creation, yet we are being renewed, you know.  The work is done. Old is gone, yet we are being renewed in our knowledge and into the knowledge of the Lord. We are righteous, but yet we are repentant. That means a righteous man really doesn't need to repent because he's already righteous. But the Bible tells us to do both. We are righteous, yet when we sin, we are repentant. The same thing here. We have been raised with new life. And yet we have to be crucified. So we have new life in our spirit and yet the body, the flesh has to be crucified. We are possessing and yet we are pressing in. So on the one hand we are blessed with every spiritual blessing and yet on the other side we are pressing in to possess our blessing. We are resting yet laboring, you know. So this is very interesting. We have entered into a rest where we have seized from our works and yet we work to serve the Lord. We work on our salvation. We labor in prayer. We wrestle against the enemy. We work our faith and so on. So both are true in the Christian life. And so you will see the first aspect is the spiritual aspect. The second is what's happening in the natural, right? So in the spiritual way complete, and the natural work is in progress and the spiritual way perfected, natural way being perfected and so on. So the key is we must understand in the spiritual work is done but in the natural I'm living out of that and I am joining into it, right? So I'm not striving for it in the sense because God has already done it for you and me. You're living out of that. I am sanctified. Therefore, I live sanctified. You know, we're not trying to become sanctified. He's already made us sanctified. But because we are sanctified, we live sanctified. So why don't we engage with sin? Why don't we, you know, do the wrong things? Well, you are holy. So when you know that you're holy, then you say, look, those things are not befitting a person who is holy. I want to stay away from it. I want to live according to what God has already made me to be, which is holiness in Christ, right? So I'm not trying to become holy. I am holy. Therefore, I live holy and then I'm turning into that holiness in everyday life. So that's how we should live, right? We should live out of the spiritual into the natural. So to live from above is to know what God has already completed for us in the spirit and to work with him to live out of that in everyday life. And there is so much power in living from above because we're living out of the work that God has done for us and we are just turning into it. And that's the key. This is the way the believer is supposed to live. We live from above in the things below. We live from the spiritual into the natural, from the heavenly into the earthly. How do we do it practically? Practically, how does it happen? Well, the first thing is we must learn to renew our minds, right? Now, many of us understand this concept of renewing our mind and I'm just going to mention this in a brief manner. You will have a full course on inner wholeness in your second year, where we will talk a lot about the wholeness of the inner person, the mind and so on. But we are focusing now on just renewing the mind. And I want us to see how important it is to renew our mind in order to live as new creation, right? Let's say Ephesians 4, 22 to 24. We can read this off from the notes, please. Ephesians 4, 22 to 24. Could somebody read that for us? Ephesians 4, 22, that you put off concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lust, 23, and he and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24. And that you put the new man which was created according to God in true righteousness and holiness. Matt, thank you. So it says put off, put on. So here's the change, right? We're getting rid of any conduct that's related to the old man. So the old man is gone, right? The old man is gone. And we are new creatures in Christ, right? But the conduct has to match the conduct that is the way we live has to match up to who we are on the inside. On the inside, the old man is gone.  But the conduct has to change. How is the conduct going to change? That means the way we live, we have to be renewed, be renewed in the spirit of your mind. So that word spirit, it's not about the human spirit. He's just saying, be renewed in the essence, the very core, the very life of your mind. Be renewed, or you can just say be renewed in your minds. So for the believer to see a change in their conduct that matches up to the new man which they have become in Christ, the key is be renewed in your mind. Be renewed in your mind. The new man is created in the image of God in true righteousness and holiness. So the new man inside us is righteous and holy and is in the image of God. But now our conduct has to show that. And how do we show it? Well, what's needed to show that? Well, we need to renew, be renewed in the spirit of our mind. So the key here in living out of the new man is to renew our mind. That's the key. See, we see this again in Romans 12, 1 and 2 which is again a very familiar, vast description to us. Paul says, brethren, I'm requesting you with the compassion of God. Present your body, a living sacrifice that's acceptable to God.  