My father was a writer and writing was my only dream when I was kid and I had writing in our house. I was an only child and I was very attached to my father, so writing was in the air in our house. But you see, you cannot make your living in Egypt through fiction writing. It is impossible. Many writers are professional writers and they have absolutely the right to live from writing. Copyrights are a very, very important thing in Egypt and we have been suffering, it's very important for everybody all over the world, but we have been suffering in Egypt from a terrible dictatorship. So the story was the following. You write, you don't have copyrights, your works are stolen, you cannot make your living from writing. That was part of my problem in Egypt during the 90s because I had to get published through the government for political reasons and for corruption reasons as well. I was refused to be published three times and it was, every time I was refused, I had very good reviews, but I was a non-writer without readers, you see, because people couldn't find my work, my book. And I finished this novel and this novel was called The Yakubian Building. So I gave it to, it was a phenomena, you see, from the very first week it was a phenomena, it was sold everywhere and it changed my life, this success. It is really very interesting because I was fighting, I was fighting to get published by the government to get a kind of publication of 3,000 copies and I would have been very happy if that happened. But now I am celebrating one million copies of my work, you see, the publisher is your window. I mean, if you don't have a publisher, it means that all what you write is not going to be transmitted to the readers and publishing is very important. My works have been translated to 34 languages. It means that you just have to write and you don't worry about any other thing, he is going to take care. Writing is a very, very difficult profession. There is no formula to write, there is no one single formula to write fiction. I mean, every factual writer should discover his own way. It is very hard to learn how to write, how to have your style. Writing is like a princess in a castle and you must really prove your love. You must prove your love and then in the end she is going to open the door. I wake up very early, I wake up 6 am, 6 days a week and I write from 6.30, 6.30, I am always on my desk to write. I began with having files for every character. This is the most important thing. I make files for every character and in the file I put details about the character. Details which could be very little details. Like if she is a lady, how does she look? How is she dressed? Does she smoke or doesn't smoke? What kind of cigarettes counts? You see, why? Because I do that to try to initiate life in the character in my imagination. At some point I will feel that these characters are no more imaginary. They do exist. And then I begin writing and then at some point, which is really a very mysterious thing, but this is exactly what happens is that at some point I lose control of my characters. My characters become independent and instead of writing what they should do, I try to follow them. Now they decide for themselves and on the screen of my imagination I follow them and I write what I see, what they are doing. And this gives an unbelievable pleasure. The most important thing to inspire a writer is to keep yourself honest and clean. You see, Chigivara said once, Honor means that you say always what you think and you do always what you say. And I believe that this is very, very good because we are inspired to write because there is a kind of clean screen invisible in our heart. And this is very important in literature. Greek literature means that we don't judge people who try to understand them. And if you do that in literature, really we become much better human beings.


I am Greg Sussman, joined today by Tom Vecchio of Fandil, who's here to give us his top NBA studs on tonight's slate. What's going on here, Tom? I'm doing good. You know, we've got a big NBA slate to close out the week. I'm ready to go. We should see plenty of scoring. Let's get into it on these big-time slate. We begin with the Toronto Raptors taking on the Minnesota Timberwolves and your guy Pascal Siakam, priced under $9,000 tonight, $8,700 over on Fandil. And I have to imagine a lot of that price, or a lot of your love for the price, is due to the fact that Kyle Lowry is not expected to play this evening. Exactly. And I also think it has to do with the fact that last night against Milwaukee Bucks, we saw Siakam start at center for the Raptors, which is very interesting. Because if he's starting at center tonight, we want to be attacking Minnesota. They are dead last in the league, allowing 60.61 Fandil points per game to opposing centers. That's last in the league. So we have a phenomenal matchup for a now de facto center who used to be there, small forward, power forward. We have extra usage because Kyle Lowry is out. We've got 226 over under. We have both teams in the top half of the league when it comes to pace. So yeah, the sub-$9,000 price tag is awesome for Siakam tonight. Yeah. Starting at center, a lot more flexibility there. And you just have more scoring, more opportunity. Pascal Siakam without Kyle Lowry tonight could be in a prime position to once again take advantage. Up next, Austin Celtics and Jason Tatum was priced at $9,400. Tatum says he still doesn't feel completely back from his bout with COVID. And yet you're going to the Tatum well this evening. Why is that? So the other night, we actually saw a very solid performance from him over 50 Fandil points. Kemba Walker was it in the game for the Celtics. He was out simply due to rest tonight. Jalen Brown is listed as questionable. They're going up against Atlanta tonight. I know they lost the other night to them. This should be a win-win game for the Celtics right now. They're struggling a little bit, but the extra usage for Jason Tatum with Jalen Brown is off the court, puts him up to a 35.6% usage rate, cruising 1.33 Fandil points per minute. It's a piece of spot for Boston. They're 27th in the league and basically they played very, very slow Atlanta sitting at the league average at 15th. So the extra usage, the fact that this should be a win-win game against the weak Atlanta defense at 227 point over under the extra usage, kind of the same situation as Yacum, really like in Tatum tonight. No, Jalen Brown puts Tatum in a fantastic position to do what he did last game and hopefully continue to get healthy, continue to ball out. And in this pace up spot priced at $9400, just so much to like about Jason Tatum. One final game to get to and that is with the Chicago Bulls, another piece of spot for them, the Bulls and the Sixers tonight. And you're going with Zach Levine, $9500 most expensive player that we're talking about on this board here this evening. Why is Levine the biggest or most expensive star that you're building around? We are getting an unbelievable floor and ceiling from him. He's taking 21 Figo attempts or more in age straight games. And then the current starting lineup for the Bulls, he's holding a 36% usage, reproducing 1.73 Fandil points per minute. We've always known that Zach Levine has a massive ceiling when it comes to scoring pure points. And that is what we want to be attacking with when it comes to the 76ers. Right now, the 76ers are allowing the ninth most Fandil points per game to opposing shooting guards, the ninth most. But when it comes to pure points from them, real points, the 76ers are allowing the third most. So they are significantly worse when it comes to just pure scoring. They're also allowing a good amount of three-point attempts, which is where we know Zach Levine can excel very much on a nightly basis. So we love that, you know, $9,500 a price tag is where Levine should be priced. We want to take the field goal attempt. We want to take the ceiling. And we have a 231 point over under this game. It's going to be fantastic for fantasy. High total in this game with a high floor player and a high volume score in Zach Levine. It all adds up to a really, really nice game for Levine in general, but especially in fantasy basketball tonight, priced at $9,500 Zach Levine, seemingly in the perfect spot to exceed this value. That's it for us here on the FanDuel Hurry Up. Tom, we appreciate the time. Good luck tonight. Same to you. Talk to you next week. Absolutely. I look forward to it. I look forward to watching all of these games tonight and having a fantastically fun and exciting and warm weekend. We hope. Because I'm back here on Greg Sosner. Thanks so much for watching. Enjoy the weekend. And we'll see you back here on Monday for another edition of the FanDuel Hurry Up.


