The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brook Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Brook Show on this Monday, September 11th. We'll get to that in a minute. Hopefully, everybody's having had a great weekend. The weekend is off to a good start for the week and looking forward to a terrific week. All right. Today, we will talk about 9-11. 22 years later, we'll talk about a couple of stories around free speech, important stories, I think. We'll talk about a mass of lithium discovery and some other efforts to get different crucial materials particularly for, I guess, the so-called clean energy revolution. We'll talk about drugs in Denmark. And lastly, we'll talk about a fascinating case in front of the Supreme Court in Israel and what that is all going to play out. All right. Do I have any reminders? I guess the one reminder is I'm still looking for a few more people for the public speaking seminar that I will be doing in London on October 18th. I'm still looking for a couple more people. So if there's anybody interested in that, please let me know and join us. Of course, comments on how the sound sounds, volume, all of that, appreciate it as we're trying to get this new equipment all up to speed. I take it that the reverb and the echo are gone. Now it's just a question of what the quality of the actual sound is. All right. Yeah. So those of you who might be interested in the public speaking seminar in London, small group, lots of attention, lots of my attention, write to me at youron at youronbookshow.com. Youron at youronbookshow.com. All right. Cool. Let's see. Let's talk about 9-11. So 9-11, of course, is God. It's hard to go through a 9-11 without a flood of memories and a flood of emotions. Some of you, probably a significant number of you, probably were born after 9-11. Some of you were so young that maybe it didn't really resonate and it didn't really have an impact on you on that day and maybe never again other than the kind of geopolitical upheaval that it caused. But for many of us, this was a defining moment and a defining time. I think ultimately it will go down in history as one of the defining events of American history, certainly setting off a cascade of events through the 21st century that has had a profound impact on American politics, on American foreign policy, and on the world more broadly.  You know, unusual, rare. It never happened before, really. American soil, particularly in the 48 states on the mainland, have not seen an attack by any kind of foreign power. The response of the US government was weak, pathetic, involved lying, evasion, pretending that the enemy was different than it was, involved basically a repudiation of reality. The Bush administration from top to bottom, from the generals to the political leadership, failed. Failed American people. And I think was the first opportunity for people to really become cynical about government. I mean, people have been cynical about government forever, but 9-11, I think, took it to a next level and expanded it, expanded its reach dramatically. Lewis Phillips knows as Dick Cheney-Powgrip. There's no Dick Cheney-Powgrip at all. 9-11 represented a real lie in terms of primarily who did it. The word Islam almost never made it into the vocabulary other than to tell us that it was a religion of peace or that it had nothing to do with 9-11. And that lie resulted in the failures of the years to come. Americans were lied to with regard to Iraq, with regard to the purpose of war, the meaning of the war, the success of the war, and everything else that Black sites and everything else that kind of led from that. And the consequences. To this day, we are still dealing with a threat emanating from the same source of 9-11. The al-Qaeda and ISIS are regrouping in Afghanistan, and there's no reason to believe they're not terrorist training camps in Afghanistan today under Taliban rule. I mean, in a sense, we're back to where we were. Nothing's happened.  ISIS is still active, and al-Qaeda are still active in Syria. We still have American troops in Syria. We still have American troops in Iraq. ISIS and al-Qaeda are very active in North Africa. There was just a terrorist attack today, multiple attacks today by either ISIS or al-Qaeda in Mali. Not far from Niger. We talked about Niger a few weeks ago. So throughout all of this, ISIS and al-Qaeda have sustained themselves. They're weaker than they were on 9-11. They're significantly weaker. They're weaker than they were 10 years after 9-11. But they're still there, still waiting for their opportunity, still ready to pounce when the time is right, still ready when America's guard is down. And indeed, they will. The threat is real and forgotten. And yet, we still have troops in dozens and dozens and dozens of countries under the excuse of 9-11. Under the pretense of protecting us from 9-11. And yet, we won't. Our leadership will not admit that to the American people. Leadership will not admit that there's anything going on. When our soldiers die in God-forsaken corners of the Earth, nobody says a word. And until there's another major terrorist attack, nobody will care. And nobody talks about it. It's just null. And it's sad. It's sad because you would have thought that there was a real chance that 9-11 could have woken the American people up to the horrors of its own government and to the challenges that America as a country faces. And we could have embraced them a rational positive foreign policy. But we did not. We did the opposite. Everything is gone. Everything is gone in the opposite direction. So it's a good time to reflect on the casualties, to reflect on the causes. Of course, this is not the time to talk about it, but the cause of 9-11 was appeasement leading up to it. It's a good time to reflect on American foreign policy and the disgrace that it really is. All right, let's turn to another disgraceful topic in terms of the state in America, although there's some positive news. Free speech. I told you about the district courts. That was the district court's decision, I can't remember, two months ago, to bar the Biden administration from communicating with social media platforms because it had found that the Biden administration, the Biden White House, had likely violated the First Amendment. And so it barred vast swaths of the federal government from communicating in any way with social media. It was a temporary ruling. I mean, there still needs to be a whole trial and a whole process, but it was a temporary injunction. But the indication was that the judge viewed seriously this idea that the pressure put on social media, particularly around COVID, but around other issues as well, including the Hunter Biden laptop, constituted violations of the First Amendment. And that was a crucial and very, very important ruling, and I think a correct ruling. Well, the Biden administration appealed this, and it was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court, where a panel of three judges reviewed it and they issued their decision, I think it was on Friday, and they agreed with the court. They agreed with the lower court. They basically agreed that the Biden administration, and generally the federal government, had likely, they're not making a definitive claim, but had likely violated the First Amendment. They did reduce the entities. So the lower court had given the sweeping, pretty much the entire federal government couldn't talk to social media. This court has limited the number of agencies that are restricted from talking to social media in particular. They're ruling to restrict contact between the government and social media is limited to the White House, the Surgeon General's office, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI. It's removed restrictions that had been imposed from state, homeland security, and health and human services, and on agencies including the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agencies. The judges wrote, and I'm reading from a new story in the Washington Post, that the White House likely cursed the platforms to make their moderation decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences. They also found the White House significantly encouraged the platform's decisions by commandeering their decision-making process, both in violation of the First Amendment. So, I mean, this is huge. You know, I think pretty much every branch of government right now is dedicated to restricting free speech. Certainly, our executive branch is, and it doesn't matter who the president is. This is true under Trump, under Biden, and in future president. I think Congress has in mind different ways in which they want to restrict free speech. For the courts to come out unequivocally like this around this issue is so crucial. The courts in many respects are last bastion to maintain freedom, the freedoms that we have. Let me just see. Yeah, the appeals court, I'm reading for the article again, the appeals court judges found that pressure from the White House and the CDC affected how social media platforms handle posts about COVID-19 in 2021 as the Biden administration sought to encourage the public to obtain vaccinations. The judges detail multiple emails and statements from the White House officials that they say show escalating threats and pressure on social media companies to address COVID misinformation. The judges say that the officials were not shy in their requests, calling for posts to be removed as soon as possible and appearing persistent and angry. The justices detailed a particularly contentious period in July of 2021 which reached a boiling point when President Biden accused Facebook of killing people. To quote the judges, we find, like the district court, that officials' communications, reading them in the context, not in isolation, were on the whole intimidating. The judges also zeroed in on the FBI's communication with tech platforms in the run-up to the 2020 elections, which included regular meetings with tech companies. The judges wrote that the FBI's activities were not limited to purely foreign threats, citing instances where the law enforcement agencies targeted posts that originated inside the United States, including some that stated incorrect poll hours or mail-in voting procedures. The judges said in the ruling that the platforms changed their policies based on the FBI briefings, citing updates to the terms of service and et cetera. Now, this is interesting, some of you might find this somewhat entertaining. The judges, however, found some of the government communications enjoined by the district court to be permissible, including those by former Chief Medical Advisor to President Anthony S. Fauci. They said the record did not show that Fauci communicated directly with the platforms and said his effort to promote the government's scientific and policy views did not, quote, run afoul of the First Amendment.  All right, so that's great news. It's super important and super interesting and super encouraging for the future of this country to have a court that is willing to stand up to the federal government and say no, you're in violation of the First Amendment, you cannot continue to do this. This is likely to be appealed again, and this time to the Supreme Court. It'll be fascinating to see what the Supreme Court does with this. I think they will back the Court of Appeals. But if the Supreme Court actually lays out a consistent statement about what is permissible and what is not permissible in terms of communication between government and media, social media, I think this will be an incredibly valuable tool for preserving free speech as we move into the future. So this is really all good and, yeah. All right, let's see. Yeah, a second story about this. This one's a little bit more ambiguous, so it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. But Twitter, X in other words, has sued California over California's content moderation law claiming it violates free speech. The suit challenges the constitutionality and legal validity of the law. They were signed last year, which requires social media companies to publicly post their policies on hate speech, disinformation, harassment, and extremism on their platform. So the question is, does that constitute a violation of free speech? It'll be interesting to see how the Court rules on this one. You know, the suit reads, quote, AB 587, this law violates X Corp's First Amendment right to not speak about controversial topics and to decide for itself what it will say or not say about these topics. So that's good. That's excellent. This is what Governor Newsom said when the law was signed in this reeks of violation of free speech, quote, California will not stand by as social media is weaponized to spread hate and disinformation that threatens our communities and foundational values as a country. What does that mean? Will not stand by.  