So the old man was, the old lifestyle was one that was conformed to the world. But he says, be transformed and be completely changed in the way you live. But how is it going to be possible by the renewing of your mind? By the renewing of your mind. So once again, this change, this transformation in the way we live is telling us it's going to be possible by the renewing of our mind. And now many of you are familiar that this word transformed literally is the word metamorpho. Or in the English we have the word metamorphosis. That means it's a complete change, a complete change. It's like the caterpillar and the butterfly. So it is very clear in scripture that the transformation happens through a process of renewing of our mind. So if a believer does not renew their mind, they are new creation on the inside. But the outside will still show behavior that is related to the old man. That is related to the past life. That's what he said. Because then people cannot see what God has done in the person's life that he's become a new man. And this changed. So we have to renew our mind. So there's a transformation in our conduct or the way we live. The renewing of our mind is simply to have a change in the way of thinking, reasoning, perspectives, a renewal or a renovation or a complete change in our way of thinking. And one of the best ways to explain this is to look at Isaiah 55, 7 through 9, which I think we have done before Isaiah 55, 7 through 9, where God is telling us, oh somebody could read this for us please, Isaiah 55, 7 through 9. Isaiah chapter 55 verse 7 to 9. Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts. Let him return to the Lord and he will have mercy on him unto our God for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Thank you. So what does God say? We must forsake, we must forsake or let go of our way and our thoughts. Right?  And you return to the Lord. Let me come to the Lord.  You come to the Lord and you embrace God's thoughts and God's ways. So we let go of our thoughts, of our ways and our thoughts. We come to the Lord, come to him and then we embrace his thoughts, his ways and his thoughts. So and if you read this extended passage verse 10 and 11 talks about, you know, the word of God coming forth and not returning to him void.  And so this illustrates the renewing of our mind. We are letting go of our ways and our thoughts and taking on the thoughts and the ways of God, the ways and thoughts of God. So, you know, practically, if you just want to think about practical scenarios, when you're faced with a scenario or situation, there may be the way the natural man will respond, the ways and the thoughts of the natural man. But then we go to the word of God, which teaches the ways and thoughts of God. And then we say, I will intentionally do that because those are the ways and thoughts of God. What happens? We are living by a renewed mind. We are living by a mind that has forsaken the ways and thoughts of carnal man and is living by the ways and thoughts of God. Example, you know, we can think of six different situations.  Now, the normal way of the world is retaliate, give back.  God says, let go. So what do you do? You choose to take on the ways and thoughts of God and say, okay, God, that person is saying all this, I'm not going to retaliate. I'm just going to forgive. I'm just, let go, leave it. So you're choosing the ways and thoughts of God. It's of holding on to unforgiveness or bitterness or anger. You're choosing forgiveness. You're choosing love. You're choosing the ways and thoughts of God. And that is when you in our mind, we are acting aligned to the ways and thoughts of the word of God, what God teaches us. You know, or think about giving. God may speak to you, put in your heart, saying, give to that person, that person's in need. And I want you to give to that person. And he puts it in your heart. Now, in the natural, the immediate reaction is, why should I give or somebody else can give or whatever. But then because God has spoken to you and God has put it in your heart, it's okay, God. Your word says, you know, that when I give, I'm actually sowing seed into it. And you will repair, you will multiply those seeds that are sown. When I give, it's more blessed to give than to receive. And so you obey God, you give to that person because you are choosing the ways and thoughts of God and not your own. So this is just, you know, like there are many, many scenarios where we intentionally choose to live according to the ways and thoughts of God. Right, so in every situation, you operate with a renewed mind. When you face a difficulty immediately, instead of saying, oh no, this is the end. You say, no, thanks be to God, always causes me to triumph and Christ. When you face something that's pushing you down, you say, you might think the natural response is all, I'm defeated, but no, you say, no, I'm born of God and whoever is born of God overcomes the world, right? So that's how you learn to think aligned to the ways and thoughts of God. And as you and I renew our mind, we are able to live out of that new man. We live aligned to the new creation that we are. But on the other hand, if you don't renew our minds, as we see in scripture, Paul calls this as being a carnal mind. You know, that means this is a mind that is given to do things that satisfy the flesh, that don't please God. It's against the ways of God. And this is when, you know, we say, oh, we have currently minded believers. That means these, they are believers. They love, I mean, they've been born again, but they're still living out of their carnal mind. They have not renewed their mind. And so, you know, they end up doing things that are displeasing