Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
CATEGORY: main vocalists with honey-toned voices who can also absolutely devour a rock song [ pls use ear/headphones ! ๐ง๐โโ๏ธ ] left - dk (svt) | center - sungho (bnd) | right - youngjae (tws)
0 Kommentare
Keine Kommentare verfรผgbar
Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt
![when your two faves from two different groups couldn't do a collab so you make one for them ๐คท๐ปโโ๏ธ pt. 3 [ pls use ear/headphones ! ๐ง๐โโ๏ธ ] left ear - dokyeom (svt) | right ear - youngjae (tws)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2018286457165959343/ext_tw_video_thumb/2018286399875915776/pu/img/x97GU7QmNCPVNBSV.jpg)
![CSS Tip! โจ It's 2024 and you have a new way to make animated borders ๐ .glow::after { offset-path: rect(0 100% 100% 0 round var(--radius)); animation: loop; } @โkeyframes loop { to { offset-distance: 100%; }} Using the offset-* properties you can animate elements along the perimeter of others ๐ The rect() value gained support in Safari 17.2 ๐ To start, you create an element and put it inside your main element. For example, you put a span inside the button ๐ค Click me! Make the element fill its parent with absolute positioning and inset [data-glow] { position: absolute; inset: 0; } Now the good part, you use a pseudoelement on that element and define an offset-path [data-glow]::after { content: ""; offset-path: rect(0 auto auto 0 round var(--radius)); animation: loop 2.6s infinite linear; } With the rect value, you are saying the path fills the parent container: top: 0 right: auto || 100% bottom: auto || 100% left: 0 Then you can use round to make sure the path uses the same radius as whatever the parent has The @โkeyframes animation merely animates the offset-distance of that pseudoelement to 100% @โkeyframes loop { to { offset-distance: 100%; }} You can see this more clearly in the video ๐ซถ The offset-* properties also include an offset-anchor property. This allows you to dictate which point of the element follows the path. For example: anchor-offset: 100% 50%; This means that the "right, center" of the element will follow the perimeter of the parent element ๐ค Lastly, the visuals ๐จ For color, you can use a gradient such as a linear gradient to fill the pseudo-element. [data-glow]::after { background: radial-gradient( circle at right, hsl(320 90% 100%), transparent 50% ); } Then clip away everything so you only have the border and can still have translucent backgrounds, etc. Use a mask with mask-composite โจ A little transparent border trick: [data-glow] { border: 2px solid transparent; mask: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent), linear-gradient(white, white); mask-clip: padding-box, border-box; mask-composite: intersect; } Bit of a long one. Hope you find it useful ๐ CodePen.IO link below ๐](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1752903535488823789/ext_tw_video_thumb/1752900027591151616/pu/img/d0sViTqgbe8N-yux.jpg)
![MAGIC VIBES WITH EMIBONNIE #GMMTV2026 #EmiBonnie ๐ฆ: The name of our series next year is "Moon Shadow". ๐ค: How is it? Tell us abt it. ๐ฐ: It's a relationship that's a bit of a love triangle. There's another character named "Jay" who is P'Film's character. The story is that P'Chanโ ๐ฆ: I play the role of Chan, who is a bar owner. ๐ฐ: And I'm Key, a singer who applies to be a singer at the bar. ๐ฆ: And my character asks, "Are you here just to sing?" ๐ค: And what do you want her to do? Pls answer, pls answer. ๐ฆ: We answered in the way you saw just now (in the pilot) that she's not just there to sing. ๐ฐ: She's not just there to sing, 'kay? She's there for other things too. ๐ฆ: Yeah, it's a relationship like a one night stand between P'Chan and N'Key. ๐ฐ: But she doesn't want just one night. ๐ฆ: She doesn't want it to be temporary, right? ๐ฐ: She wants it to be forever. ๐ฆ: She wants to stay overnight forever.