To quote Newsom, some more Californians deserve to know how these platforms are impacting our public discourse and this action brings much needed transparency and accountability to the policies that shape the social media content we consume every day. So can the government force them to have policies and to disclose those policies publicly? That is what is there on the agenda. It's going to be really interesting to see how the Court rules on that one. That's even a broader definition of the First Amendment which would be really powerful if the Court stood by that. All right. So good news on the free speech front. Courts are fighting back. Lithium, lithium, lithium of course is a crucial material for batteries. As we know, lithium is in massive demand right now and a lot of countries are searching for lithium deposits. China controls the production of a vast majority, I think over 70% of all lithium batteries in the world and it has access to vast lithium resources whether in China or through contracts.  It was found on the border between Nevada and Oregon. So in very northern edge of Nevada on that border, it is kind of in volcanic claystone which is very unusual. It's in a volcanic crater and this claystone has between 1.3 and 2.4% of lithium which is almost the double the amount of lithium that is usually present in other materials like clay materials. So this is huge. Of course, the challenge is going to be here, will they let the mine, the environmental issues but the potential for the United States to have the largest deposit of lithium in the world is fantastic. Of course, there's also lithium in Australia and South America, in parts of Africa and in Asia, particularly in China. But very exciting. There is a real lithium rush and let's hope that America, the regulatory apparatus, the environmentalist will allow for the actual mining of this lithium because it would boost I think national security significantly and less dependency on China more generally and particularly as the United States seems to be intent on investing heavily in expanding its capacity, manufacturing batteries. You know, having additional, a diversified sources for lithium would be a definite advantage. But there's another really, really, really interesting story about minerals and the search for minerals which is exploding around the world. It turns out the United States is in negotiations with Saudi Arabia to team up to secure the metals required for batteries, for a variety of different batteries. So this is quoting for the Wall Street Journal article. The US and Saudi Arabia in talks to secure metals in Africa needed for both countries energy transitions. You know, as the White House tries to coerce China's dominance in electric vehicle supply chain. And the kingdom, you know, wants to basically invest heavily in global mining. So why does the US need Saudi Arabia to do this? Saudi Arabia doesn't have any minerals. Indeed, the collaboration is to access minerals in Africa. We're talking about cobalt, lithium, other metals like that. Why does the United States need Saudi Arabia as a partner to go after minerals in Africa? I mean, that seems bizarre. Really weird. But this is how global politics gets done. Listen to this. Why does the US need Saudi Arabia? Quote from the Wall Street Journal. Saudi Arabia would likely have more flexibility to invest in countries where corruption is rampant, insulating US companies from that risk. The kingdom is also less bound by environmental, social and governance concerns that crimp other investors' ability to deploy capital there. So in other words, Saudi Arabia could go into Africa, violate individual rights, steal stuff, enslave people. They can bribe everybody in the government and everybody around there and the gangs and their warlords that control some of these mining operations. And that's OK as long as America is in the background, as long as America is not at the forefront of it. As long as America is just casually in an alliance with the Saudis but not explicitly doing it. I mean, the hypocrisy, the absurdity of the whole thing. I mean, if the United States deems it OK to violate rights and do all that for the sake of these metals, why is it using Saudi Arabia as a frontman?  But the reality is, again to quote the article, much of the world's corporate lies in difficult business environments. It's an understatement of the century. Such as Congo, where Western companies' business practices have resulted in justice department allegations of bribery. Again, to quote the article, the effort would jump starts by Saudi Arabia, a massive defender of individual rights and freedom around the world. Plans by Saudi Arabia long the world's dominant oil power to delve into the world of mining, digging for its own minerals and metals at home and buying up stakes and projects around the world. It is part of an economic diversification effort that involves building its own EV industry, creating massive solar farms and setting up high tech industries such as artificial intelligence. The White House is seeking the financial backing of other sovereign wealth funds in the region. But talks with Saudi Arabia have progressed the furthest. There we go. So the United States is fine with violating people's individual rights. It's fine with bribery. It's fine with enslaving people to pull out this stuff from the ground. As long as American companies don't have to get their hands dirty. As long as somebody else is doing the dirty work, the U.S. has no problem with it.  All right, Denmark. This is a kind of cool little story from Denmark. By the way, on Saturday, it appears, I talk about Denmark, I will be interviewing Fleming Rose from Denmark on Saturday, on the Saturday show. Instead of Thursday, I'll be interviewing him Saturday. We had to move Harry Benzwangi's interview to October. So he'll be, we'll be doing Harry on the first week in October. But Fleming Rose will be on Saturday. I'm super excited. Fleming's a friend. And Fleming is the guy who published the Danish cartoons. So he is the guy who commissioned them, published them, stood by them. I have done many, many, many free speech events with Fleming over the years, all over the United States and in Europe, including in Denmark, where we had unbelievable security all around on the roofs. It was pretty amazing. But so I'll have Fleming on. I haven't talked to Fleming in a long time since before COVID. So it'll be fun to catch up with him. It'll be fun to talk to him and it'll be fun to hear what he's doing. But also interesting to find out what he thinks about the ban on burning of the Quran and what he thinks generally of the state of free speech in Europe, basically, you know, 22 years after 9-11. And I can't, you know, the Danish cartoons came up in, I forget. Anyway, I'm excited by it. I hope you'll join us Saturday. I think it's going to be 1 p.m. East Coast time. I'll let you know as the plans solidify. Yeah. And bring your European free speech questions to the table. All right. With regard to Denmark, it turns out that Denmark is the home to two companies. That are making what appears to be right now the most popular drugs, legal drugs, not illegal drugs in the world. Azemepik and Wogovi. These are both drugs that have been approved to work in reducing weight. And that is reducing obesity. They reduce obesity. They improve high blood pressure, high cholesterol. They reduce cholesterol, high blood sugar. Everything related to obesity, all the diseases related to obesity are reduced dramatically, dramatically by taking these drugs. And they are immensely popular. They're being bought all over the place. And Azemepik is a diabetic drug. Wogovi is explicitly for treating obesity. But both of them receive sales just skyrocketed, right? Skyrocketed in the United States and all over Europe and all over the world, really. Including in Uzempik. Uzempik, Iron Man fan club tells me it's pronounced. All right. Anyway, these stocks, this has just gone through the roof. Sales have risen 30% in the first half of this year. Profits are 40%. And the company is having to ration supply as production struggles to keep up with growth in orders.  If you take out the pharmaceutical industry from Denmark's GDP, if you don't count it, then Denmark's GDP is shrinking. It's shrinking about 0.9% a year. But with the pharmaceutical companies producing these drugs, the GDP is up 1.1%. Just to show you how big this is. How big this is, right? And the nice thing is, you know, it's coming in in euros and, sorry, in dollars. It's causing the economy, you know, this part of the economy to boom. It's pushing Denmark's economy from basically the recession that is happening all over Europe. I mean, you see charts of sales of this thing. It's just phenomenal. So good for these Danish companies.  All right, finally, a story that's been brewing and that is coming, going to come to a climax here in the next few weeks in Israel. If you remember, the Israeli government passed a law a few weeks ago that basically limited the Israeli Supreme Court. It basically said that the Israeli Supreme Court could no longer use the reasonableness doctrine in order to overturn decisions by the government. So basically, the court could no longer say this decision by the government is so unreasonable, so defiant of logic and of reason and of precedent and of, you know, of good of the way you're supposed to run a government. In the past, they could overturn that. For example, there was an appointment to a ministerial position in Netanyahu's government of a person who had been convicted for embezzlement and he was going to be a minister in the government. And the Supreme Court said, you can't do that. They can't say I'm constitutional, but that fails the reasonableness test and we are preventing the government from appointing this guy and he needs to leave. Anyway, the government passed a law that said the court could no longer do that. It cannot do it. In other words, it dramatically or significantly, I don't know if dramatically, but significantly shrunk the scope of oversight that the Supreme Court has over the government. Well, this has been challenged by certain elements in Israeli society in front of the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court is now going to rule whether a law limiting its power is, I can't say I'm constitutional because Israel doesn't have a constitution, is okay, is reasonable. Yeah, I can't use the reasonable standard. So something, right? Now, you know, this is a huge case never before has a case like this come to the Israeli Supreme Court. All 15 judges, the Israeli Supreme Court has 15 judges are going to be present. The judges include secular liberals, religious conservatives, West Bank settlers, and one Arab Israeli, one Arab citizen of Israel. And it's going to be fascinating, right? It's going to be fascinating to see how they rule. Because if they rule that the government is within its power to do this, then nothing will happen. And it is what it is, right? But what if they rule that the government does not have the power to limit the power of the Supreme Court? Then you have a constitutional crisis. The government is saying, of course we have this power. The court says you don't have the power. And there's nobody to resolve it. There's nobody to resolve it. So a decision is going to be made in the next few weeks, maybe months, has to be done before January 16th. And you know, the Supreme Court could uphold the law, of course. That would be the simplest case. It could overturn the law. That completely throws the country into a state of chaos and into real challenges. The Israeli parliament could then ignore the Supreme Court reversal if it reverses it. What happens then? I mean, this is what happens when you don't have a constitution. But it is also suggestive of what could happen in the United States. What happens if a president says to the Supreme Court, I don't care what you will, I'm not going to abide by it, as I think Trump is threatened to do, but as some conservative judge, but lately liberal judges have encouraged Biden. A number of legal, liberal legal scholars are encouraging Biden to ignore the court because the court