to God and that don't truly reflect the new creation life that we have, right? Now, of course, when I say we have to live, you know, from the spirit into the natural, from the spiritual into the natural, from the heavenly into the earthly realm or the renewed mind, it doesn't mean that we don't use our minds. And so we have to be spiritually minded, but yet we have to be earthly wise. You know, so it is held in balance, right? There are, there's a proper way to live on the earth. Yes, we are spiritual people, but we do have earthly responsibilities. You know, there are, whether it's in the home or in the school or in the college or in just everyday life in the city, there are certain things, there are certain ways to follow and to live this earthly life. So we can't just say, you know, I'm spiritually minded and then abdicate our earthly responsibilities and so on. So it's held in balance. It's, we do this right. So wisdom is the ability to take principles of the heavenly realm and applied correctly to daily life situations in a practical way, right? But that's the first key, right? To living the in Christ life, to live with a renewed mind, to live with a mind that things according to the ways and thoughts of God that lives out of or, you know, what God has made available to us in Christ. We think in line with that and then we live out of that. Think in line with your identity in Christ. Think in line with your inheritance in Christ and then live out of that. Okay. Let me pause here and just see if there are any questions or comments people would like to ask. Is this clear so far? Any questions, any comments so far on the first two points that we've covered? Everything okay? Yeah. I trust all of you are following me. All right. Okay. Thank you. Let's move forward. No. So, okay. Thank you. I see your comments there in the chat as well. All right. So that's the first thing. Live with a renewed mind. Live with a mind, train your mind. This is a training process. Train your mind to think aligned to the ways and thoughts of God. Train your mind to think aligned to your identity and your inheritance in Christ. Okay. The second key to living out of the in Christ's life, which God has, which is scripture's teachers, is that as believers, we have to walk in the Spirit. We have to be led by the Spirit and we have to live in the Spirit. Right. So the Holy Spirit, as we know, one of his titles is the Spirit of Christ. He is the Spirit of Christ. And he has come, among the many things he does, he has come to transform us into the likeness of Jesus Christ. So one by one Spirit, by the Holy Spirit, we are changed into the image of Christ. So he's come to do that, to change us all, to be like Christ, to be in the image of Christ. But the important thing is we have to follow the instructions. We have to be led by the Spirit. We have to be, to live in the Spirit and to walk in the Spirit. So all this simply means that we are living, submitted to his influence, his guidance, his direction. We are living, submitted, yielded to the Holy Spirit. Now, the Holy Spirit, he speaks to us. He's with us all the time. He will tell us what is right, what's wrong. He will prompt us. He will influence us. He will guide us from the inside. But we must walk, yield it to him. We must be willing to let him lead, let him be led by the Spirit. We must live out of his influence, out of his guidance, out of what he brings into our lives. So that's living in the Spirit. And as we do that, what happens? Second Corinthians 3.18, we are transformed into the image of Jesus from glory to glory by the Spirit of the Lord. So what happens? As we live, yielded to the Holy Spirit, we are changed into that image. That means now we are living out of who we are in Christ and we're becoming like Christ. But that is if we yield to the Holy Spirit. But He has come to do that. Now, this is something again, we grow in. It doesn't happen automatically. We learn how to yield to the Holy Spirit. Now, the Holy Spirit is very gentle in His leading. And there are times when you will feel the leading of the Holy Spirit very strong. But most of the time, He leads very gently. His words are like whispers. They come very gently, very softly. Sometimes people say, I can't hear the Holy Spirit. Now, that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is not speaking. It just means we are too noisy. Our life has too much noise with all that's going on, with all that's going on in our minds, that we are just missing out on the whispers of the Holy Spirit, because He speaks like that. He speaks very gently, He speaks very softly. There are times when He moves in a very strong way, very powerful way, I'm not denying that. But normally, the leading of the Holy Spirit, the prompting, the guidance, the influence of the Holy Spirit that He gives in our lives is very soft and very gentle. And so, in order to develop sensitivity to the Holy Spirit, we have to become we have to position ourselves to be in a place of quietness, of calmness, of being. That's where we can become sensitive to His leading. And then we live out of that. We live out of His leading. We live out of His teaching. We live out of His guidance. Sometimes He corrects us. Sometimes He, yeah, He may rebuke us. Sometimes He leads us. He prompts us. He motivates us. So many things He does in His interactions with us, but we learn to engage and receive from the Holy Spirit and flow with them. And as we do that, we