* ๐ฐ: But P'Chan has a lingering bond. ๐ฆ: That is N'Film. N'Film stars as my ex girlfriend. ๐ฐ: You can tell what her type is. ๐ฆ: She has an ex who she hasn't been able to forget. There are still ties between them. ๐ค: And what are you going to use to fight against that, Bonnie? ๐ฐ: I'm good at giving affection and pleasing ppl. ๐ฆ: She's very good at giving affection and being attentive. ๐ฐ: So that's what I have to use to fight. ๐ฆ: She doesn't stop fighting, she doesn't back down. ๐ฐ: Well, is she as good at being attentive as me? ๐ฆ: You'll have to see in the series whether she's good at being attentive and affectionate. ๐ค: Is it hard to choose? ๐ฐ: Yeah, is it? ๐ฆ: There are options, aren't there? Each of them has different good qualities. ๐ฐ: Hey, what does that mean? ๐ฆ: They have their own good qualities. One of them is an ex, well, why are they an ex? ๐ฐ: Favourite ex? ๐ฆ: Nooo~ ๐ฆ: There has to be a reason why they're an ex, right? ๐ฐ: But they're a favourite? ๐ฆ: ๐ ๐ฐ: A favourite ex. ๐ค: Let's save the family problems for later ๐ ๐ฐ: Okay okay. ๐ฆ: Well, honestly, I don't know yet how much of a favourite she is, but she might be, bc as soon as she appeared, even though she'd been gone for a long time, my heart still fluttered again. ๐ฐ: ๐ ๐ค: And Film's eyes were something too. ๐ฐ: They were something. I just touched her piano, and she was like, "Don't touch it!" ๐ฆ: Yeah. ๐ฐ: Can't touch her ex's gift at all. ๐ฆ: The piano is something that I and N'Jay bought together, she bought it for me and we played it together all this time, and Key suddenly touched it. ๐ฐ: See? That means she hasn't forgotten her ex. But I'm good at pleasing ppl, right? ๐ฆ: Anything that's from the past, there are reasons why they're in the past. ๐ค: And the ex is the past? ๐ฆ: Yeah, the past is the past, the present is the present, and the future isโ ๐ฐ: Me, I'm your future. ๐ค: ๐คญ ๐ฆ: Well. Yes. ๐ค: So you've matured in this series. ๐ฆ: Yeah, we've matured in this series. ๐ฐ: We've grown multiple steps. ๐ฆ: Bonnie really matured a lot. ๐ฐ: Yeah, it's the first series that's super spicy. ๐ฆ: Pls stay tuned for whether the relationship between the three of us is going to be temporary, overnight, or forever. ๐ฐ: The three of us? ๐ฆ: Oh! Two of us, two of us. Sorry, I misspoke. ๐ฐ: Three is fine. Sure. ๐ฆ: Two ppl, but the relationship between the three of us. Three of us. ๐ฐ: How it will turn out. ๐ฆ: And pls check out the song that we sang in the trailer. It was us singing. ๐ฐ: It's the song "เธเธฑเนเธงเธเธฃเธฒเธงเธซเธฃเธทเธญเธเนเธฒเธเธเธทเธเธเธฅเธญเธเนเธ (Temporary or Overnight Forever)". ๐ฆ: "เธเธฑเนเธงเธเธฃเธฒเธงเธซเธฃเธทเธญเธเนเธฒเธเธเธทเธเธเธฅเธญเธเนเธ (Temporary or Overnight Forever)" by P'Mai Charoenpura (and Nueng Narongvit). ๐ฐ: I'm not sure when they'll release it. ๐ค: You're singers, can you sing it now. ๐ฆ: Now? ๐ฐ: (sings immediately, love her) ๐ฆ: (sings too, touches Bonnie's chin for absolutely no reason) ๐ฐ: She's playing an MV too. ๐ฆ: (continues singing) [continued in replies]](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1993301759335501853/amplify_video_thumb/1993301342031659008/img/B4MNi_7Vm-kS_L5l.jpg)
![๐ฃ FBI agents, Muslims blast Zohran Mamdani's embrace of radical imam as 'foolish' and 'dangerous' ๐ Read my new Fox News article here: ๐ฃ I don't know if you remember the first World Trade Center attack. I do. It was Feb. 26, 1993, and across from the offices of the Wall Street Journal, where I worked in the Washington, D.C., bureau, a man attempted to blow up the World Trade Center towers. ๐ฃ Sound familiar? ๐ฃ It was the same plot -- but by ground -- that was "successful" on Sept. 11, 2001. ๐ฃ Why does it matter today? ๐ Because New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani on Friday embraced an imam, Siraj Wahhaj, who served as a CHARACTER WITNESS for Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called "Blind Sheikh -- who lectured at Wahhaj's Brooklyn mosque, Masjid Al-Taqwa while plotting the 1993 scheme that murdered six innocents and injured 1,042 civilians at the World Trade Center. ๐ On Friday, Mamdani walked into that same mosque in Brooklyn and embraced Wahhaj, posting a photo with both men's arms around each other, beaming, and he shared this message: "Today at Masjid At-Taqwa [sic], I had the pleasure of meeting with Imam Siraj Wahhaj, one of the nationโs foremost Muslim leaders and a pillar of the Bed-Stuy community." ๐ถ๏ธ Two retired FBI agents who investigated the 1993 World Trade Center bombing are questioning Mamdani's embrace of Wahhaj, who has also raised legal defense funds for convicted terrorists. ๐ถ๏ธ One of the retired FBI agents, Frank Pellegrino told me โEither he doesnโt know who Wahhaj is or he doesnโt care. Whichever it is, Mamdani looks foolish.