is too conservative. And just ignore him. What happens then? How do you resolve that? Does the military then intervene? Does the Justice Department? Does Congress? Does Congress have the power? So Israel might be at a forefront of this conflict between the judiciary and the executive, the legislature. How those kind of disputes get resolved is going to be key to maintaining political freedom in the West. Key to maintaining political freedom in Israel, but ultimately, same kind of crisis could happen in the U.S. I mean, literally, there are legal scholars writing papers right now about how it's okay for the executive when the court is unreasonable to ignore the court. And of course, this has a history going back to FDR who threatened the court with court packing, with expanding the court and packing the court in order to basically subdue it and force the court to align with his interests. So this has happened in American history, but I think it would be a lot worse if it happened today. A lot worse. All right. Let's jump into our question period. To remind you, you can use Super Chat to ask questions and steer the show in the direction you want. It can also be used to support the show with a question, but you can also do it just to support the show with what's called a sticker. So it's right under the chat there. Please use it. We have a goal for these morning shows, $250. It would be great if we could achieve that goal, but that is in your hands. We have 80 people watching right now. It would be great if some of those people traded value for value by supporting the show in one way or another. All right, James, $50. Thank you, James. That's terrific. Have you spoken to cadets at any military schools like West Point? Have you spoken to any military colleges overseas? It appears to me a great place to get message out about Ayn Rand. Also, do you see another attack on U.S. soil in your lifetime? I have not spoken at West Point. I'm trying to think. I've spoken at the, and there's a video of me speaking. It might be only audio. I'm speaking at the Air Force Intelligence School or facility in one of the big Air Force bases after 9-11. I gave a talk there, which was, I think, very well received. But I've never spoken at any of the big schools. And the reason is they've never invited me. That is, I've tried. I've encouraged. You know, the closest that came was I debated the chairman of the philosophy department at the Air Force Academy, but the debate was held at UC University of Colorado Boulder, not at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. So I've never actually been invited. I've tried. I've encouraged people. We came close at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, but we never actually succeeded. It might be the case. I think it's the case that Elan Juno spoke at the Naval Academy if I'm not mistaken. I did a company, Leonard Peacock, when he spoke at West Point after 9-11. And the talk they received, some very positive. It was a great talk. It received some positive. But it was also a lot of hostility primarily from the faculty. This, I think, was put on by the philosophy department over there, philosophy department that is very, very, very pro-just-war theory, which is a horrific altruism in military, altruism in foreign policy. So West Point Naval Academy and the Air Force Academy all influenced by just-war theory. They all have the same curriculum by Michael Walzer. It's altruism with regard to running a military, all of them. Again, this was the topic of my debate with the head of the philosophy department at the Air Force Academy, just-war theory. So theory articulated by St. Augustine and later developed by Aquinas that has been modernized and secularized by philosophers. And Michael Walzer being the main philosopher over the last 30, 40 years to written about this and he has a book on just-war theory. Anyway, faculty in these places are very hostile to us, very hostile to, you know, to Ayn Rand and to our perspective on war. Unfortunately, the debate I did with the philosophy professor at UC Boulder, the philosophy professor was from the philosophy chairman, the chairman of the philosophy department for the Air Force Academy, I'm pretty sure was not recorded tragically. It was a great debate. Leonard Peacock was in the audience, that was fun. He was living in Colorado back then and he was in the audience and he thought I did really well. And so, yeah, it was, it's not, it's a great place in terms of the cadets, not a great place. And so the faculty and the faculty keeps us away. But if I got an invitation to speak at West Point, I'd be there in an instant. You know, I'd love to speak at West Point. I'd love to speak at any of the academies. I have not spoken at academies in Israel, outside of the United States. And just speaking Israel, again at the intelligence, one of the intelligence things, I forget what it's called, but it's a kind of intelligence museum, which the intelligence agencies operate. Anyway, do I see another attack on your soul in your lifetime? I certainly think it's possible.  They're pretty dumb. They really lucked out in 9-11. There were multiple opportunities where the FBI or the CIA could have prevented it. They came so close so many times. I mean, it's a massive failure of intelligence, massive failure of coordination, massive. So 9-11 was not so much a success by these planners, but it's primarily a consequence of massive failures on the United States as part. Could that happen again in terms of the kind of failures that happened? Sure. But probably not on the scale of 9-11. So will there be another attack on your soul? Yes, but it might more likely be a one-man operation, somebody shooting up a place that's happened since 9-11, a car bomb or something like that. But something on the scale of 9-11 I think is unlikely because the American intelligence agencies have learned, to some extent have learned their lesson, in terms of coordination and being on top of things in a better way. And partially because I think that Muslim terrorists generally are just not that smart, not that good. Now, it's easy to be wrong on this. I remember arguing, one of the arguments I had once with Leonard Peacock was we were sitting, this is 1997, I think. I think it's 1997. Yeah, 1997. We were sitting at a restaurant in Santorini on the Greek island of Santorini, one of the most beautiful places on planet Earth. And Leonard basically said, we're going to have a massive terrorist attack on the U.S. soil. And I said, no way. They couldn't put it together. They're not sophisticated enough. They're not smart enough. U.S. intelligence would be on top of it. They wouldn't be able to pull it off. And he said, no, it's going to happen. And he was right. I was wrong. And it did happen. And just four years later. So I might be wrong again. I still hope that we've learned something from 9-11 and the intelligence agencies at least on top of it. But who knows? Who knows? And it's not like we disagreed about the threat or we disagreed about the organization. I think we disagreed about the competence of the terrorists and the competence of the U.S. intelligence agencies. All right. We're still quite short of our goal. So if you guys would consider supporting the show, I'd really, really appreciate it. Some stickers. We've got 80 people watching. 160 is two bucks a person. Value for value would be fantastic. I'm not going to mention it again. But if you could support the show, that would be great. Get this week off to a fantastic start. Andrew says, why do you think competing with other nations is an acceptable motivation for U.S. productivity as against other reasons? For example, concern in regulating AI is not that it might throttle its benefits but are falling behind China. Well, you have to separate a couple of things, right? So I don't think there's any time there is legitimacy for the idea of competing with other nations if that competition is purely economic. There is no such thing as economic competition between nations. Nations don't produce anything, don't create anything, don't build anything. And indeed, when they try by subsidizing, by tariffs, by restraining trade, by doing others, they get the opposite result. So it's never legitimate to compete purely in economic terms, just in terms of what are the economics of a particular thing. The bigger question, or the question I think relevant to AI and relevant to a lot of the discussions about China, but not all. For example, the United States is trying to compete against China with regard to electric vehicles. Why? I mean, why don't we just buy cheap electric vehicles from China and finish? Why are we concerned about electric batteries? I mean, but AI is different and AI advanced microprocessors is different only because they use in military applications. So to the extent that you have a country that you view as hostile, that you view as a potential enemy, that you think you might land up going to war with, then it makes sense to say, look, we need to be careful because they can use microprocessors in advanced weapon systems. They can use AI in weapon systems. And we need to be on top of that. We need to have better. So it's like an arms race, but arms race now enveloping a broader set of products because these products can be directly used in weapon systems. And that's the sense in which we compete against China around microprocessors. We compete against China around AI, maybe even around high powered lasers, because all of these things are potential weapon systems. And that's the only legitimate way to think about it. And it's most of what we think about, but it's not totally. I mean, unfortunately, people in DC, our central planners think about it in broader terms in terms of economic activity, in terms of auto sales, in terms of electric vehicles, batteries, all these other things that are less issues, significantly less issues of national security and much more just issues of, I don't know.  Why does that matter? How big an economy is?  And if some of that prosperity is generated because you're trading with another country that is growing and going to be bigger than you, why does that matter? It's a win-win world, not a lose-lose world and not a win-lose. It doesn't have to be except when it comes to national security. That's the one area where it can be lose-lose and you want to avoid getting into that situation. All right, Wesley, you've spoken before about zombies. If a zombie virus were real, would lockdowns, quarantines, and mandatory vaccines in response be justified? They can't be zombies, right? I mean, it's not possible, but look, if there is a clear and imminent threat to the lives of people and in order to combat that threat, you have to ask people to stay home so you can destroy the enemy. Then yes, if the virus is such that people leaving their homes, people are going to die left and right. They're just going to drop dead or become zombies. Then emergency measures are appropriate. If you've got this virus, you can't just go outside and infect everybody. There's still an issue of innocence or proven guilty. There's still an issue of locking down healthy people and what legitimacy you have of doing that.  And in order to do this safely, you tell everybody to stay home.  But you do it for a finite period until the terrorist is found.  