are living out of our life in Christ. Okay. Now, the Scriptures and the Apostle Paul in writing to the Colossians, we're going to look at two more passages, Colossians 2 and then in John 15. The Apostle Paul in talking to the believers at Colossae highlights these three things in their life in Christ. And so we're going to just look at those three phrases that he uses. This is in Colossians chapter, Colossians chapter 2, verses 6 and 7. Could somebody please read it for us? Colossians chapter 2 verse 6 and 7. As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. Could you also read it for us from the Amplified Bible, please? There we are. Sure. As you have therefore received Christ, even Jesus the Lord, so walk, regulate your lives and conduct yourselves in union with and conformity to Him. So, notice what Paul is telling us. As you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so this is okay. Now that you've received Christ, what next? You've received Jesus the Lord. What next? He says, walk in Him, be rooted, and obviously be rooted in Him and built up in Him. So we're going to focus on these three. And this will lead us to being established in the faith as we've been taught and you can abound in that with thanksgiving. But three things he says to the believer. Walk in Him, be rooted in Him, be built up in Him. And as we read from the Amplified, this phrase walk in Him means regulate your lives and conduct yourselves in union with and conformity to Him. So what does it mean to walk in Him? That means he's telling us an Amplified, Amplified Bible explains it kind of elaborates on it. So he's saying to walk in Him means you regulate your life, you live in such a way that it is in union with and in conformity to Jesus to Him.  It's like it's an ongoing thing, right? Present continues till our last day on earth. This is how we live. So how should the believer live? You've received Jesus, you're in Christ, wonderful. Continue living in conformity to Him. So to live this in Christ's life, I make a deliberate intentional choice to live aligned to the person of Jesus Christ. I live in conformity to who He is, to what He would do. So that's one very important thing. I make a deliberate choice to do that. So just like how Jesus lived out of his union with the Father. So Jesus, like we said earlier, Jesus was on earth, Father is in heaven. But his life on earth was lived in conformity to or in union with the Father. He never said or did anything that was out of the Father's will or out of character with the Father. So that to the point where Jesus could say, He who has seen me has seen the Father. If you've heard me, you've heard the Father. You know, that's a very, very powerful thing to say. If you've heard me, you've heard the Father. If you've seen me, you've seen the Father. Meaning this is how I'm living. I'm completely aligned to the Father. I'm just doing what He wants me to do. And that's how the believer is supposed to live in conformity to, aligned to, in union with Jesus. So how can I live my life in Christ? I live in conformity to Him. Live aligned to Him. Live out of that union with Him.  That means how we live every day life. How much Paul ranks was going to say through whom we live, we live out of Him. So our daily conduct flows out of our union with Christ. So Lord, if this is how, if this is how Jesus will do it, I'm going to do it. If this is how Jesus will speak, I'm going to speak like that. If this is how Jesus will treat this person, I'm going to treat this person like that. If this is what Jesus will not do, I will not do it. What are we doing? Our conduct, the way we live, is coming out of that place of union with Christ. It's coming out of conformity and alignment to who Jesus is. So walk in Him. In fact, you'll find many more scriptures, you know, that deal with our social life. Meaning, so here in 1 Corinthians 7, he says who he was called in the Lord as a slave. So this person is actually slave, but now he is in the Lord.  But maybe in the social standing, you're still a slave or you're in submission to somebody. Or wife and husband, do it in the Lord. The relationship with man and woman in the Lord. The relationship between children and parents in the Lord. Wives and husbands in the Lord. So, and I just mentioned the scriptures here, but what Paul is telling us is, even our social, even our relationships with people is coming out of our place in the Lord. It's in the context that we carry out these relationships. So like I said earlier, we make a deliberate choice. How will Jesus treat this person? How will Jesus speak to this person? I will do it like that. We're walking in him. We're walking in accordance to, out of our union with and in conformity to who Jesus is. Now that's a choice we make. It's a deliberate choice. And as we do that, we are living out of our life in Christ. And then in that same passage of scripture, Colossians 2, 7, which we read, Paul continued to be rooted, rooted in him. So now he is using a different picture. He's using the picture of a tree with the roots, you know, and, and he's saying, let your roots be in him, in Christ. Now we know, you know, this is just common knowledge that their root is what brings the root system. It's what brings strength to the tree. And then it's also provides the supply of food and nutrients to the tree. Right? So basically Paul is saying be rooted in Christ. That means your root system, your strength and your