โ ๐ถ๏ธ The other retired FBI agent, John Anticev, the FBIโs lead case agent on the 1993 attack, echoed the concern, telling me: โEverybody in politics should be aware of the people whose endorsement theyโre getting. Imam Siraj Wahhaj has endorsed a radical agenda.โ โWhy should we pay attention to these retired agents? ๐ฃ For decades, these agents have chased extremists around the world. I know Frank Pellegrino because he tried to arrest Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for his involvement in the 1993 WTC attack but Qatari officials tipped him off. It was KSM's NEPHEW, using the pseudonym "Ramzi Yousef," who blew up a rented car below Tower One. ๐ฃ Here were the demands that Ramzi Yousef sent to the New York Times in a letter: 1 โ "Stop all military, economical, and political aid to Israel." 2 โ "All diplomatic relations with Israel must stop." 3 โ "Not to interfere with any of the Middle East countries interior affairs." ๐ฃ Sound familiar? They're the same demands of Mamdani's Students for Justice in Palestine National Students for Justice in Palestine and DSA. ๐ฃ KSM escaped Qatar to be able to plot from Pakistan a second attack on the World Trade Center -- the 9/11 attack -- and then months later in 2002 behead my friend and Wall Street Journal colleague, Daniel Pearl. ๐ฃ Frank Pelligrino interviewed KSM in Guantanamo where he confessed to murdering Danny with his "blessed right hand." โ Why does all this matter today? ๐ฃ Let me say this point of fact again: Siraj Wahhaj served as a CHARACTER WITNESS for the Blind Sheikh. He has also raised funds for Aafia Siddiqui (โLady Al Qaedaโ), called America โa garbage can,โ and once urged U.S. Muslims to โelect our own emir.โ Heโs preached that democracy can be used as โa weapon to use in the cause of Islam.โ ๐น Watch the video I'm sharing see the ideology of islamism, or political Islam, that Siraj Wahhaj embraces -- and now hopes to see realized with his endorsement of Mamdani. โ What do Muslims who reject Wahhaj's interpretation of political Islam, or Islamism, say? In my article, I interview Muslims who reject this interpretation of Islam, and they, too, blast Mamdani for this alliance with an Islamist interpretation of their faith. This is what they say... ๐น Dalia Ziada - ุฏุงููุง ุฒูุงุฏุฉ, Washington, D.C., coordinator and research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy ISGAP, says: โBy embracing Wahhaj, Mamdani is sidelining moderate Muslims and normalizing extremist ideology.โ ๐น Soraya Deen Soraya M. Deen, MA, founder of the Muslim Women Speakers Movement and cofounder of CLARITyCoalition, says: โItโs dangerous for America and for Muslims.โ ๐น In the mosque photo, no women appear โ because Wahhaj bans them from praying in the main hall, promoting an interpretation of Islam that women tempt men. โDespite the gender jihad women face worldwide, Mamdani poses with the men suppressing womenโs rights,โ said Deen. ๐น M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, says: โThereโs nothing more clarifying about Zohran Mamdaniโs danger than his friendship with known anti-American jihadi Imam Siraj Wahhaj....It tells you everything you need to know.โ ๐to the 1993 bombing court case files, including Siraj Wahhaj's defense of the Blind Sheikh and his admission to raising legal defense money for another man involved in the 1993 bombing, El Sayyid Nosair. You'll see the prosecutor's letter that Siraj Wahhaj "may" be an unindicted coconspirator because of his ties to the men behind the WTC attack; he wasn't prosecuted but he was on the radar of law enforcement officials for his close ties to the "Blind Sheikh" and his coconspirators:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1980123051942453353/amplify_video_thumb/1980121775372382208/img/vZQbVnEJYemxz_wU.jpg)