You don't lock down the entire country. You lock down the neighborhood where you think the terrorist is. Finite for a specific purpose. Then it's legit. Alright, James says, the USA produces a lot more drugs than other countries, yet FDA blocks so many of them. Have you seen any countries that do not have their own FDA? My guess is a lot of countries around the world don't have their own FDA. But what they do is they piggy bank off of the US or off of Europe or off of one of the civilized worlds, FDAs. But there's no country as far as I know that has no constraints on the drugs that one can sell within their country. I might be wrong, but I don't know of one. Most other countries have much more liberal policies in terms of prescriptions and in terms of what drugs are available. I know South America certainly does and other places. But a lot of countries, and again, a lot of countries use trials and evidence from other countries. Or if it's approved by the FDA, it's approved over here. If it's approved by the Europeans, it's approved over here and so on. So, yeah, I don't know of any countries that have a complete openness. James asks, does Asia and Europe have more potential to be more economically or socially free based on your trips the past five years? Well, I used to think that the future was Asia. I used to think that China would be heading in the right direction and it would basically move the whole of Asia in the right direction. And you've already got Korea and you've got Taiwan and Japan and used to have Hong Kong and to some extent Singapore. But I no longer think that given the turn that China has taken, although, of course, that could be reversed. I used to think that the UK had a really good chance. It has very educated people. It has a decent educational system, much better than the U.S. And it has, Ayn Rand is there. Ayn Rand really has a presence in the UK, even in the schools in the UK. So I thought they had a real potential, real possibilities. But I just don't see either one of them doing particularly well over the next few years. It just seems to win the spiral of collectivism everywhere and a spiral of authoritarianism, spiral of statism everywhere. And I don't think any of those places are escaping it, sadly. Michael, does life itself have no meaning? It's only an opportunity to create meaning. Well, life has meaning in a sense of the meaning of life is life. The meaning of life is the opportunities that it creates. That's its meaning. The meaning is that value is necessary to sustain it. That's what it is. But it's, I don't know, maybe it's just a tautology. Maybe life, yeah, there can be meaning outside of life. Life makes meaning possible. It's not an opportunity to create meaning. There's no such thing as meaning outside of life. Life makes meaning possible. Michael, I've been watching some of Javier Miley's, Mille's, Fiery television interviews. It sounds like he's quoting right from my Inman's novels. What are the chances a free market revolution comes from Latin America, from a Latin American country? We will see. I mean, he has to win. He then actually has to put together a revolution. That is, he has to have the legislature actually pass the things that he wants to pass. It's not going to be easy to dollarize the economy and to get rid of a central bank without the legislature's help. It's going to be very difficult to deregulate and get rid of the taxes and the tariffs and all the other things that prevent Argentina from coming a free market. But it's quite possible that out of sheer frustration, he does win, sheer frustration of the Argentinians with everything else. Now, again, he's mixed on many things, but at least on free markets, he's as good as he gets. And we will see what happens, but I don't know how to play the odds of him winning and then how to play the odds of him actually having a positive impact. One of the challenges is as you liberate an economy, how do you do it smartly so that you maximize the benefits and minimize the pain because some pain is going to happen? Does he have the right advisors? Does he have the right economists around him? Have they worked out a plan? Will he work out a plan? I hope so. I hope so. He's smart. And there's smart people in Argentina who've been fighting on the side of Liberty for a long, long time. Fighting on the side of freedom for a long, long time. Hopefully they all come together and they come up with a plan and they put it together. But you need a lot of allies in the legislature. I don't know if he has them. How much can he do through executive order? I just don't know. I don't know enough about Argentinian politics. Michael says, when leftists say hate has no home here, are they really saying judgment and logic? Yeah. I mean, I have no home here. Yeah. I mean, they're basically saying judgment. The one thing that is taboo is moral judgment. You cannot morally judge people. And that is what they're primarily referring to. It's not the issue of hate. It's the issue of moral judgment. Don't judge. Gotta go with the flow. Richard. Nice to see you, Richard. It seems like we're in a volatile economy. Oh, by the way, Richard, I never got an email from you about the public speaking thing. It seems like we're in a volatile economy over the next few decades. Yes. I know that was before your time, but how would you recommend 20-somethings, prepare and plan for their future? Does it seem like a repeat of the 70s? I don't know if it's a repeat of the 70s. I doubt that it is a repeat of the 70s. History doesn't repeat itself quite that way. Inflationary forces are different. And in many ways we're less resilient than we were in the 70s. And there's less of a quiet for liberty. How do you prepare for it? I think the best way to prepare for it is to accumulate saving and at the same time to get a good job or to start a business that you have some control over. To basically try to minimize the impact of these externalities on you. So get a good job, find a solid business, start a solid business, and just be prepared. Be prepared for volatility. Save. Have some cash reserves and save money for the ups and downs of what's coming. There could be inflation. There certainly, as I said, is likely to be stagnation. But we could also have a major economic collapse. That is possible. I just think it's relatively unlikely, but it's still possible. So you just have to be ready for whatever the outcome is. So have reserves, cash reserves, in a sense, so that you can sustain a significant downturn. I still think long-term you want to be invested in the stock market. But I also think you should also have some cushion in cash in liquid savings. Richard said thank you. Also I sent the email to your YBS account. Alright, make sure to send the emails to youron at youronbrookshow.com. I haven't seen an email from you in that address. So if it was a different address you send it to, then please resend it to that account. youron at youronbrookshow.com. Andrew says, do you think the libertarian critique of the Patriot Act is rational on how would you defer? I think for the most part it's rational. I think it's mixed. Put it this way. I think the parts about privacy and about violation of the privacy of Americans and about the risks that they're poses and the threat that they're poses from big government is all true. I think it's overboard the fact that the United States has secret courts, federal courts is absurd and ridiculous for a country that perceives itself as free. So I think elements of the critique are right and true and other elements are a little bit overboard in terms of having complete disregard for national security. There should be a lot more profiling and there should be a lot more consideration of who is a threat and who is not before you kind of go out and blanket eavesdropping people. So I think the Patriot Act is a disaster and it's partially a disaster because the Bush administration and then nobody after that wanted to define clearly who the enemy was. Michael says, what does it mean to understand the nature of something? It means to understand how it functions, to understand the causal relationship that relate to that some things and its behavior and its continued existence. I think that's what it means to understand the nature of something and to be able to concretize that, to be able to show that in the concrete reality.  I mean, I don't accept that. I don't like that. I don't buy it. Not all Muslims hold the same ideology as the people who attacked us in 9-11. Many Muslims have condemned those attacks. I think the idea of collective guilt in that sense is wrong. I think totalitarian Muslims, jihadists, Islamists should definitely be hiding their faces and we should be at war with them anyway. But yeah, I don't like this overly generalized, you know, a lot of Muslims in the United States are very pro-U.S. There's some Muslims, quite a few Muslims in the U.S. military. Let's not fall into the collectivist trap. James, will you do another show this month on the economy based on the data? Most people are only surviving with credit cards, a credit card's moral or ethical. Absolutely. I have tons of credit cards. What is wrong with credit cards? It's nothing wrong with credit cards. Credit cards are a way of providing yourself with either short-term or long-term financing. It's a personal decision. Why not take on debt? Why not smooth out your consumption over the long run? But also, why not take on short-term debt? If I can buy something now and only pay for it a month from now, that helps me manage my cash flow. I mean, I use credit cards all the time and every way possible because I don't take on long-term credit card debt because the interest rates are too high. But short-term credit card and paying it off every month is a great way to manage your cash flows and to control the way you spend your money. But also, you get a report of how you spent the money. I mean, I see no downside, zero downside of credit cards. And I don't believe the data about people only surviving with credit cards. I don't believe the data. The data and when you look at it deeply, the questions they ask, how they ask the questions, always whenever I've looked at the data about this, $400 would put me into debt, $400 emergency spending would put me into debt. It doesn't match, you know, the data is being misused and abused, which is not surprising, data has done that all the time, to make the economy look much worse than it is. Now, it is true, the economy is not in great shape for a lot of people, but as compared to pretty much everywhere else in the world, we're doing fine. And I think a lot of the complaining is just taken out of proportion. And I know, again, if I were complaining about the economy constantly and predicting its collapse tomorrow, I'd have a lot more followers. But I try to look objectively at the world. Now, I do think we're heading towards more difficult times. We're heading towards stagnation. Stagnation is not good for anybody. I don't see it collapse, but I see it. And that's, it's very difficult to navigate and it's, you know, growth is so essential for the mood, for the self-esteem of individuals. And stagnation will make a lot of people in the U.S. be losers. James says, how will BRICS take on NATO? They won't. BRICS will never take on NATO. I mean, BRICS is just hype. It's hype. There is no BRICS. China is a threat. Russia is obviously a threat. That's it. India and China are not going to be on the same side of anything, not in any prolonged thing. India and China, as you say, India and China have a border dispute. They're fighting over and they dislike each other and distrust each other significantly. South Africa is a poor country that has nothing to contribute. You know, Saudi Arabia is not going to fight against the United States and NATO. It gets all its weapons from the United States. It has a military alliance with the United States. United Arab Emirates just joined BRICS. It's not going to side against NATO. So, no, the whole thing is ridiculous. The whole talk about BRICS is just an opportunity for people to fantasize about a world with American decline. But you can believe a world with American decline, which to some extent I do, without believing BRICS on the rise. That is, America is in decline and the world is in decline. We're living in a period of global decline, moral decline and economic decline. And the United States is part of that, a big part of it. All right, thanks everybody. Really appreciate the support. Thank you all the superchatters. Thank you for being here. Thank you to, yeah, we will be doing this again tomorrow. I think at the same time, same place. Also, we'll have a show tomorrow night at 8 p.m. Don't forget, if you want to write to me about the public speaking seminar, Iran at Iranbrookshow.com. All right, everybody, if somebody wants to throw up 20 bucks as a show support just to get us to target, that would be fantastic. But otherwise, I will see you all tomorrow. Thanks everybody. Bye.


5. Zachary Taylor Taylor was the 12th President of the United States. He was a career military officer who never accumulated much wealth. 4. William McKinley McKinley was the 25th President of the United States. However, he lost most of his money in the panic of 1893. 3. Ulysses S. Grant Grant was the 18th President of the United States. He was a war hero, however. He was not good with money and went bankrupt after his presidency. 2. James A. Garfield Garfield was the 20th President of the United States, serving from 1881 until his assassination. He was born into a poor family in Ohio. 1. Harry S. Truman He was the 33rd President of the United States. He was born into a poor family in Missouri and never accumulated much wealth.