Earlier this year, the renowned and celebrated Marxist academic, David Harvey, shocked a lot of people, including a lot of his fans, by saying that we should actively strive to save capitalism, that it would be very dangerous to have a revolution and we should fight against it. And this shocked people, as I said, and the obvious conclusion from this is that this is a very bizarre thing for an apparent Marxist to say. But for those of us who have followed in one way or another, the celebrity Marxist academics, like, not just David Harvey, but other people like, um, Zizek is probably the best example. If we if you follow them over a number of years, actually, this wouldn't really surprise you very much. For example, in 2013, Zizek said, regarding his support forum series in Greece, he said, and I quote, The task ahead is not some kind of crazy radical measures, but simply in a very pragmatic way, which we have, which will have very radical consequences to bring rationality to give people hope to stabilize the situation. What we need a true and reasonable alliances, not communist revolutions, but bourgeois parliaments that will bring results. I am ready to come to you and be some kind of voice for capitalists for Syriza. That would be my dream. Some of you may also remember that only last year, Zizek debated Jordan Peterson in what was billed the debate of the century. And a lot of people on the left, or people who think of themselves as Marxists were very excited about this because they thought, finally, the nonsense of people like Peterson is going to be seriously challenged and somebody who is a Marxist can put these ideas on the biggest stage, which obviously people don't get to hear normally. But it ended up being a very big disappointment because Zizek in the debate said very little of any consequence. And he actually said that he supported a regulated capitalism rather than socialism. And he actually agreed with with Jordan Peterson on that and a number of other points. So yes, this is not, this is, this is a, this is a phenomenon, basically what we're talking about. And that's why we're discussing it today. Now, Marxism is a theory first and foremost, it's a philosophy. And we take theory therefore extremely seriously. So, please don't understand this attack on academic Marxism as an attempt to say that we should just discard theory and that we should simply be activists. And we should be governed by, you know, moral, moral outrage at capitalism, rather than an understanding of what's going on. That's not the aim at all. I'm a materialist and that means that we see the material world as the only world and as prior to an independent of ourselves and what we think. Therefore, it's very important to get your theory correct. We can't just sort of will socialism into existence we have to understand the laws of society of capitalist society, and the real logic of events if you like, as much as we can. So, theory is very important for that reason, but Marx famously said also in what was a very profound criticism of philosophers but could also stand as quite a good criticism of academic Marxist had they existed in his day. He said the following the philosophers have only interpreted the world the point, however, is to change it that is the 11th thesis on Feuerbach in his thesis on Feuerbach, of course extremely famous is on his grave. Marxism is a philosophy, yes, but not one of sort of self satisfied contemplation, but a practical revolutionary action with dedicated to changing the world and of course helping the working class to achieve its liberation. So, for those reasons I think academic Marxism isn't really Marxism at all, because it isn't a guide to action it's it's basis isn't how do we, you know, how do we understand the main events in the world in order to to change it in the right way, but is rather a sort of niche in the academic community a career, basically, and it's therefore really a part of the status quo. The thing is, Marxism is, you know, I think Marxism is the most profound and most advanced theory that humanity has developed, not just about human society but also in general. And that isn't lost on a lot of people there's a lot of intellectuals who aren't really revolutionaries. And not in some cases aren't even on the left actually, but they do become aware and they have become aware in the course of, you know, especially in the 20th century that Marxism is a very, very serious very profound very rich philosophy and school of thoughts.  And so I think that, you know, a lot of people were attracted to Marxism to one degree or another, a lot of them wouldn't have called themselves Marxist other ones would have not so much because they were committed to overthrowing capitalism but before it's for its sort of theoretical gravity if you like. And for these people for a lot of these people who come from this sort of intellectual petty bourgeois milieu. Marxism, whilst being very, very profound and very, very interesting. They also the way they tend to look at theory is not as a tool for changing the world but as an interesting thing, you know, as something to almost for sort of dinner party conversation. And so for that in that outlook, you're more interested in sort of being able to comment on the latest developments in theory and sort of having your theory up to date so that you've got something to talk about. And I think it's for that reason it's very, very common to hear amongst such people that Marxism needs updating that Marxism has got a lot to say, but that ultimately it's a bit old fashioned. So probably the most common thing you'll hear is that it's economically reductionist. It reduces everything to just economic relations and that's too simplistic. And actually, in the end, human culture, and not plenty of other things as well have turned out to be enormously important capitalism is more creative than we great gave it credit for these sorts of things is very, very common things to hear said amongst other academic Marxists and and for those reasons I want to focus this talk on the Frankfurt School that's mainly what I'll be talking about their ideas and you know who they were basically. The reason is of course there's different schools of academic Marxism, and they don't all agree with each other but I think that the Frankfurt School is very emblematic of the whole thing. The attitude they have the sort of the mood that they were reflecting and the main conclusions they drew is extremely typical of academic Marx and even the academic Marxist such as David Harvey he would never describe as someone in the Frankfurt School or particularly influenced by it. I think it's like a kind of a real sort of microcosm if you like of the of the phenomenon. It is the most famous and most influential school of academic Marx and if you study Marxism at university, often a lot Marxist courses a third of it will be the Frankfurt School which is bizarre because they aren't even really Marxist but anyway. So, who are they and what do they think the Frankfurt School or to give it its proper name, the Institute for Social Research was founded in the 1920s as a sort of autonomous department of the University of Frankfurt. And that was a novel thing that hadn't really been done before and it was only made possible this arrangement by thanks to the riches of Felix Weil, who was the son of a very rich German capitalist, who gave him an inheritance and he decided to spend that on setting up an institute whose purpose was because Felix Weil himself saw himself as a Marxist. But he wanted a sort of original school of Marxism. And so the school was set up with the kind of on the basis that it would be independent of the sort of as they saw at the dogmas. And the constraints of the German labor movement, which they saw a term, they thought they sort of turn Marxism into very mechanistic sort of religious outlook, very narrow minded and needed freshening up and a bit of creativity so they thought that a school needed to be coming to existence that was truly autonomous from everything and just could sort of pursue Marxism and the study of society for its own sake. And therefore, as Stuart Jeffries writes, who is he has written a sort of recent biography of the Frankfurt School, he says that they, and I quote the intellectuals of the Frankfurt School turned Marx's 11th thesis on Feuerbach upside down. In other words, they said that the Marxists have tried to change the world the point however is to interpret it and that really could stand for really sums up academic Marxism in general but particularly the Frankfurt School. So what were their ideas their main idea probably the main conclusion they consistently came to and there's obviously different people in the Frankfurt School they pretty much all agreed on this one point, which is that the working class has lost its revolutionary agency that it's no longer capable of class consciousness and overthrowing capitalism essentially. And they gave different reasons for this as we'll see but the main reason in general that they tended to give was that the superstructure of capitalist society had now gained autonomy and was actually a determining factor maybe even the most determining factor in human history. So whereas Marx had said famously that the base, the economic base of society, the forces of production and the relations of production in the final analysis are the most determining factor in human history and that the superstructure that is culture, politics, etc. And in the final analysis those reflect the developments in the base the economic base. They said, actually now that may have been true in Marx's day but now the, the economic base gained autonomy and is arguably even more important so in other words, the working class, whose economic whose interests were defined by the economic base, were now sort of corrupted if you like, and beguiled by bourgeois culture by mass culture basically. And this because this was possibly even more important than the economic interest in contemporary society. And their interests were against capitalism because something more influential, which was bourgeois culture was acting upon them. Now it's fair to say that this idea has been hugely influential. And that's