![Continuing in my series of showing you the Woke Right's meltdown about talking with Jordan Peterson about Woke, thus them, I bring you some clips from Blaze Media propagandist "Auron MacIntyre." These require more analysis because unlike Carl Benjamin, Auron MacIntyre is a relatively skilled propagandist. So in this clip Auron begins by mocking Peterson and me for allegedly not understanding the slang term "based" (which is demonstrably false, btw -- I've detailed its history and uses elsewhere -- a typical sort of lie a propagandist tells). He mocks us as being out-of-touch old people ("old man shakes fist at sky") for believing "based" should refer to being "based in reality," which it should, so a digression to reveal the malicious technique. The origin of the term "based" used by the Woke Right was from a rap song about freebasing cocaine, and it became slang for being bold and edgy and saying socially taboo things. In 2021, the conservative movement at large started picking it up, understanding it to mean "based in reality and principle and willing to say uncomfortable truths as such." The "willing to say uncomfortable [things]" in both cases is where the confusion lies because it can be done two ways: responsibly (truths) or irresponsibly (edgy transgression). This is basically my point with bringing it up with Peterson. Setting aside the digression of whether we want a term associated with being the opposite of Woke to mean "based in reality and principle" or "high on ideological cocaine," Auron is particularly keen within the first few moments of speaking (~1 min) to drive the old versus young wedge that the Woke Right is so keen on pushing. Just like the Bernie Bros of 10 years ago, they want to invest their movement with "Ok Boomer" energy and cause a generational split. Historically, this is Red Guard behavior, which is cultural Maoism, which is... where Woke comes from in the specific sense we're familiar with and hate. So, he's being Woke in a particularly damaging and dangerous way. So using the classic Jon Stewart (Woke) trick of opening with mockery to create an atmosphere of humor that discredits his targets (Peterson and me) particularly with a target audience (young radicalizing right-wing) that he signals alignment of, he steps into his "analysis" by accusing me of a "pivot." Spoiler: I have not and never pivoted, and that's why they're pissed off at me. I didn't go along with THEIR pivot, which has been unfolding for a couple of years (particularly at the Blaze, since Glenn Beck retired and they hired a bunch of "Schmittians," including Auron) and went on steroids last fall in the lead-up to the election. His specific accusation that he's accusing me of is claiming that I said "the Left wanted to get rid of all racism, so these guys [Woke Right] want to bring back all the racism." This isn't my claim, but it will happen to some degree and is happening. Auron is creating plausible deniability around that here, but what was my actual claim? My claim was that Woke on both sides is characterized by the transgression of mainstream norms using the opposite side's radicals as the justification. The Woke Left transgressed against the term "racism" and successful and majority races with CRT by expanding the definition and reversing the classic racism "directions" under roughly Ibram Kendi's "antiracist" program of ending discrimination by discriminating. They did this in the name of "stopping racism," which they associated with the "far right" and claimed was endemic through all of society. It was society's norm of identifying actual racism correctly and not being racist in any direction they were actually targeting. The Woke Right transgresses against this same norm the other direction ("same energy, opposite direction") by leaning into racism in "based" defiance of the Left and CRT norms. They're violating a lot of taboos the mainstream depends on in the process, like not being racist, on justifications like "if every other group gets to be racist/tribal, we have to too for self-defense," which they're actually arguing pretty widely. The point is that both Woke groups are transgressing against norms against racism in different ways. Same energy, opposite direction. Auron directs his audience away from this point and builds a strawman that he can press into the train of mockery he already started. But what he actually does is shifts to make out that my real point is that "the most important issue we have to care about in society is racism," trying to place me in the CRT/Leftist camp, which I'm literally actually opposing in the clip he's commenting on (and that I've done more to oppose than anyone in the world, without