It's time now for Mr. King, Tracer of Lost Persons. We now present Mr. King, Tracer of Lost Persons at this new time every week in a complete 30-minute mystery in which the kindly-old investigator brings us one of his most celebrated cases. Tonight, the case of murder and the revengeful ghost. Our scene opens in a well-to-do home in the suburbs of New York. It is late in the evening as a tall, good-looking man opens the door to one of the rooms. He crosses to his desk in the semi-darkness. Suddenly he sees a sinister figure, a figure that instills horror in his heart. Well, what are you? A phantom or a human being?  You? You've come to carry out your threat? No. I don't believe you've murdered me. You can't. Don't come near me. No! You must be Lona Wade, the young woman who telephones for an appointment here in my office. Yes, Mr. King, I am. This is my partner, Mike Clancy. Pleased to meet you, Miss Wade. Say, boss, the lady's as pale as a ghost. Ghost? Ghost? Mr. King, I've come to you for help. My fiance, Arthur Stacey, has been murdered. He was murdered by the ghost of his dead wife. She said she'd come back from the grave to murder him if he married again. And she has! She has! Since preservice, what's all this?  I never did, Mr. King. But now I do. I know that people can come back from the grave and commit murder. I've seen it with my own eyes. Just what did you see? I'll tell you the entire story, Mr. King. I met Ivor Stacey eight months ago. She was a millionaire, and the most wonderful person I ever knew. He and I were to be married this week. Well, then he was killed practically a meave of your wedding-ness? Made it by a ghost, Mr. Clancy. Under the weirdest circumstances. Ivor had been married once before to a woman named Theresa. She died two years ago. Good morning, Miss Wade. She had an incurable illness, Mr. King, and she was sick for years. During those years, she developed a burning jealousy. She imagined Ivor was seeing other women behind her back.  Yes, Mr. King. His wife, Theresa, became a shrew. She wouldn't let him out of her sight. She complained that he did nothing to help her overcome her illness. But he actually didn't care if she died. And was any of this true, Miss Wade? Oh, no. Ivor was faithful to Theresa, until the end. But she didn't believe it.  She said that if Ivor ever tried to marry again, she'd come back. From the dead? Yes, from the dead. She'd come back and stop him. She'd kill him. And I think she did, Mr. King. Try to calm yourself, Miss Wade. People don't return from the grave. But I saw her! I saw a ghostly figure in gray that slipped out of Ivor's house. Just before I found his dead body. You really think you saw a ghost, Miss? I saw something, Mr. Glancy. I was bringing Ivor a book he wanted to read. It was almost dark when I got near his house. And from the sidewalk, I saw his door open. And this, this gray woman walked out. Then she seemed to vanish in the darkness. You didn't see her face? No. When I hid inside the house, I found Ivor lying on the floor near his desk. He'd been stabbed to death. Miss Wade, did you tell the story of this so-called ghost to the police? No. I was afraid they wouldn't believe me. It, it sounds so fantastic. That's why I came here to ask you to help me, Mr. King. I owe it to the memory of the man I love to get to the bottom of all this. Suppose you take us to Ivor Stacey's home. I want to see just what the circumstance is where. Oh, Mr. King, don't you believe my story? Yes, Miss Wade, I do. It's your interpretation of it that I question. But we'll soon find out a little more about your fiance's murderer and the revengeful ghost. This is Ivor's house, Mr. King. Miss Wade, just where were you standing when the front door opened and the woman in grey walked out? Um, right about here. Boss, look. The door's opened again. Yes, Mike. There is slowly. But no one's supposed to be inside that house right now. I'm frightened. No one's come out, sir. But the door just opened and stayed open. And please wait in our car, Miss Wade. Come with me, Mike. Well, I'm no expert on Ghost Boss, but from what I hear, they don't have to open doors to get out of the house. They can walk right through them. I doubt if we're dealing with a ghost just yet, Mike. But there's no one here in the hall, Mr. King. And come into this room on the right, Mike. Well, this must be the manor room. There's a disk over there. What's this on top of the disk? It looks like a pad of paper and a pencil, Mr. King, sir. The pad's been scribbled on. I'm sure someone's drawn a lot of odd-looking little diagrams on it. Now, keep this pad of paper for future reference. And there's a door over there, Mike. Let's see where it leads. Boss, there's a man tied to that chair with a gag in his mouth. Here. Here. I take off that gag. There. Thank you. There's a killer loose in this house. He tied me to this chair after holding me up with a gun. I was afraid he was going to kill me. I'll untie this, man, Mike. Well, you search this house quickly. Right, sir. That man name is King. Now, have you free in just a moment? You're Mr. King, the famous investigator? Oh. I'm Alec Barnes. I didn't recognize the man who tied me to the chair. What were you doing in Ivor Stacey's home in the first place, Mr. Barnes? He was my business associate. His murder came as a terrible shock to me. About an hour ago, someone phoned my home. She said if I wanted to find Ivor Stacey's killer, I should come here. A woman phoned you? Yes. It was a woman's voice, Mr. King. But a very strange one. Why did you come here alone, Mr. Barnes? Alone? How do you mean?  Well, Mr. King, I... I wasn't sure if it was a hoax or not. I didn't want to make a fool of myself by taking the police in a wild goose chase. Was that the real reason? Now, look, what reason would I have to... Mr. King. Mr. King, he's standing right behind you. The man who attacked me. He's holding a gun. Don't move, either of you. Who are you? My name is Charles Harper. If it'll do you any good. Charles Harper. I know who this man is, Mr. King. His sister, Teresa, was Ivor Stacey's wife. She died two years ago. Yes. My sister died of neglect and cruel treatment. Even while she was on her deathbed, Ivor Stacey was seeing other women. And Teresa swore he'd never marry again. Well, he won't. You're all right, Mr. Harper. Where is he? I'm having this out with him right now. If you're referring to Ivor Stacey, you'll find him murdered. What? Yes. He's been murdered. I don't believe it. You're trying to hide him, to shield him from me. Do you feel this gun barrel against your head? Tell me where Ivor Stacey is hiding or I'll finish you off. Mr. King, he means it. Whether he does or not, Mr. Burns, I've given him all the information I can. Don't move, Mr. or I'll put a bullet for you. Drop the gun. Drop it, do you hear? Here, I'll take that gun, Mr. King. You had a close call with this fella. You came back just in time, Mike. Another second or two, and he may have carried out his threat. Who is he, boss? He's Charles Harper, the murdered man's brother-in-law. Oh, Mr. King. It was just a bluff when I threatened you with that gun. I had no intention of harming you. I don't know what came over me. You behaved like a man who was thirsting for revenge, Mr. Harper. And it may have been revenge that drove Ivor Stacey's killer to this crime. Then Ivor is really dead? You mean this is the first you heard about it, Mr. He's trying to give us that impression, Mike, but I'm not so sure that I believe him. Oh, would I have come back here to look for a dead man, Mr. King? You may have returned to look for something the murdered man possessed. That could have been the reason you tied up his business associate, Alec Burns, here, so you could search the house. No, Mr. King. Yes, Mr. Burns? Ivor Stacey once told me he had a brother-in-law who hated him. Did he? It was this man, Charles Harper. He thought Ivor was mistreating his sister Teresa. He did mistreat her. He ruined her whole life. Mr. King, it looks like this fellow might have carried out his sister's deathbed threat that she'd stopped the husband from marrying again. That's what I was thinking, Mike. It was a foolish thing for Teresa to say. She knew well enough she couldn't return from the dead. But someone seems to believe that she did return, Mr. Harper. What do you mean? I mean... Mr. King, wait. What is it, Mike? A woman in gray. She's staring in that window. Don't turn around, boss. She thinks we haven't seen her. What does she look like, Mike? I can't tell. She's wearing a gray veil over her face. A chorned lawn away who brought us this case is right. She does look like a ghost. She's gone, boss. Was he at this window, Mike? Yes, sir. There he is, walking away from the house. You remain here with the others, Mike. I'm going to follow that ghostly figure in gray and identify it once and for all. In just a moment we'll return to Mr. King and the case of murder and the revengeful ghost. Tomorrow and every Wednesday night, CBS Radio brings you thrilling adventure on the FBI in peace and war and the human side of police work on the 21st precinct. Be listening tomorrow night on most of these same stations when the FBI in peace and war exposes the specialty act racket and when Captain Cannelly's hard-working police of the 21st precinct tackle their latest unusual case at the Starz Address where America listens most for mystery too. To Mr. King and the case of murder and the revengeful ghost. Mr. King, the famous investigator and his partner, Mike Clancy are investigating the strange murder of Ivor Stacey, a widower who was about to marry for the second time. Stacey's first wife, Teresa, had sworn just before her own death that if he remarried, she would return from the grave for revenge and his fiance, Lorna Wade, now fears that the murder could have been the work of a revengeful ghost. But Mr. King has other more logical suspects in mind as he follows the eerie figure of a woman completely dressed in a ghostly gray color and the end of the trail leads the famous investigator to a small midtown apartment. Yes? Are you Miss Amy Fairchild? Yes, I am. How do you know my name? It's right here under your doorbell. Oh. My name is King. May I come in? What do you want, Mr. King? I'm investigating the murder of Ivor Stacey. I'm afraid I don't know who he is. I think you do, Miss Fairchild. You see, I followed you here from his home. A short while ago, you were peering through his window.  