because it's very very useful to certain people. You will hear it amongst academics for sure. There are some intellectuals, particularly of them from middle class background but not only, you know, from your final working class activists who suffered defeats and draw similar conclusions. And in particular, so I think the conservative leaders of the labor movement, the trade union leaders, and the Labour Party leaders are very fond of this kind of conclusion that well these that you know people love their X factor that kind of cynical people would make its origins. I'm sure it's not the, the only origin but one of its main origins is in the Frankfurt school. And it was very influential for that for that reason because it's useful to certain people which I think gives the lie to the idea that they could be autonomous from everything. Their ideas had to be useful for somebody. Anyway. So, this was really first developed in 1927 by Hawkeimer who would become the director of the Institute and it's key intellectual alongside Adorno. He wrote an article then in 1927 called the impotence of the German working class. What's interesting about this article is that it comes to the exact same conclusions I've mentioned, but for the opposite reasons. And I think that shows that they were really more interested in this conclusion than the actual arguing of it. Because the argument in this article is that the reason the German workers are impotent is because the economic developments have created have created a schism in the class between a kind of permanently underemployed or underclass and a better off sort of aristocracy. And this is also a very common argument you find there's a kind of division in the working class for these economic reasons and he said that therefore they can't unite they don't have the same interests anymore, and socialism is impossible. So it's interesting to know as I said that it's a for a completely different reason, whereas later on the Frankfurt School argued it was for reasons of culture mass culture propaganda essentially corrupted the working class consciousness. Earlier on they concluded that it was for economic reasons that shows in my opinion that the real aim the consistent aim of the Frankfurt School is to show that the working class was impotent. And then they changed their arguing for that but that was this that was what remained consistent. And then in 1929 so just two years later Hawkeimer and Eric from who was another member of the school launched a project to research the apparent desire for the German workers for their own domination by authoritarian leaders. And unsurprisingly they concluded that yes, they do decide they're incapable of independent thought basically was the conclusion. Now what's very telling about this particular study in 1929 is the method, which took the form of a questionnaire sort of personality test so workers would answer questions and these questions would tell whether they desire to be dominated by a powerful leader or not. The method of this is frankly completely on Marxist and shows a complete sort of lack of understanding of the Marxist method. It's a very static a historical approach, very passive sort of one. Instead of fighting to change society. He famously said also I think it's in the German ideology, the point he said it's not what the working class thinks is what the working class is and will be compelled to do. That's the point but they this was lost on them for them it was exclusively the point exclusively was what was working class things and at this time.  Since lectures the working class have no agency they their consciousness is very very low, and they accept their fate. I'd like to just draw your attention to the era in which this was written. We're talking about the late 1920s here. This is quite an extraordinary kind of position to come to at that time. This is only is after the Russian Revolution. It's only about four or five years after the end of the German Revolution, one of the greatest movements of the working class in history and it's in their own country. You would expect to find some mention of these Titanic events if somebody wants to say that the working class is not revolutionary isn't capable of revolutionary consciousness, and actually desires to be dominated. It's just that you would have to to be serious you think you would have to study show what happened in the German Revolution show, at least contend with the the cap put you know the the giant strikes which shook society the fact that the workers created, you know workers councils all over society, and you had a situation of dual power, and you had a mass membership of two workers parties regardless of what you think of their leadership. You had a mass membership of these parties which were dominant in society at the time. You'd think you'd mention these things and, you know, come to terms with them in some way but they're not even mentioned in in this this article and in this study. And so these Titanic events which are, you know should be absolute bread and butter for any Marxist in that country completely passed them by none of them participated in any way in the German Revolution by the way. So yeah I mean that in itself is extremely telling, but you can also see this. And I'd really like to draw attention to this as well the mechanical determinism on display with this method, which is highly ironic, because the Frankfurt School and academic Marxist general tend to say, and I'm sure you'll have come across this argument before that Marxism is mechanistic is over time andistic. And what they said is we need to get away from economic determinism and look at culture more culture has a big influence that was the increase especially as the Frankfurt School went on that became their main argument as I've said. And, and they said also that what they, they often stress that they wanted their philosophy to be an open one they were against sort of closed systems of philosophy, which they implied Marxism or sort of orthodox Marxism was. Yet, despite this professing to be the sort of open minded more novel approach I think they actually reveal themselves as very crude determinists, you know, that they they sort of perform a personality test on a few people and declare that to be it. Rather than understanding that eat the period of history that they were in and that history would change again and with it consciousness which probably change in various ways. And understanding that they they just treat it as if this is a once and for all, you know, fixed thing that this is now how workers think. And I think that actually ironically this determinism is precisely a consequence of their escape from sort of traditional if you like Marxism's emphasis on economics and on the class struggle, and their flight towards cultural analysis. Without studying the concrete political and economic events that shook society at that period without studying that they are left with only sort of vague notions of culture and, you know, attitudes, which, you know, we see this time and time again in society, you know, these sort of studies of what workers think are produced all the time. And when you see that you know that these are always vague and speculative it's very hard to know really what the significance of a particular opinion is how widespread it truly is how strongly people are attached to it, etc. And how people would respond to a different opinion if it were put by a political force. They fled away from all of that kind of approach and sort of tried in my opinion to sort of overanalyze cultural forms, and tried to extrapolate from them, the cause for all of, you know, the failures of all revolutions and it got to really quite ridiculous levels of for example, the analysis of jazz took place where apparently the form of jazz music is kind of a form of castration and that's why workers are impotent because they listen to jazz and it's just absolutely kind of absurd speculative stuff that I think is aged very, very badly. But I think the point is, is that that's a consequence and you still get this today this this approach this attempt to ignore the logic of economics and the logic of class the political logic of class society, the contradictions, etc. And to focus on attitudes and culture is very very vague is very very speculative and it's unavoidably so. I ended up concluding that some things like the radio new inventions of course which like, which were new at the time like the radio the movies you know the cinema, and other luxuries. Again, I think it's quite important to point out they're writing in the 1930s, you know, in the middle of the Great Depression and they talk as if the working class is living a life of luxury, because they have a radio when there was mass unemployment and they had nothing to say about. Anything about the mass unemployment really. But yeah, they write about these things and they write the working, they say this is for them as their explanation of the conservatism of the working class they listen to the radio. They, they, they listen to adverts and they go to the movies and therefore they must be indoctrinated. And I'll give a couple of quotations just just to really show what I'm talking about. Both of them are from the dialectic of enlightenment. A major book by Adorno and Hawkeye were written in 1944, I think. So in the second world war. The first one is in an unjust state of life, the impotence and pliability of the masses grow with the quantitative increase in commodities allowed them. The materially respectable, but socially deplorable rise in living standards of the lower classes is reflected in the simulation extension of simulated extension of spirit. In other words, the simulated extension of spirit means like that people are watching films and are getting satisfaction from that rather than from their own lives. So in other words, it's socially deplorable that workers have a better living standard, although I think that's highly debatable in the 1940s, but anyway, it's this is socially deplorable.  