supply are coming through Jesus Christ. Be rooted in Christ. So, you know, I generally say like, you don't be rooted in some person or some denomination or some church be rooted in Jesus Christ. Now these things have its place, you know, God has placed people in the body to teach and minister and so on. And God is there are local churches that we're all part of and there are believers with whom we all relate and all that is good. But our roots have to be in the person of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, that's where our roots are. It's not in, not in any other person or other denomination or church. No, it's in the person of Jesus Christ. So be rooted in him. Practically, how do we do this? We keep our eyes on Jesus. Right? Keep your eyes on Jesus. Not on people. People are there. Good we can learn from each other. We can be encouraged by leaders and preachers and all of that. But our eyes are fixed on Jesus. Then develop your relationship with Jesus. So see the root is talking about some strong relationship. Develop your relationship with Jesus. You spend time with him and then depend on Jesus. Right? Because strength comes. It's the roots, the roots go and they pull out the nutrients. They bring the water, etc. from the soil for the tree. That means it's a drawing from Jesus and depending on him. So practically, this is what we do. So to live out of my life in Christ, Paul is telling us be rooted in Jesus. And then you'd be able to live out of him.  You're developing close relationship with him. You're depending on him. You will eventually live out your life from him. So Paul says, now that you receive Jesus as the Lord, walk in him, be rooted in him. The reason many believers fail to live out of their identity and inheritance in Christ is because their roots are not in him. You know, they're kind of plugged into something else. Maybe they're preacher, maybe they're denomination, maybe they're local church thing. You know, okay, those things have their place. But our roots have to be in Jesus. So keep that in mind and focus on that. I'm going to pause here. We will take our quick 10 minute break and come back. We'll take up any questions and then we will move forward the rest of the points. Any questions so far? Okay. We will go for a break right now. And we will come back and we will finish this. And then we will do a quick review of the full course so that we get a full picture of what we have learned in this course. We'll see you all in 10 minutes. Thank you.


from San Jose. It's theCUBE, presenting Big Data Silicon Valley, brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media and its ecosystem partners. Welcome back to Big Data SV in San Jose. This is theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage. My name is Dave Vellante. And this is day two of our wall-to-wall coverage. We've been here most of the week, had a great event last night, about 50 or 60 of our CUBE community members were here, we had a breakfast this morning with a Wikibon research team laid out. It's a big data forecast, the eighth big data forecast and report that we've put out, so check out that online. Jacques Nideau is here. He is the CTO and co-founder of Dremio. Jacques, welcome to theCUBE, thanks for coming on. Thanks for having me here. So we were talking a little bit about what you guys do, a three-year-old company. Well, let me start, why did you co-found Dremio? So it was a very simple thing I saw. So over the last 10 years or so, we saw a regression in the ability for people to get that data. So you see all these really cool technologies that came up to store data, data lakes, no SQL systems, all these different things that make developers very agile with data. But what we were also seeing was a regression in the ability for analysts and data consumers to get at that data because the systems weren't designed for analysts, they were designed for data producers and developers. And we said, you know what, there needs to be a way to solve this. We need to be able to empower people to be self-sufficient again at the data consumption layer. Okay, so you solved that problem, how? You called it the self-service data platform. Yeah, yeah, so self-service data platform. And the idea is pretty simple. It's that no matter where the data is physically, people should be able to interact with the logical view of it. And so we talk a little bit like it's Google Docs for your data. So people can go into the system, they can see the different datasets that are available to them, collaborate around those, create changes to those that they can then share with other people in the organization, always dealing with the logical layer. And then behind the scenes, we have physical capabilities to interact with all the different systems we interact with. But that's something that business users shouldn't have to think as much about. And so if you think about how people interact with data today, it's very much about copies. So every time you want to do something, typically you're going to make a copy. I want to reshape the data, I make a copy. I want to make it go faster, I make a copy. And those copies are very, very difficult for people to manage. And they kind of mix the business meaning of data with the physical, making copies to make them faster or whatever. And so our perspective is that if you can separate away the physical concerns from the logical, then the business users have a much more likelihood