No. Lorna Wade, the victim's fiance, identified you just before I started to follow you. She said you were the so-called ghost she saw coming out of the house right after Ivor Stacey was stabbed to death. Mr. King, what do you mean? She saw a ghost. Lorna Wade mistook you for the ghost of Ivor Stacey's dead wife, Teresa, who swore she'd come back from the grave and stop him from ever marrying again. I don't know anything about Ivor's murder. Please! You seem to be reluctant to answer that telephone, Miss Fairchild.  No, I... You won't answer, I won't. Hello? Doctor Who? I see. No, my name is King. Yes, the investigator. Miss Fairchild is involved in a murder case, Doctor. I see. Has she ever been violent? Well, let me get back to you later on, Doctor, and thank you for your information. It may have an important bearing on this case. Goodbye. Mr. King, what did the doctor tell you? Evidently, Miss Fairchild, you've been under his care ever since you left a private sanitarium for the mentally ill. They said I was cured, and I am. You've got to believe me, Mr. King. Please. Please. Miss Fairchild, a man has been murdered, and you were seen leaving the scene of the crime. Now, as a mental patient, you'd be under strong suspicion. All right, I'll tell you everything. However, Stacey was my cousin. It was he who had me committed to the mental institution. And did you resent his doing that? Well, maybe I did in the beginning, but I'm cured now, and I hold no grudge against him. What were you doing in his home at the time he was murdered? I went to thank him for having spent the money to have me cured. But he was dead when I got there, and I left the house quickly to avoid being implicated. That's when you were seen by Lona Wade, who mistook you for a ghost. But, Mr. King, there is a ghost. I've seen her myself. You have? Ivor Stacey saw her too several times, and she terrified him. I'm sure it was the ghost of his dead wife, Teresa. Did you see her face? No, but I recognized a certain dress she was wearing. You don't believe me, do you? You had a motive for murder yourself, Miss Fairchild. Revenge. Let alone would make one a bit skeptical. Mr. King, when you saw me looking in the window of Ivor's home, there was a man with you. He also had a motive for revenge. Which man do you mean? Alec Barnes, my cousin Ivor's business associate. Did Alec tell you that he was forced out of their business by Ivor? No, he didn't. Alec Barnes and my cousin Ivor were both fighting for control of their corporation. Ivor won the fight and forced Alec Barnes out entirely. That's very interesting. Alec swore he'd get even. And perhaps he did by killing Ivor Stacey. Do you know why Alec Barnes was there in Ivor's house today? He said he got a telephone call seeing his friend Ivor Stacey's killer on the scene of the crime. I made that telephone call, Mr. King. You made the call? Why, Miss Fairchild? I was hoping to trap him. I thought Alec Barnes would get himself away in some manner. Fairchild, do you know a man named Charles Harper? Yes. His sister was Ivor Stacey's wife, who died after a long illness. Charles Harper is also under suspicion. He hated Ivor Stacey because he said Mr. Stacey was seeing other women while his wife was dying. I don't think that's true, Mr. King. Now tell me this. Did your cousin Ivor Stacey meet his fiancee Lorna Wade after his wife was dead? Yes. His business associate Alec Barnes introduced them to each other. He can tell you anything you want to know about my cousin Ivor's affairs unless he wants to deliberately hide something from you. You're very bitter about this Alec Barnes. Why, Miss Fairchild? He was the first to suggest that there was something wrong with my mind. Is that why you're so willing to accuse him of murder? Why do you say things like that? Are you against me like all the rest? You can become violent as the doctor said. Fairchild, I want you to stay here in your apartment until you hear from me. Don't leave unless you want to be arrested on a murder charge. You can't do that to me. I'm not a prisoner. I'm sorry, Mr. King. I'll do what you say. The murdered man's fiancee Lorna Wade believes that a revengeful ghost caused Ivor Stacey's death. And you say you've seen that ghost. But I have another theory which I hope to put to a test very shortly after I return to the murder house. How'd you make out, Mr. King? Mike, I followed our ghost to her apartment and she turned out to be very much alive. Where are the others? Inside, Mr. King. I could have been in separate rooms to avoid trouble. And I locked Charles Harper, the brother-in-law, in to be sure. What's this sheet of paper here on this table? Anything important on it, boss? Maybe a clue to this murder. Mike, how long were you and the other two men in this room? About a half hour before I sent them inside. And where were they sitting? Mr. Harper was over there and Alec Barnes was in this chair. I see. Mike, I'm going out again for a short time. Let me have your skeleton key and keep a sharp eye on our suspects. When I return, we may have all the evidence we need to convict the killer. Oh, you're back already, Mr. King. What's in that package you carried? You'll see in just a moment, Mike. Please call the two men in here. Okay, sir. Uh, step inside, Mr. Barnes. Mr. King wants to see you. Yes, Mr. King. In just a moment, Mr. Barnes, I want Charles Harper, the murdered man's brother-in-law, to hear this, too. Come into this room, Mr. Harper. You locked me in. I can't see you're treating me like a criminal. I'm afraid you're acting like a criminal, Charles Harper.  So did you, Mr. Barnes. What? You and Stacey were partners in a very successful business. And as I understand it, he forced you out of the firm and ruined you financially. Are you going to accuse me of murder because of a business transaction? No, Mr. Barnes. Because it isn't true. I know it isn't true. Well, thank you for that much. Don't thank me too quickly. You may regret it. What do you mean? Like, you know what doodling is. Doodling, Mr. King? For sure, boss. Those are little pictures and diagrams that some people draw on paper a while away at the time or when they're talking on the telephone. Yes. It's usually done absent-mindedly. Do you remember that when we first came into this house, we found a small pad of paper on the desk where the murder took place? Sure, Mr. King. It was scrawled with a lot of doodads and crooked lines. This paper I just discovered here on this table is covered with the same kind of scroll and the little diagrams and pictures on both the pad and this paper are alike. Well, the same fella made the both, Mr. King. Exactly, Mike. The murderer apparently idled away his time while waiting for his victim by drawing on the pad of paper. Just a few minutes ago, that same murderer passed the time again in the same fashion. The man who was sitting in that chair near the table. Yes. And that man is Alec Barnes. What?  Do you think you can hold me on that kind of evidence, Mr. King? I have further evidence in this package. Please open it, Mike. There's two dresses in here. Yes. Dresses that belonged to the murdered victim's dead wife, Teresa Stacey. I found them in Alec Barnes' apartment. He stole those dresses after Mrs. Stacey died so he could impersonate her as a ghost and frighten her husband. Alec Barnes was the revengeful ghost.  Why? He's carrying a switchblade knife. Look, you snap this button on the end and the knife pops out. Look at the size of it pop. It looks like there's blood on the blade near the handle. It's undoubtedly the murder weapon. You'll have to prove that, Keel. There's no use putting up a front barns because I also know your real motive for murdering Ivo Stacey. Or do you? I found out that it was you who introduced Stacey to Lorna Wade. The girl he later was going to marry. Lorna? Yes. The girl who asked me to investigate have fiancee's murder. And, Mike, I talked to Miss Wade again just before I came in here. She's waiting just outside the door. I'll ask her to come in, boss. Come in, please, Miss Wade. Lorna. Alec, help Mr. Keen. What have you told him? What did you say about me? Miss Wade, please repeat. Please repeat what you told me on the way over to this house. I told you, Mr. Keen, several times in the past. Alec Barnes tried to force his attentions on me. He was infatuated with me. Lorna, you're putting me in the electric chair. Lorna Wade didn't connect you with the murder Alec Barnes. Oh, she would have told me this before. Her mind was only on the fact that a ghost may have been responsible for Ivo Stacey's death. All right. I'll admit it. I killed Stacey. He forced me out of the firm. But that wasn't the thing that nearly drove me crazy. It was losing you, Lorna. Alec, I told you I didn't love you. I only loved Ivo. If it hadn't been for him, Mr. Keen, I thought I could make Lorna love me with Stacey out of the way. Anyway, when I thought I was losing out to him, I couldn't stand it. So you broke into Ivo Stacey's house and waited for him to return with a nine-inch knife in your hand after masquerading as his wife's ghost. You evidently knew about the threat she had made that she'd return from the dead and kill him if he ever tried to remarry. Yes, I knew. At first I tried to frighten Stacey away from Lorna by appearing as his wife's ghost. When that didn't work, I used another method. Yes. Murder. Plunged in a cool remorseless fashion. But you gave yourself away when you scribbled idly on that pad of paper while waiting for your victim to arrive. Make turn Alec Barnes, our revengeful ghost, over to the police for the murder of Ivo Stacey. So Mr. Keen finds the solution to the case of murder and the revengeful ghost. Don't forget, mystery fans, the man who walks by night. The Whistler will be heard coast to coast beginning this Thursday night on CBS Radio. Long a familiar figure in eerie mysteries heard by West Coast fans, the Whistler will be yours to listen to Thursday nights on most of the same stations beginning this week. A shady private investigator is double-crossed by his attractive but just as shady Girl Friday. Leading to a story the Whistler believes you will find packed with intriguing angles. Thursday night at the Star's Address. Stay tuned now for the Rosemary Clooney Show, which follows immediately over most of these same stations. Mr. Keen, Tracer of Lost Persons is based on the novel Mr. Keen. The radio sequel is originated and produced by Frank and Anne Hummert. Dialogue by Lawrence Clee, directed by Richard Leonard. Phillip Clark plays Mr. Keen. Mr. Keen will be on the air at the same time next week, solving a full 30-minute mystery. So make this new time every week, Mr. Keen time on your radio. Next week, here Mr. Keen in the case of murder and the omen of death. Your announcer is Harry Kramer. Ride a real squad car with Night Watch Thursdays on the CBS Radio Network. This is WMT Cedar Rapids.