And the second quote is as follows, the regression of the masses today is their inability to hear the unheard of with their own ears. In other words, the culture industry the movies tells them what to see in here. Once again, exactly like one another through isolation in a forcibly united collectivity. The actual working conditions in society compelled conformism, the impotence of the worker is not merely a stratagem of the rulers, but is the logical consequence of the industrial society. So all as I've mentioned all the real events, the tumult of the German Revolution, and other events in this period of history very very stormy period of history very revolutionary period these are glossed over ignored as if they didn't happen. And instead fascism the rise of fascism is blamed on the gullibility of the workers, I'll give another quotation to that fact.  But again the rigid determinism I would like to emphasize this is very clear, as well as course the contempt for the working class. And you know this, you know there's there's no sense that events will change. This is people watch listen to the radio and that determines their fate forever basically is the argument. And this is also a self fulfilling prophecy that again is enormously useful for conservative leaders of the trade union movement people who are, you know reformist basically who want an argument that the working class can't take power. We've heard it time and time again it's it is like a self fulfilling prophecy because the leaders of the labor movement don't want to take action in not taking action in betraying strikes and revolutionary events. Those events fail and then of course afterwards they have a ready made excuse which was that while the working failed because the workers consciousness was too low we told you that was the case and look it must be because the revolution failed. There is a low level of consciousness somewhere in the late movement for sure but it's not in the working classes in their leaders which should be the highest level of consciousness but unfortunately most of the time, they have a very conservative consciousness and a contempt for the working class which I think is reflected very clearly with the academic Marxist and not just the Frankfurt School will come on to show some. Yeah. What would genuine Marxists have done in this period well we analyze real events right we analyze the German Revolution and the Russian Revolution and we show why they failed we don't say because we're orthodox Marxist and the economy determines everything. The revolution is guaranteed to be victorious in advance or it failed and and it had to fail because economic development wasn't enough that's not the Marxist position. The Marxist position is to show that the economic basis is of course provides the general context. But then it's the concrete actions of individual political leaders individual parties that have to be analyzed in all of their detail which is exactly what we do. And in doing so we reveal that genuine Marxism is not mechanistic and fatalistic. We don't understand the element of accident in all of these events in other words by analyzing a specific leader and their mistakes we can also show how it would be possible to have alternative leadership. If you can build that in advance and therefore we can intervene in events and we can change events within certain limits of course. But Marxism is not that kind of rigid determinism on the contrary that lies I think actually ironically with the sort of petty bourgeois intellectuals who who loudly proclaimed Marxism to be too deterministic but don't notice their own determinism. And yeah this I'll just give one final example of this, not from the Frankfurt School, but as a sort of justification for this outlook. Louis Althusser is also a famous academic Marxist, very different in his ideas to the Frankfurt School, but regarding this study of history and the concrete events of history he said the following. Marxism as a theoretical and a political practice gains nothing from its association with historical writing and historical research. The study of history is not only scientifically, but also politically valueless. It's an extraordinary claim to make the reason he says that is because he sees Marxism as a sort of self sufficient perfect theory that doesn't need empirical evidence doesn't need to study concrete events because the ideas justify themselves it's a sort of perfect self contained theory. It's completely alien to Marxism which you know Marx and Engels themselves painstakingly studied real history, you know empirical data, and, and, you know, developed with the movement right and change their views actually as the with experiences like the Paris commune for example, as did Trotsky. This is the spirit of genuine Marxism. And yes, Althusser's ideas are very different to the to the Frankfurt School but they have this general feature in common. This tendency towards a sort of idealist kind of ivory sort of tower situation where the real concrete events of the working class struggle are disdained ignored and instead sort of abstract constructions are focused on and you'll find this as a tendency to dissent when they say they're not doing that. That is I think really inherent to academic Marxism. It's true that you get academic Marxists who do study history obviously specifically that will be their discipline. But even there you find it's the same problem because whilst they study history. They tend to do so because this is the character of academia in a particular niche right so they don't study what are the main events and the main lessons the working class needs right now. You know, but instead they tend to focus on a very specific niche that there's a spot for in some university department. And so, yes they study history but it's not really to arm the working class in order to change society I think. Now this this sort of layer of intellectuals is chronically pessimistic flow which flows from their social position will discuss that in a bit. Adorno actually summed up his ideas his outlook by saying that it was and I quote the idea of history as permanent catastrophe. So very cheerful outlook and very optimistic as you can see, this is a constant feature of academic Marxism because they see all the horrors of capitalism but again, they're very alien from the working class they see the working class as stupid as not as educated as them, and, and they're disappointed by the working class most of the time really. So in the case of the Frankfurt School this this out this pessimism led them to develop another important idea of this which was to discredit the enlightenment essentially and particularly its belief in progress and in this respect very influential the post modernists has got a lot in common with it here. And they actually blamed this for the rise of fascism so their argument essentially was particularly Adorno and Hawkeimers who are really the main thinkers. Their argument was that what defines the enlightenment is the belief in the domination of nature, which is their sort of negative spin on site the scientific revolution basically that with science we dominate nature and what they say is that this spirit of dominating nature very easily sort of morphs into the spirit of dominating man. And that is that the logical consequence of that is in fascism fascism is a kind of the crowning point of the enlightenment really, because it's you know dominating everything. Now this this argument I mean it's so much wrong with it. First of all it is a completely and thoroughly idealist argument right. As I said Marxism is materialist the material world is the foundation for human society, and the economic developments in human society are the most important facts are not very much not the only factor but the most important factor in the long run. But this here is an argument that reduces all of subsequent history to the basic structure of the idea of the enlightenment, which they never explained really where it comes from the temp to link it to miss and bizarre stuff I won't go into. But basically they don't give a coherent explanation for its origin why it appeared at that point in history, like all idealist arguments that ends up being arbitrary and vague. Why is this idea arriving at this time and not another idea. And of course if it's the case that we can say that the idea of the enlightenment is the domination of nature which I think is highly doubtful anyway. And even if that is the idea why does that become the domination of man. It's totally unclear why that would be the case. Why you know and it's the whole way they talk about it's completely abstract. They say man dominates nature and then man dominates man we think well which men. You know is it all men dominating nature equally, which is what is implied by simply saying man dominates nature and if so, presumably before the enlightenment there was no class society. And then somehow class society is created by the enlightenment. And how exactly that happened and who it was that became dominated is totally unclear. And why they allow themselves to be dominated is totally unclear. So it's an absurd position. I think it's pretty clear that a lot of domination and class society existed before the enlightenment and as far as I understand it. The other ideas of the enlightenment rejected domination and we're far more insightful than this simple assertion that we've got to dominate nature. And that that is always a good thing. There are some brilliant ideas and brilliant liberate, you know, the spirit of liberation and the ideas of the enlightenment is very profound and Marx and Engels paid credit to that. The problem with this approach is that no attention whatsoever to the fact that Marx and Engels clearly had their own explanation for for why the enlightenment failed essentially or why the ideas of the enlightenment didn't lead to liberation and the sort of perfect society. And that's because of for historical materialist reasons because of the class basis of these ideas it wasn't because the ideas were fundamentally wrong that there was an original sin in the enlightenment. Although there obviously are flaws that Marx and Engels analyzed a sort of abstractness to these ideas but that's not the point the main point for the reason the horrors of capitalism is because of the economic structure of capitalism because of the class contradiction that was