to be able to do something self-service. So you're essentially virtualizing my corpus of data, independent of location? Is that right? It's part of what we do. Yeah, that's part of what we do. So the way we look at it is it's kind of several different components to try to make something self-service. It starts with, yeah, virtualize, or abstract away the details of the physical, right? But then on top of that, expose a very user-friendly interface that allows people to catalog and understand the different things, search for things that they want to interact with, and then curate things even if they're non-technical users, right? So the goal is that if you talk to sort of even large internet companies in the valley, it's very hard to even hire the amount of data engineering that you need to satisfy all the requests of your end users of data. And so the goal of Dremio is basically to figure out different tools that can provide a non-technical experience for getting at the data. So that's sort of the start of it. But then the second step is once you've got access to this thing and people can collaborate and sort of deal with the data, then you've got these huge volumes of data, right? It's big data. And so how do you make that go faster? And then we have some components that we do with sort of speed and acceleration. So maybe you talk about how people are leveraging this capability, this platform, what the business impact is. What have you seen there? So a lot of people have this problem, which is they have data all over the place and they're trying to figure out how do I expose this to my end users? And those end users might be analysts, they might be data scientists, they might be product managers that are trying to figure out how their product is working. And so what they're doing today is they're typically trying to build systems internally that provide these capabilities. And so for example, working with a large auto manufacturer and they've got a big initiative where they're trying to make the data that they have, they have huge amounts of data across all sorts of different parts of the organization and they're trying to make that available to different data consumers. Now of course there's a bunch of security concerns that you need to have around that but they just want to make the data more accessible. And so what they're doing is they're using Dremio to figure out ways to basically catalog all the data below, expose that to the different users, applying lots of different security rules around that, and then create a bunch of reflections which make the things go faster as people are interacting with the things. Well what about the governance factor? I mean you heard this in the Hadoop world years ago, we're going to harden Hadoop and really there was no governance and he became more and more important. How do you guys handle that? Do you partner with people? Is it up to the customer to figure that out? Do you provide that? It's several different things, right? Like it's a complex ecosystem, right? So it's a combination of things. You start with partnering with different systems to make sure that you integrate well with those things. So there are different things that control some parts of credentials inside the systems all the way down to what's the file system permissions? What are the permissions inside of something like Hive or the Metastore there? And then other systems on top of that like Century or Ranger are also exposing different credentialing, right? And so we work hard to sort of integrate with all those things. On top of that, Dremio also provides a full security model inside of the sort of virtual space that we work. And so people can control the permissions, the ability to access or edit any object inside of Dremio based on user roles and LDAP and those kinds of things. So it's kind of multiple layers that have to be working together. And tell me more about the company. So founded three years ago, you did I think a couple of raises who's backing you? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So we founded just under three years ago. We had great initial investors in Red Point and Lightspeed. So two great initial investors that we raised about 15 million on that round. And then we actually just closed a B round in January of this year. And we added Northwest to the portfolio there. Awesome. So you're now in the mode of, I mean, I always say, software is such a capital efficient business, but you see software companies raising $900 million. So presumably that's the compete, go to market and differentiate with your messaging and branding. Is that sort of what the phase that you're in now? You kind of developed the product. It's technically sound. It's proven in the market space. And now you're scaling the go to market. Is that right? That's exactly right. So we've had a lot of early successes, a lot of Fortune 100 companies using Dremio today. For example, we're working with TransUnion and we're working with Intel. We actually have a great relationship with OVH which is the third largest hosted company in the world. So a lot of great, Domler is another one. So working with a lot of great companies, seen sort of great early success with the product with those companies and really looking to say, hey, we're out here, we've got a booth for the first time at Strata here and sort of letting people know about sort of a better way or an easier way for people to deal with it, a