So that's the slab protected. I've loaded the block out. Well, that's got the first mixie. We've had the laser up checking levels So we're not working to now. We've got our measurements to go up The winder on top actually two brick wide, so we just need to find a position then Storm madness is coming tomorrow, so we've lined up an inside job doing a linky I didn't press record then. I just took that panel out all by myself. I don't think you did. Well, I got it out I'll put it down right We haven't done the intro like we usually do with H24 now. We've got 10 to 8 So we'll give you a quick one that shifts today's work Got a bit of tidiness to do there with the fence panel. So even though the fence panel is going back Pick the boards up from Sirius this morning, Sirius and Stuart. So that's the slab protected I've loaded the block out. Well, Alex got the first mixie. Well, let's put half mixing to use the alpha bag up Remember to stand in the board so we now got four boards on stands Super rhino boards on our rhino stands and some other green ones that you're not really that impressed with So yeah, we're gonna get the line set up. We're gonna put a straight edge up on each door with our rhino clamps So we're just running into it not plumbing every course then just to save a bit of time and crack on Where the forecast isn't brilliant meant to go a bit iffy at the middle of the day But hopefully we'll get away with it and tomorrow is Storm Agnes, so we're trying to get a job on On the inside tomorrow doing a lintel and a door opening So we'll see if that happens. You'll see the video if it doesn't you won't Well, you will see the video because we're doing it we just don't know when So there you go. All the boards are set Lines are up. Just got a few to run in there to raise the lines. So while Alex is getting them in I'll get these Profiles up So Let's get going. I'm gonna mix in after you've been the toilet. I've just stopped at the bricks Put my trestles up and we hop up top. So I'm not bending massive help then Yeah, everything's good Stabilize them so the profiles aren't pulling over Just keep going. There's a window on this one. That's it. Just carry on. Yeah, I've got the two profiles up for the doors It's just a bit buff up to them. That's great. I think of anything else I get back to you So let's find somewhere new to put you for time lapsing This is spinning. Just getting it wet up We've had the laser up checking levels So we're not working to now. We've got our measurements to go up Let's go to the incline level Looking good, these bricks are nice Alex sent So we're just gonna keep going so we can't reach anymore and then see how we get on. If we do get that far We'll jump inside I'm just gonna trace the pond round Work out all the cuts and get all the cuts done. I've got a window coming in one, two, three courses They'll just see there. I've got a pretty many tiny window ventilation Two brick wide So we just need to find a position then. A bit of jointing to do We crack on Where there's old in It's windy but it's keeping everything dry. So apologies if you can't hear me properly Once Alex is finished on his core, he's gonna get the motor in. He's gonna get me barrow soil first Just like that. We've been like a bit at the moment Lift me up a little bit as well. That's three. Thank God. Happy days There we go. Window set out As I say, it's only a WC window. That's why it's high up.  So this is this is at my end. Done It's a couple of heights. I think we've got 18 on top of damp there So now we can get this all this And we're completely tidy up spotless because we won't be coming in here again We're gonna be working over and off the trestles from now on. Easy to easy for us to work from the inside for how many courses we've got left. We've got One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Seven left on here. Yeah, then the pikes. Yeah Seven to lint light and then wall plates obviously gonna move it higher So, yeah, this can all be tied it up and done with we don't need to come back in here again We might might just take that out for access tomorrow. Sorry Thursday. We're not here tomorrow Store madness is coming tomorrow, so we've lined up an inside job doing a So That's open anyway, that one goes back tonight But we'll see if we need to take it out or not. We've got I've got a way through there But if it gets blocked you can always come round So I'm wiggling again. Sorry. Yeah, there we go Just once a few little I think that's causing bunnies pulling in Just tidied up and then it won't sponge you off Jobs are good I mean the clay commons matching them clay commons, so they're a good match for them But they're double the price them rascals Oh, yeah, I've got that and two and a half buckets in it I've got the first few down on bolster and then once I've got the pea size With the big Milwaukee saw we've got which just flies through these five lights Great block nice and light easy to cut very strong You can fix into them and the good thermal value There's nothing there's nothing to dislike about five lights Great blocks if you don't use them already start using them We forgot to do an outro again didn't we? Yeah, yeah Well, let's just say the job wasn't exactly kind to us. So, um doing an outro was kind of the One of what wasn't on our priority list Yeah, so we did make some good progress at least but that's the end of the video So thank you all very much for watching if you enjoyed be sure to give a Thumbs up and if you need to the channel you want to see more hit subscribe and tap on that bell It's meant to be a bell That way you'll always know when we upload which is a massive help and A good way to support the channel and if you want to support the channel any extra ways you can Do the super thanks option under the video or there's a link to dad's paypal not necessary but appreciated nonetheless every little bit towards Dead's a Trust fund for his hip. We've got some very kind donations. Yeah, so everybody who's been donating very very much appreciated. Thank you So this has been lounging about and I'll live in room with steven alex and we'll see you the next one


Hello, and welcome back to the craft box. My name is Brent, and today we are on episode 93 of the completionist crafters series today We are in Aquila again, and we are crafting the adepts spear of havoc as always Everything you need is on screen and all of the requirements and all of that jazz all that jazz love to see it But yeah equipment crafting station as always It seems for the last five million years Always equipment crafting station But yeah for this you need to have a Aries spear of havoc Which is from the any of the bosses in Mount Olympus? I recommend the first one seven Wraith tc's which you can get from the bizarre also fits him sells them And I'm sure other people sell them as well Crystal vials 20 I recommend the Celestia reagent vendor, but there's a whole bunch of others as well black pearl The transmute of black lotus is the best way to get them black lotus I do have a video on blood moss. I recommend farming pink dandelions or I recommend checking out my video on that But the shadow palace is a good place and dragon spire the athinium is also a good place as well Water lilies transmute from cattails cattails Mocom keep or the Hyde Park fountain and deep mushrooms. Good luck They're annoying. They're really really annoying, but in Vestralind I think there's a spawn where you get black lotus is so you can kind of get them at the same time But yeah, anyway, let's create this bad boy up. It's not particularly good But it it gives a 2% death accuracy to 3% depth damage and a Pip You know if not the best I would recommend the iron Huster the scar and huster which is a guaranteed drop from Mount Olympus you 100% get it every time you do it So yeah, I would recommend that way over this one But hey, anyway, if you wanted the crafty again, there it is This is what this is what it looks like so I can actually equip this one. Hold up We need to take off now need to take off now, but yeah, I can actually equip this one because it's death But yeah, that's what it looks like anyway Thank you for watching remember to leave a like and subscribe and for a subscribe press will be a little bell So you know exactly when I post another video and remember to craft outside the box


Hello everyone, once again welcome you all to MSP lecture series on advanced transformational chemistry. In my 12th lecture I did mention about interesting aspects of valence bond theory and how there are some exceptions or how there are some you know different type of vibration we came across to explain totally different type of bondings especially in case of heavier P block elements where we have multiple bonding. Now we shall move on to another very fascinating concept which appears almost complete in explaining all properties reactivity and all applications and spectroscopic properties of transmittal complexes or coordination compounds that is crystal field theory. Before I really start digging to crystal field theory let me try to give the background to this crystal field theory. The basic idea of the crystal field theory that the metal ions in the complexes is subjected to an electric field originating from the ligands was first observed by Bacquerel in 1829. The same Bacquerel who discovered radioactivity along with Mary Curie and Peary Curie, Henry Bacquerel. The same year Bete who has contributed significantly in developing crystal field theory a physicist carried out work by correlating symmetry and crystal field strength influence on electronic levels of the gaseous metal ions and laid down an excellent foundation to crystal field theory. That means the Bete's contribution is quite remarkable in developing a complete concept of crystal field theory. During the same time Dutch physicist Cramer's reported that the electronic levels in molecules containing an odd number of electrons must remain at least 2 fold degenerate. So this is also called as Cramer's degeneracy rule in the absence of any magnetic field which is closely related to Bete's double group theory. Double group theory means when he started explaining he told that the degeneracy of gaseous metal ion will not remain intact when it enters to crystal field and it is destroyed and it forms a set of two groups that is what he mentioned that is called Bete's double group theory and this is more or less similar to what Cramer's observed and called it as Cramer's degeneracy rule and that way many physicists contributed significantly for crystal field theory. In fact the physicist who developed this theory which appears almost perfect even today to explain literally everything about transmittal complexes. The first application of new theory was made by Van Bleck in 1932 by realizing that the quenching of the orbital momentum would be a consequence of the crystalline field model. He succeeded in explaining why the paramilitarism of the complexes of the first transmission series corresponds to a spin only value, spin only value is calculated using the equation. Also the crystal field model was able to predict in which cases there would be small deviation from this empirical rule that means crystal field theory explains involving orbital momentum the small variations that observed in the magnetic properties. Here calculations of Scalp and Penney and of Jordan all are physicists showed that both the anisotropy and the variation of the magnetic susceptibility with the temperature could be exactly predicted and calculated. So that means they showed that yes using crystal field theory one can use calculations and explain all these properties related to magnetic properties. They also confirm that basic idea in the Bete Van Bleck approach that the crystal field reduces the degeneracy of the electronic levels of the gaseous metal atom. That means yes they further confirm that crystal field theory is correct and the degeneracy of DR builds are destroyed or removed. Also another Dutch experimental and theoretical physicist Gorter showed in his paper with the crystal field of a regular tetrahedron will produce the same level as those produced by a regular octahedron but with the level order inverted. Now we know that how the splitting is in octahedral field is reversely in case of tetrahedral field. For example in case of octahedral field if you have EG higher energy and T2G lower energy when you go to tetrahedral field opposite is true T2 becomes higher in energy and E becomes lower in energy. So this was predicted through experimental and theoretical work by physicist Gorter. So later attention was given to understanding and calculating the magnetic behavior of the complex ions. Eventually Van Bleck's crystal field theory become a popular and a complete