there from the beginning, which is just ignored by the Frankfurt school so in this respect it couldn't be further away from Marxism factors it's direct negation. And they moved from this idealist position to an openly idealist position in their later lives. Adorno began to doubt whether objective knowledge of any kind is possible so he had to drift towards Kantianism. And he said that the whole is the false, the whole as in the WHOLE is the false, stressing that you know the whole meaning you know the collective and society at large they emphasized the sort of sanctity of the individual. They became essentially just liberals who found society and the masses to be absolutely horrifying. And Hawkeimer claimed that true materialism does not mean that there is an independent material world which as far as I understand is exactly what it means. And he said that matter is not ontologically primary. In other words it does not exist before humanity. Marcuse also said he's another major thinker in the Frankfurt school. It is meaningless to say if matter or spirit is prior. Again a direct negation of materialism and of Marxism. He also said that nature has no history at all the only human society has history which is scientifically false. Now this tendency towards idealism is very strong in academic Marxism. It reflects the social position that they have as sort of atomized intellectuals, not part of the main struggle and crushed between the two main contending classes in society. And it was very aptly expressed by another idea of the Frankfurt school that they developed which was that the category of labor was fetishized by Marx and actually wasn't very good or very important. In fact Adorno in 1969 said, and I quote, Marx wanted to turn the entire world into a workhouse, in other words into some sort of slave labor conditions. That's apparently what Marx understood by socialism. Marcuse also thought that Marx fetishized labor. And basically they said that utopia, they're fond of this idea that socialism is utopia. They never explained that Marx and Engels fought against utopian socialism and you'll find this in modern academic Marxist as well a lot they use the term utopia utopian project things like this. For example, Frederick Jameson and influential apparent Marxist in academia frequently just writes as if Marx and Engels were utopians and never mentioned that they were against it. Anyway, they say that utopia is freedom from labor. This is a perfect expression of their petty bourgeois intellectual base for them labor is horrifying working is horrible. None of them work today in their lives, by the way, ever. And none of them joined the labor movement at any point and never fought for it. And therefore for them, labor and work obviously was was was just a horrible thing. I mean, it's, it's, it's pretty transparent what they were, what they were really saying. They can't understand that for Marx, there's a profound difference a complete contradiction between alienated labor and the free labor that the workers will enjoy, or just people will enjoy under socialism, where he says that labor will become life's prime In other words, not something we, we, we hate and don't want to do but we'll be an enjoyable thing will connect us with other people will allow us to express ourselves and to change our own lives and the world around us for the better because we'll really be in control of it democratically. Because we own the means of production. That is something that they don't understand or really contend with the tool. And they just show that their prejudices very, very clearly here. As Mark said, social being determines consciousness and no Marxist can be immune from this. In other words, if you call yourself a Marxist, but you exclusively operate in a petty bourgeois environments you lead a thoroughly petty bourgeois life, and you never put your ideas at the disposal of the working class in any way. Then obviously, you know that's going to have an effect on your thinking, basically, you have if you're a Marxist you have to fight for the working class, you know you have to put your ideas at their disposal that's the main aims, the aim is should not be your career. And basically academic Marxists have to find some sort of justification for why they are, you know, in that world why that world is their main way of practicing Marxism, if you like. And I think it always ends up being something that is contemptuous of socialist organizations because they have to justify why they're not doing that themselves. And the Frankfurt School was very, very bourgeois. They said it was funded by a millionaire. And with the idea that they wanted to be free from the influence of the German labor movement as a sort of constriction on their free thoughts. He even justified his bourgeois lifestyle and the way that he lived with this parable he gave which is where a king offers a poet of sort of rebellious poets, the option to be the king's poet and will pay pay this poet lavishly. Or he will put the poet to death.  And there's no alternative, basically, it's a very telling choice of example of course. He shows their contempt for revolutionism for the working class. Being a revolutionary does entail hardship for sure and look at the life of Marx, for example, who lived much of his life in extreme poverty he didn't seek a career in the academic world he fought and built helped to build the world as an international, you know, and he put his ideas at the disposal of the working class and he, you know, he suffered a lot of hardship as a result. Well look at Lenin and Trotsky, you know, going into exile and risking their own lives in the case of Trotsky, literally dying for the revolution. And of course that isn't necessarily what the fate of every Marxist has to be. The point is it shouldn't be a life of luxury right. And that and if you pursue luxury then that's going to have certain effects on the rest of your on your thoughts.  He was able to live and he was able to put his ideas out there and to change the world. So it is very much possible to go against the stream and to build a socialist organization and to fight for the working class. Thanks. Now in class society, there is no independence. That's the point that they didn't seem to understand. If you develop political ideas and you have some influence you either put those ideas at the service of the working class and you help the working class, or you do the opposite you help the ruling class and it's abundantly clear that the academic Marxist unfortunately are effectively doing the work. In the case of the Frankfurt school not only were they funded by a millionaire. They, they actually took contracts after the second world war from the German Ministry of Defense, and this had very direct political consequences, a young Habermas who was would become kind of second generation Frankfurt school thinker, and tried to publish a paper through the Frankfurt school in the post war period, which mentioned Marx and revolution favorably, and these were edited out by Hawkeimer and in justifying this he said the following. It is simply not possible to have admissions of this sort, in other words revolution in the research reports of an institute that exists on the public funds of this shackling society. In other words, he knew full well that they who were on which side their bread was buttered. They toyed with the idea of calling it the Marxist Institute for sorry the Institute for Marxism and they rejected the idea because it would put people off. Even way back in the 30s, Benjamin's articles he was another member of the Frankfurt school were edited by Hawkeimer to remove any mention of the working class and of socialism. In the war, Marcus actually worked for the forerunner of the CIA, the OSS as an intelligence analysis, and he actually became quite high up he became the head of the Central European Bureau of the State Department of the American States. And the Frankfurt school also conducted research into the antisemitism of the American labor movement paid for by a bourgeois organization, not by the working class but by an organization that was hostile to the working class. So this is this is the real background. This is a very clear example, but I think it does apply to academic Marxists in general. Tatsuki says in his introduction to the to the history of the Russian Revolution that, you know, is his analysis sort of biased and discredited because he was a participant in the events and because he obviously favored the revolution. And he says that no, in actual fact to a certain extent it's improved by that, because he had an interest in what was what on the outcome, and because he saw events with his own eyes. And it's not true that having an interest in a situation you know wanting a certain outcome is mutually exclusive from objective truth. If I want to make a certain jump. I'd better have an accurate sense of how big the gap is that I need to jump over right so the fact that I have an interest doesn't necessarily mean that I'm biased to the point of it being false. Is it a medical scientist or a doctor, somehow less scientific, because they're interested in helping people, and the whole point of their endeavor is to help people to survive or to live better. I would argue that it's precisely having that burning interest to help people stay alive that actually gives the science credibility that it motivates the science and gives them a reason to make it as accurate as possible. But that isn't that kind of the case with all science isn't really all science interested. In other words, we develop science to, I mean of course, capitalist developed science often for very bad reasons but we develop science in general to advance, you know the interests of the human race or in practice unfortunately often of the ruling class but the point I'm making is that science isn't some perfectly disinterested thing which just, you know comes up with objective truths out of its own, you know, sort of sheer brilliance but it's, it has an interest it has a reason a motivating factor for developing its ideas and that's precisely what can lead to it being objectively accurate. And I think that Marxism is like this Marxism is improved and it's made