happier way. I mean, it's a crowded space, right? There's a lot of tools out there, a lot of companies I'm interested in how you sort of differentiate, obviously simplification is a part of that, the breadth of your capabilities, but maybe in your words you could share with me, how you differentiate from the competition and how you break out from the noise. Yeah, yeah, so it's absolutely right. It's a very crowded space. Everybody's using the same words and that makes it very hard for people to understand what's going on. And so what we found is very simple, is that typically we will actually, first meeting we deal with a customer within the first 10 minutes, we'll demo the product. Because so many technologies are technologies, not products, and so you have to figure out how to use the product, you got to figure out how you would customize it for your certain use case. And what we found with our product is by making it very, very simple, people start, the light goes on in a very short amount of time. And so we also do things on our website so that you can see in a couple of minutes or even less than that, little animations that sort of give you a sense of what it's about. But really it's just, hey, this is a product which is about, there's this light bulb that goes on, it's great. And you figure this out over the course of working with different customers, right? But there's this light bulb that goes on that people are so confused by all the things that are going on. And if we can just sit down with them, show them the product for a few minutes, all of a sudden they're like, wait a minute, I can use this, right? So you're frequently talking to buyers that are not the most technical parts of the organization initially. And so most of the technologies they look at are technologies that are very difficult to understand and they have to look to others to try to even understand how it would fit into their architecture. With Dremio, we have customers that have installed it, gotten up and went in an hour or two, started to see real value. And that sort of excitement happens even in the demo with most people. So you kind of have this bifurcated market sort of since the big data meme, everybody says they're data-driven. And you got the bifurcated market and you got the companies that are data-driven, you got companies who say they're data-driven but really aren't. Who are your customers? Are they in both? Are they predominantly in the data-driven side? Are they predominantly in the trying to be data-driven? Well, I would say that they all would say that they're data-driven.  Yeah, so I would say that everybody has data and they've got some ways that they're using it well and other places where they feel like they're not using it as well as they should. And so, I mean, the reason that we exist is to make it so that it's easier for people to get value out of data. And so if they were getting all the value that they think they got out of data, then we probably wouldn't exist and they would be fully data-driven. So I think that everybody is a journey and people are responding well to us in part because we're helping them down that journey. Well, the reason I ask that question is we go to a lot of shows and everybody likes to throw out the digital transformation buzzword and then user Uber and Airbnb as an example. But if you dig deeper, you see that data is at the core of those companies and they're now beginning to apply machine intelligence and they're leveraging all this data that they've built up, this data architecture that they've built up over the last five or 10 years. And then you've got the set of companies where all the data lives in silos and I can see you guys being able to help them. At the same time, I can see you helping the disruptors. So how do you see that, I mean, in terms of your role in terms of affecting either digital transformations or digital disruptions? Well, I'd say that in either case, I mean, so we believe a very sort of simple thing, which is that, and so going back to what I said in the beginning, which is that I see this regression in terms of data access, right? And so what happens is that if you have a tightly coupled system between two layers, then it becomes very difficult for people to sort of accommodate two different sets of needs. And so the change over the last 10 years was the rise of the developer as the primary person for controlling data. And that brought a huge amount of great things to it, but analysis was not one of them. And there's tools that try to make that better, but that's really the problem. And so our belief is very simple, which is that a new tier needs to be introduced between the consumers and the producers of data. And so that tier may interact with different systems, maybe more complex or whatever for certain organizations, but the tier is necessary in all organizations because the analysts shouldn't be shaking around every time the developers change how they're doing data. Great, John Furrier has a saying that data is the new development kit. He said that, I don't know, eight years ago, and it's really kind of turned out to be the case. Jacques Nidot, thanks very much for coming on theCUBE. Really appreciate your time. Great to meet you, good luck, and keep us informed, please. Yes, thanks so much for your time, I've enjoyed it. You're welcome, all right. Thanks for watching, everybody. This is theCUBE, we're live from Big Data SV. We'll be right back.