theory to explain almost all aspects of coordination compounds. So later when ligand field theory and molecular orbital theory were developed there is a reason for modifying or refining crystal field theory to turn into ligand field theory and eventually come up with molecular orbital theory there is a reason I shall tell you those things later. Crystal field theory and valence bond theory almost appear to be special cases of molecular orbital theory. So that means it indicates molecular orbital theory has taken the best part of crystal field theory as well as valence bond theory and also one can call this modified molecular orbital theory is more or less same as ligand field theory and these things were shown by Van Bleck and also British physicist Penny and Penny again worked in looking into the magnetic properties of manganese ion and several other metal ions. The concept of strong and weak ligand work on potassium ferricinate manganese 2 ion and also magnetic behavior of vanadium, titanium and chromium proved the efficacy of crystal field theory and unlike the coordination theory too many conflicts came from bloom strand. So here we did not see much of rivalry but people started looking into it and critically evaluating and start appreciating and also they used it in their later work. With the input from crystal field theory John and Teller we call John Teller theorem or John Teller distortion I am talking about the same two gentlemen here with the input from crystal field theory John and Teller had shown in 1937 that no non-linear molecule could be stable in a degenerate state and such a configuration must immediately distort that means when we have this is more or less applicable for dx square by y square and dz square because they are always lying in the direction of approach of the ligands especially in octahedral geometry and also this is more pronounced among octahedral complexes that means when they have uneven filling or uneven or odd number of electrons that is what it is referring so that means no non-linear molecule could be stable in a degenerate state and such a configuration must be immediately distort. So via nuclear displacements in the molecule in such a way that the degeneracy is removed so that means such molecules will try to remove the degeneracy and go to lower symmetry. So when we calculated the John Teller distortions for molecules of the form m l 6 that means octahedral molecules and showed how this configuration of instability affected the magnetic moment of the molecules. Crystal field theory of Bitte and Wamblik does not consider the role played by the ligands other than producing a steady crystalline field that means the role of ligand ends there after generating an electric field to influence the metaraion and its electron. So that is what crystal field theory is all about but ligand field theory indicates a hybridization of the pure crystal field theory with molecular theory of mullicon. So what ligand field theory does is it takes hybridization concept and also it takes pure crystal field theory and also considers molecular theory of mullicon. So that is the reason it is a very perfect and refined theory to explain literally everything related to ligand field theory. There are few things that could not be explained with the crystal field theory that also can be explained without any ambiguity using ligand field theory. So the ligand field theory incorporates the best features of both the pure crystal field theory and the molecular orbital theory and is a superior route for understanding the metal complexes considering all aspects. So nearly all the results of the crystal field theory are also valid in the ligand field theory. And now as precisely these people concluded crystal field theory are looks like a subsidiary branch of ligand field theory although crystal field theory contributed significantly to come up with ligand field theory. So these are the some references that are pertinent to early work on crystal field theory before Bain and Wathbeck proposed their wonderful crystal field theory. If you are interested you can look into these books and also papers. So now we know that crystal field theory is an electrostatic model and uses the ligand electrons to create an electric field around the metallocentrum. So that means the electric field that is generated with the ligands that are approaching the metal they have a greater influence on deciding what kind of geometry a metal should assume. So attraction between the central metal atom and the ligands in a complex is purely electrostatic. That means according to crystal field theory concept the attraction between the central metal atom and the ligand in a complex is purely electrostatic. That means if the metal is a cationic in nature and the ligands are anionic then it is purely the ion ion interaction. On the other hand if the metal is cationic and the ligand is neutral and ligand will generate a dipole so then it is called ion dipolar interaction. How it generate dipole when you have a ligand such as ammonia or water because of the electro negativity difference N or oxygen would carry negative charge and whereas peripheral hydrogen atom carry positive charge now this negative which has the N or O will be directed towards the metal that is the reason we call it as ion dipolar interaction. Metal is a positive ion of charge equal to its oxidation state and is surrounded by negative or neutral ligand such as ammonia or cyanate. The negative end of the dipole in the ligand is directed towards the metal ion. The electrons on the metal center are under repulsive forces from those on the ligands. That means when the ligands are approaching the metal with a pair of electrons and already electrons are present in d orbitals they would experience a repulsive force as a result of this one the electrons already present on the metal would occupy d orbital furthest away from the direction of approach of ligands. That means when the ligands are approaching the metal and the electrons already present in the d orbitals will occupy positions furthest away from the direction of approach of the ligand. And here ligands are just point charges and crystal field theory gives emphases and it states that no metal and ligand orbital interaction that means according to crystal field theory there is no orbital interaction in metal complexes. In the free metal all the d orbitals have the same energy under degenerate. You take a metal ion metal atom you atomize into metal gaseous metal ion till all the d orbitals are degenerate. Once they enter into ligand field the ligand field destroys the degeneracy of those orbitals and they possess different energies depending upon the type of ligand field we have in the vicinity of metal center. So that is depicted in this diagram electrostatic interaction between metal ion and donor atom is what crystal field theory says for example if you just look into it separated metal and ligands have high energy and coordinated metal and ligand stabilize it to here and then destabilization due to ligand d electron repulsion. Whereas when the metal to ligand bonds are established the energy would tend to decrease but on the other hand the electrons that are already present in the metal atom would experience repulsive forces as a result again energy is elevated and further splitting due to octahedral field is shown here. So that means one should be able to write in this order separated metal and ligands and this is electrostatic attraction and metal ion press coordinated ligands will be lower in energy and ligand d electron repulsion would increase it and then depending upon the direction of approach of the ligands and the orbitals in which electrons are there the splitting takes place in this fashion and this is a typical splitting pattern I have shown for an octahedral complex where T2g is triply degenerate and Eg is doubly degenerate Eg is nothing but dz square and dx minus y square and T2g is nothing but dx at dyz and dxy orbitals. To make it clear I have shown here so free metal and plus ligands would be having higher energy and then metal ligand electrostatic interaction establishes metal to ligand bond and as a result energy drops considerably and then the repulsive forces increases and depending upon the type of ligands we have and their relative orientation with respect to the direction of approach of the ligand they split and this splitting with vary with various ligand fields the splitting would be different for different crystal fields for example octahedral square pen or tetrahedral trigonal bipyramidal all those things now one by one we shall start looking into those things. So what is ligand field theory? Ligand field theory is one of the very useful bonding theories to explain the electronic structure of complexes it is originated from the crystal field theory of ionic crystals to metal complex system when this theory was originally developed to understand solid state chemistry. So consider a ligand field generated by 6 ligands coordinating octahedral into a central metal atom of course it is very appropriate to call crystal field theory as ligand field theory because the electric field is greatly influenced by a ligand field. So the ligands that are approaching the metal ion as a result probably it is more appropriate to call this theory as ligand field theory rather than crystal field theory. So consider a ligand field generated by 6 ligands coordinating octahedral into a central metal the electron phase of the ligand is called the ligand field to electrons air pair of electrons negative charge of ionic ligands or negative end of a neutral ligand exert repulsive force on the d orbitals on the metal d orbitals which is anisotropic depending on the direction of the orbitals these are the fundamental aspects one should remember. Now consider the metal cation at the origin from which Cartesian coordinates are considered it is very simple you write Cartesian coordinates x axis y axis and z axis and the extended so that x axis minus x y minus y z minus z is there at the origin place the metal atom and then also at the origin try to keep all 5 d orbitals and you just analyze their relative orientation so your job is done. So now when you look into their relative orientation and the direction of approach of the ligands for example after putting the metal atom at the Cartesian coordinate origin now bring 6 ligands in octahedral fashion that means now if you try to write an octahedral geometry with metal at the origin of Cartesian coordinate you can see the direction of approach of ligands towards the metal coincide with z minus z x minus x y minus y directions. So now if you look into d x square minus y square and d z square are oriented along the direction of the axis that mean d x minus y square is oriented along x and minus x and y and minus y d z square is along z axis so that means whatever the ligands that are approaching along these would experience maximum repulsion as result energy is elevated. On the other hand when the 6 ligands are approaching along the 6 directions and if you look into the orientation of other remaining d orbitals such as d x y d y z and d z x they are between these axis they are between these planes as result what happens they experience less repulsive forces from the electrons coming from the ligands as result what happens their energy is lowered with respect to the zero energy or barycentrum. If ligands are placed on the axis the repulsive interaction is larger for E g orbital that is what I mentioned then for the T 2 g orbitals and the E g orbitals are destabilizer and the T 2 g orbitals are stabilized to an equal extent. The energy difference between the T 2 g and E g orbital is important and the average energy of this orbital is taken as zero energy that is where you put barycentrum. If the energy difference between the 2 E g and the 3 T 2 g orbital is said to delta O this is called crystal filtration energy for octahedral splitting. The energy level of the E g orbitals is plus 3 by 5 delta O and that of the T 2 g orbital is minus 2 by 5 delta O. So if you put here 4 electrons and you put here 6 electrons then you will end up with zero electron at this barycentrum. So delta O may also be expressed as 10 delta Q or 10 d Q in this case the energy level of the E g orbital is plus 6 d Q and that of the T 2 g orbital is minus 4 d Q. So this is how crystal field stabilization energy is defined. I think I will stop here and I will give some time for you to read and understand. In my next lecture I will proceed with explaining more geometries through simple methods so that you should be able to write crystal field splitting diagram literally for any geometry that comes to your mind. With this have an excellent time reading chemistry.