more realistic if you like, precisely because there's a real struggle, the, which is not made up but it's a very real struggle of the working class for its own liberation, which we draw ideas from and which we help. It's not against academic I might sound as if I'm deeply against academics, academics today, in fact, in Britain I'm sure in other countries, and many respects, sometimes at the forefront of the labour movement they've been going on strike, and their conditions are increasingly poor. So it's not, this is not saying that anyone who's an academic is some sort of class traitor. What this is an argument against is the idea that for some reason, although in Marx's day, or in Lenin and Trotsky's day. Marxism develops in political struggle in trying to form political revolutionary political organizations of the working class. For some reason today and I've heard this said by many people that I've met that sort of the main, you know, sort of arena for Marxism if you'd like is in the university. And if you're a serious Marxist you've got to follow all of the latest theories that different academic Marxists have put out there for me it's like well why aren't they putting their ideas at the service of the labour movement. Why aren't they striving to build a revolutionary organization, and yes develop theory of course, but develop theory that the movement needs, and that expresses the main needs that the movement has, rather than what the university allows them, and the academic industry allows them to develop if you see what I mean right. That is what we are arguing against. And I think the academic Marxism. I don't have time it may be in the summing up I'll give some further examples from David Harvey and others. Right, so it's not just the Frankfurt school, but I think the academic Marxism in general has this sort of character that it gets from the petty bourgeois milieu that is based upon of a kind of sneering cynical very pessimistic outlook. It's very disdainful of the working class, obsessed with originality because that's what academia demands academia demands that you publish all the time, and that you comment on the latest developments and so the outlook of our academic Marxist is is to see Marxist innovations, such as our own, as a bit gauche, a bit predictable, a bit almost a bit embarrassing, you know, sort of. Oh, you're, you're a bit old fashioned you don't know what the latest trendy theory is kind of approach and they get this from not the needs of the movement class needs, they get it from the atmosphere of the university, which is one of cutthroat competition of one of you know striving to be you know the superstar academic striving to have the trendiest and the latest idea getting it published in as many places as possible. That's the origin of that sort of cynical competitive outlook and that is alien thoroughly alien to Marxism. We're not preoccupied with being original for the sake of it, you know, or commenting on the latest trendy theory regardless of whether it has any use or, you know relevance to, to the movement, or to working class people to what's going on in society in general. You know prestige ego career these places have these things have no place in our struggle theory is vital yes and we need to not only conquer theory but also to develop it because the world is always changing. And that is absolutely true but it's not as an end in itself and it's not for our careers or to appear more original and cutting edge than everybody else is purely for to aid the working class in their struggle for emancipation. I'll stop there because I think I'm out of time there's a lot more I could say maybe in the discussion or when I'm replying to the comments I can give some further examples from beyond the Frankfurt School.


It may not feel like it with the recent weather, but racing season in Brainerd is only a few months away. Our Anthony Scott explains how Brainerd International Raceway is moving full speed ahead despite suffering a tragic loss last November. Shockwaves were sent through Brainerd's racing community last November when Jed Copeland, the owner of Brainerd International Raceway, died in a swimming accident in Florida. It was tragic. It was a great loss for the family obviously, but also for the racing community, BIR, the staff. He was certainly beloved by everybody, the face of BIR. Jed co-owned BIR with his wife Christie, and the track will stay in the family as Christie has taken over as the solo owner. She decided fairly quickly that she wanted to do that and she'd been involved in the day-to-day operations anyway from the get-go. She's been out here at all the events and spent a lot of time out here. So yeah, I think it's going to be a fairly easy transition for her. The 2019 race schedule looks similar to any other season, filled with drag and street races, along with their marquee event in August, the Lucas Oil and HRA Nationals. Fans can also experience the track firsthand as BIR's performance driving school and their Wednesday street drag nights are back. We'll have great racing all year long. People can expect that. The racers and the fans and everybody have really showed a lot of support throughout this whole thing. I'm excited to get back on the track and get back to BIR itself. So yeah, we're really looking for a good year again and that's going to be fun. But the track and the racing community in Brainerd will never forget Jed Copeland as BIR plans to honor their former owner throughout the year. Yeah, we want to keep this legacy alive obviously. He poured his heart and soul into this place and kind of got it to where he really wanted it and like I said, people have been really supportive. 2018 ended in tragedy for the BIR family, but they are putting their foot back on the gas for 2019. Yeah, we're working hard to get ready for the season and it's going to come fast and it's going to be a blast. Reporting from Brainerd, Anthony Scott, Lakeland News. The racing season officially kicks off with BIR's annual racer banquet on February 23rd. For more information on events happening at BIR, you can check out the story on our website.


Today we're in Romans chapter 10. We're going to be looking at verses 1 through 13 As we continue our verse by verse study here in the book of Romans and Some had asked if I'd gone to the doctor for my cough and the answer is yes I did I went on Monday of last week and they gave me some Some coughs a present and they gave me some some pills a horse pill and they gave me some spray Then I went to my pharmacist on Holt and got some medicinal marijuana and it's been just Real groovy, but any I'm kidding.  That's not medicinal at all, but anyway I'm feeling better, but bless the Lord. It's still a little tough to breathe I can hear some of you who are coughing your amens out But lots better than it was before So today we're in chapter 10. Let's begin reading together at verse 1. I'll read to verse 13 and We'll get into our study Romans chapter 10 beginning at verse 1 Paul writes Brethren my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge For being ignorant for they being ignorant of God's righteousness and Seeking to establish their own righteousness have not submitted to the righteousness of God For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes For Moses writes about the righteousness, which is of the law the man who does those things shall live by them But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way Do not say in your heart who will ascend into heaven that is to bring Christ down from above or Who will descend into the abyss that is to bring Christ up from the dead But what does it say? The word is near you even in your mouth and in your heart That is the word of faith which we preach That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead You will be saved For with the heart one believes to righteousness and with the mouth confession is made to salvation For the scripture says whoever believes on him will not be put to shame But there's no distinction between Jew and Greek For the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon him for whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved Now as we've been looking at the book of Romans we've arrived now at chapter 10 We need to remember that Paul closed chapter 9 by stating that the Gentiles have been granted a right standing before God And he made it very clear that that is because of faith that they have in the Lord Jesus Christ Now that's a theme that Paul has been developing throughout the book of Romans that we should have faith in Christ In chapter 1 remember with me in verses 16 and 17 he had said I'm not ashamed of the gospel of Christ For it's the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes for the Jew first and also for the Greek For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith as it is written that just shall live by faith In chapter 4 he had said at verse 11 Speaking of Abraham and he received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith Which he had yet being Uncircumcised that he might be the father of all those who believe Though they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed to them also He also had stated that the Gentiles had been opened to Christ and Israel has been rejecting their messiah And he's made it clear that the reason that the Jews believe that they Didn't need Jesus is because they thought they could be made righteous by obeying the law of Moses Paul said that's a great error He said in Romans 932 He said they did not seek a right standing with God through faith, but by the works of the law So they missed the key to being right with God. They missed the element of faith in messiah And he described that as a stumbling stone that Jesus himself was this stumbling stone Paul when he wrote in 1st Corinthians 123 said we preach Christ crucified to the Jews a stumbling stone to the Greeks foolishness And so he's been making it very clear that you need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved and He's spoken of the Gentiles now in chapter 10 He reveals his heart and his prayer his hearts desire and his greatest prayer would be that Israel would be saved Notice he says in verse 1 my hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved When I was going to Bible college and when I was going to some classes Several years ago that the debate Then as is today was does Israel does that you need to? receive crisis messiah to be saved and there are those in the Christian community who would say no What they need to do is they need to just be obedient to the law of Moses and Do their best to be obedient to what they have revealed in scripture Paul would debate that Paul would make it very clear that that's not true at all Paul would say that it's something that is not Found in the Lord's heart nor was it ever found in his writings And so he made it very clear that his desire was for Israel to be saved now It's a good thing for people to have a desire to peace be seen somebody else get saved But Paul was making it very clear that he has a great desire for Israel to be saved And he's going to show this in at least two ways What makes us know that he's sincere about their salvation well one he makes it a practice of preaching the gospel to the Jew first and Secondly he speaks concerning the prayer that he lifts up for them constantly So he would preach to the Jew first and then to the Gentile We see that in the ministry of Jesus Jesus took the message obviously to the Jewish nation that's revealed throughout the Gospels in Luke 4 16 For example, it says he came to Nazareth where he'd been brought up and as his custom was he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath Day stood up for to read So Jesus went to his nation in Matthew 15 24 he answered and said I was not sent Accepted the lost sheep of the house of Israel So Jesus came first and foremost for the Jewish nation then he commissioned his apostles to go out and preach the gospel And he said you're to reach the Jew first Matthew 10 5 and 6 These 12 Jesus sent forth commanded them saying good go not into the way of the Gentiles and Into any city of the Samaritans do you not enter but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel And so Jesus not only went to Israel But he told his apostles I want you first and foremost to speak to the Jews and Then when he was given to us this promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter 1 verse 8 He said you shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit has come upon you and you shall be witnesses to me in Jerusalem Judea Samaria and then unto the uttermost parts of the earth and so to the Jew first was the practice When the Apostle Paul was first saved That's the first thing he did as they went into synagogues His normal practice was to first go to the Jew There's a good example of this found in Acts 13 verses 44 through 46 where he were it's spoken of him being in a place called Pacific in Antioch and It says on the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God But when the Jews saw the multitudes they were filled with envy and contradicting in blaspheming They opposed the things spoken by Paul then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said it was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you First but since you rejected and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life behold we turn to the Gentiles So Paul's sincere Concerners for the Jews to hear the gospel Not only did he preach this message to the to the Jew, but he prayed for the Jews In Daniel chapter 9 verse 19 this reminds me of Paul's heart where Daniel said oh Lord here Oh Lord forgive. Oh Lord listen in act Do not delay for your own sake my God for your city and your people are called by your name Paul had this great desire to take this message to the Jewish nation and he prayed for them Fervently he desired them to be saved and he tells us a little bit As a why in verse 2 he says I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge They have a zeal, but it is not informed They have the kind of zeal that that Paul could understand because Paul had a zeal like that too Before he got saved he was breathing out threatening to the Christian community It was taking them and putting him in chains bringing them back and trying them as heretics. He had a zeal for God When he speaks concerning this in his testimony and in Philippians 3 he says it like this in verses 5 through 9 He says I was circumcised when I was 8 days old I am a pure-blooded citizen of Israel a member of the tribe of Benjamin a real Hebrew if there ever was one I was a member of the Pharisees who demand the strictest obedience to the Jewish law I was so zealous that I harshly persecuted the church and that's for righteousness I obeyed the law without fault. I once thought these things were valuable, but now I consider them worthless Because of what Christ has done. Yes Everything else is worthless when compared with the infinite value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord For his sake I have discarded everything else counting it all as garbage So that I could gain Christ and become one with him. I no longer count on my own righteousness through obeying the law Rather I became righteous through faith in Christ For God's way of making us right with himself depends on faith So Paul understood their zeal, but he also understood their lack of knowledge They're going about ignoring God's way of righteousness through faith and their righteousness was based on good works and and following the law of Moses and In doing so they were putting themselves in great jeopardy eternal jeopardy Jesus said it like this in John 5 45 through 47. Do not think that I shall accuse you to the father There's one who accuses you Moses in whom you trust for if you believe Moses, you'd believe me For he wrote about me, but if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? And so they were rejecting the righteousness that is declared to them in the gospel Notice verse 3 he said they be ignorant of God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own righteousness have not submitted to the righteousness of God so by rejecting the message of the gospel which is Intended to communicate what God has done through Jesus Christ.  He commands us to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ that we might be saved He doesn't command us to believe in in our in our in our rituals that sometimes We've been raised with because sometimes those rituals though. They may have beautiful meaning Sometimes they come in the way of a real faith relationship with God And we can get caught up thinking that if we do certain things we'll go to heaven I've shared this with you before it bears repetition at this point some of you perhaps haven't heard me share this before But my father-in-law when he Ten years ago had a stroke My son and my dog and my my son and my sister-in-law Patty Went to his house because he usually had come on Fridays He had been here walking the grounds and visiting and all and and he hadn't shown up And so they were concerned and so Patty said to Joseph. Let's go see where grandpa is They went to the house as they went into the house my father-in-law Was on the floor He had had a stroke Joseph had EMT training He began to look and see how See what the condition of my father-in-law was he saw it was very serious. He Turned to Patty and said call 911 Patty calls 911 while Joseph kneels next to his grandfather whom he loved very deeply and Knowing that this was not a good thing knowing that he was Not doing well In a very serious condition Joseph said to his grandfather. Are you ready grandpa? And Grandpa looks back at him and says to him. I'm a good man Joseph My father-in-law was a good man. I loved him deeply. He's a good man And he said to Joseph, I'm a good man, Joseph Joseph says you're a good man Grandpa, that's true. You're not good enough You need Jesus and And Joseph began sharing his the gospel With his grandfather who had really not ever been totally open to hearing before but now was in a condition Where he listened very very sincerely And when he came to the point where Joseph said would you receive Christ as your Lord and Savior will you pray with me grandpa? My father-in-law prayed with Joseph and opened his heart to Christ and a few days later went home to glory We were part of the funeral service that was held here in Chino at one of the local Catholic churches and They allowed the family to come and share a little about My father-in-law Ruben Lopez Prior to that the Catholic priest had gotten up. It was a Catholic mass and He shared some things and and said Ruben Lopez was a baptized Catholic and therefore We'll go to heaven and Joseph was given opportunity to share as were several of us and Joseph stood up there in that Catholic Church and he looked at the hundreds who showed up to hear The service and he said my grandfather is in heaven But it isn't because he was water baptized It's because he received the gospel of Jesus Christ and believed and confessed him as Lord and Savior That's why we can stand up today and say he's in heaven It had nothing to do with water baptism had had everything to do with his faith in Jesus Christ That was not arrogance. That was truth and the people needed to hear the truth I do not enter into the kingdom of God through following religious ritual I enter into the kingdom of God through faith in Jesus Christ. That's how we all enter in we will have works Yes, that follows, but they did not get me into heaven They are done because I'm going to heaven and there's a great difference between the two and Joe and brother And Paul is speaking concerning the reality of that and he's making it very clear He's saying my my Jewish brethren whom I pray for and I love and I speak the gospel to It's my heart's desire that they would be saved He says but they're going about establishing their own righteousness They're going about attempting to enter into the kingdom of God by holding fast to the rules that were given to them Through the Jewish law. He said that's not going to take place. It won't happen You're remaining ignorant of the righteousness of God because in ignoring Jesus and the cross You're caught in a trap of good works In Galatians 2 21 Paul said it like this He said I do not set aside the grace of God for if righteousness comes through the law then Christ died in vain There was no reason for the Lord Jesus Christ to come if I could enter into the kingdom of God by by observing rituals It's been said the cardinal error against which the gospel of Christ has to contend is The effect of the tendency of the human heart to rely on salvation by works The great antagonist to the truth is the pride of man Which leads him to believe that he can be at least in part his own savior You see the Lord Jesus Christ came so that we might have life through him notice first for he said Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes When he says Christ is the end of the law what he's simply saying is this He's saying that the law points to the Lord Jesus Christ is summed up in him We now why cannot the Jews be righteous on their own by following the law of Moses? It's because the law pointed to and was fulfilled by Jesus Christ in Matthew 5 17 and 18 Jesus said this he said think not that I've come to destroy the law or the prophets. I'm not come to destroy but to fulfill For verily I say unto you till heaven and earth pass one jot or one tittle Shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled And so the Lord Jesus Christ came to to keep all the righteous requirements of the law on our behalf We can't do that, but he did Now he says in verse 5 Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law the man who does those things shall live by them So Moses's writings reveal the frustration of someone trying to obey the whole law Because the law reveals our our motives that reveals our heart as well as It gives to us insight into our lack of holiness Because we can't do the things that we desire to do Because it's not possible because we're not capable of that and so what what happens is We need to understand that God requires faith on our on our part not simply attempting or trying Galatians 3 12 the law is not of faith the man that does them shall live in them Galatians 3 21 22 is the law then against the promises of God God forbid For if there had been a law given which could have given life verily righteousness should have been by the law But the scriptures concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe So when you trust in the Lord, yes, you do right Yes, you'll do good things But the good things you do our products of your faith They're not you're trying to make your way into the kingdom of God or heaven Through your efforts, and so he's building that case in verse 6 the righteousness of faith speaks in this way Do not say in your heart who will ascend into heaven that is to bring Christ down from above or Who will descend into the abyss that is to bring Christ up from the dead? Who's going to ascend to heaven or descend to the abyss? Well, obviously for man. It's impossible. So that reveals itself efforts aren't enough But the good news is God has already made it possible by faith to be in fellowship with him. We can't ascend We can't descend we simply recognize that this has been done for us. Jesus is incarnated Jesus died on the cross Jesus was buried Jesus was resurrected and We know why he did that and in that we're required to believe to turn to him to confess our sins receive Christ as our Savior and So Paul is saying verse 8. What does it say? The word is near you even in your mouth and in your heart that is the word of faith which we preach and So the gospel is called the word of faith The gospel is called the word of faith because it is the word that results in salvation And so what we do is we receive by faith the Lord Jesus Christ and That's what we confess is the knowledge of who we are based on whom he says we are that's how you got saved When you heard the gospel message wherever it was whether it was at home because you were raised by Christian parents Whether it was in a Sunday school class at a VBS whether it was at a conference Whether it was at a retreat church service Driving in the car listening to the radio, whatever it was the Holy Spirit broke into your life and spoke to you What caused you to come to faith in Christ was not your efforts to be a good person What caused you to come to Christ was your realization that you're not and that you need to help I can still remember so many times just before getting saved how I began to once again pray to the Lord and ask God Please help me because God. I can't do this by myself. I need your help And that's what brought me into a relationship with God is confessing and asking for help And that's what the Lord will do the word the word of God and how you get saved through that It's called the word of faith and verses 9 through 13 continuing He says if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead You'll be saved For with the heart one believes to righteousness with the mouth Confession is made to salvation For the scripture says whoever believes on him will not be put to shame For there's no distinction between Jew and Greek for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon him Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved whoever One of the reasons why I Appreciate this movement called the whosoever's It's because they're freaks. No the reason I really the reason I really believe it and And and and like what God is doing so many lives through that movement is because of the word whosoever whosoever God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever Should believe in him Not perish, but have everlasting life whosoever It isn't segmentized Just a certain group are going to get saved and the others are not He says if you come and it doesn't matter who you are Jew or Gentile and you understand that Jesus Christ came That he did what he did said what he said that he died on the cross for the purpose of of atoning for our sin and buying us back If you believe that he was buried but the third day he arose from the dead If you believe that he ascended into heaven that he sits at the right hand of the father If you believe these things these cardinal things that relate to Christian theology that Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God He's the one who takes away the sin of the world if you believe that he died on the cross for you and You have a deep and sincere realization of that that comes to the conviction of the Holy Spirit Who convicts you of sin righteousness and judgment makes you aware that you're lost and he's the Savior and If you say God be merciful to me forgive me a sinner I turned for my sin and I turned to you Paul says you shall be saved He says whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved God loves you God loves you and sometimes we may not see that sometimes we may not Experience that sometimes we may doubt that sometimes we may even fight against that But the Bible is explicitly clear God loves you and as a one who cares for you and seeks you out When you call upon him he will be found He's good And he seeks the lost And he cares so much that he gave his son to die on a cross in a brutal fashion tortured until he died So that you and I might have life When my daughter Corrine who is an older woman now, but when my daughter Corrine was around five or so right in that area five or six She was in the backyard plane and We had some bricks that she was kind of doing a tight rope on I guess and or something happened that she fell against the bricks and some of the concrete caught hold of her from her ankle and and and Lacerated it and she was in the backyard and and I knew exactly where she was in all of that We were very protective of our kids. I knew where they were at all times one time They wanted to sell lemonade to people driving by David and Corrine So I said of course you can so I put them in the backyard behind a fence Nobody could even see them and they sat there with the sign lemonade five cents For about a half hour and I came out and I said did anybody come and buy any lemonade? No dad I don't know why I had him behind the fence You could not see them because I was one of these fathers who didn't even let them play in the back in the front yard I knew what they were doing in the backyard.  No You know, you've come a long way, baby No, I went running out into the into the yard. I scooped her up in my arms I held there as she cried. I took her into the bathroom washed the wound I Bandaged it for her. I prayed for her.  What else does he have to do to show you how deeply he cares? What else can be done and who here in this room could do more than Jesus did for you? How can I earn my salvation? I can't all I have coming to me is righteous judgment Why because the wrath of God abides on those who do not have a relationship with Christ?  He will be with you, and that's what Paul is saying and we said yes, Jesus Forgive me a sinner. I've sinned in thought. I've sinned in word. I have sinned indeed I am a sinner be merciful to me and God says I wash them with the blood of Jesus Christ Because you called on the name of the Lord you are Saved do not let the enemy tell you otherwise, but live a life that Demonstrates you were bought with a price Glorify God with the body that he purchased use your life to bring glory to him But never take glory from him Paul said my heart's desire is for Israel to be saved I preach the gospel to them, and I pray for them But they've gone about setting up their own righteousness and have not understood that Christ is what the law was Pointing to he fulfilled everything they could not and so what we do is by grace We're saved by trusting him Embracing him, and that's how we enter into the kingdom of God and from that point on we live in a way that Demonstrates that God is my God Jesus is my Savior, and I have the humility to have the humility to demonstrate that through the life that I live Sin so can anybody be saved anybody who turns to Jesus Even the person who is a murderer Well as I recall there was a man on a cross next to Jesus who said remember me when you enter into your kingdom And Jesus didn't look at him and say I'm sorry. You're too messed up He looked at me. He said today. You shall be with me in paradise today Can he save you? Yes, will he save you? Yes, has he saved you most? Yes But if you're a person who has not received Christ you can do that today Call in the name of the Lord and Paul said you shall be saved