any doubt to anyone familiar with my work for the last seven or eight years). He uses this straw man to lump together "center left, classical liberals, IDW" and to say we're "revealing ourselves" effectively as crypto-Leftists, which the portion of the clip of me that he played (aside from all my previous work) directly refutes. "Their religion," Auron opines, "is still antiracism." [So does he mean like being not-racist, like we actually are (not religiously), or like Kendi means it? Has he accepted Kendi's framing that there's only "racist" and "antiracist" and then tried to project that onto people who want to be not racist? Sure looks like it.] "James Lindsay, as much as he's against it, as much as he's written against it, as much as he's claimed to want to expose it, ultimately, he doesn't disagree with 'antiracism' as the core religion of the United States." That's a pretty astonishing sentence in its calculated falseness, and we have every reason to believe it was made deliberately and maliciously (Auron has a very long track record of precisely this behavior). The effect is to flatten all "center left" and "classical liberals," along with me and my work specifically, into a kind of crypto-CRT "religious" belief in an effort to discredit us and name us part of the problem (the "dialectical flattening"/psychopathic splitting I also discussed with Peterson comes to mind here, for those who saw the whole show). He aims to treat different things as though they're the same thing (Woke context and language blurring) in order to cast us as secretly in alignment with Kendi and the rest of CRT. "He, he, he thinks that that ['antiracism'] should be the 'civic religion' of the United States." No, I don't. This is called lying. It's also mind reading through secret (Gnostic) interpretation of hidden clues in my language and work that reveal that I mean the exact opposite of what I'm consistently saying. "He just doesn't like the extreme version of it." Still lying, but trying to make it sound more plausible. "He's like a moderate jihadist. Ok, he wants moderate jihad. M-m-moderate Sharia. That's what James Lindsay demands." So beyond being ridiculous and defamatory that's a really weird association to make, but it should be obvious why he's making it. The game is to discredit me through mockery and association with things his audience already doesn't like. Also, the Iron Law of Woke Projection never misses.... The Woke Right holds to a "No Enemies to the Right" policy of extremism, and I do not. Mockingly pretending his speaking my voice: "Ok, I still want Sharia Law. I still want a woman beaten if she's walking outside alone. I- You, you know, u-use a small rod instead of, like, you know, a large stick. That's kinda James Lindsay's stance on this, right?" No, "Auron," not right. "So, so he still wants racism to be, like, the central concern of the United States; it just needs to have a more reasonable definition. Stop looking at the [Woke examples] of racism; just go back to the good old 'antiracism' that we used to have." It's called being not racist, which reveals what "Auron" is really arguing for, as with his take on "based" at the start of the clip (he wants transgressive ideological high on cocaine, not based in reality and principle and courageous enough to stand for them). He has completed his straw man, erected him, and is showing the audience Straw James for mockery and rejection. "The problem for James is that the entire reason you [sic] got there is that there's a gradient to the logic [so it's all 'antiracism' on a slippery slope -- dialectical splitting again]." "Auron" is explaining here yet again that "liberalism," which he is deliberately unclear about, is just another manifestation of Communism, a quieter, more moderate crypto-Communism (or, specifically Race Marxism, here). This bit of propagandizing depends on the fact that his audience uses the word "liberal" inaccurately and blends together many things including classical liberalism, traditional liberalism, European social and economic liberalism, neoliberalism, progressivism, socialism, Marxism, and Communism for a lot of bad reasons that are too much to cover here. The point is that as a propagandist, he's not just relying upon this lack of clarity and exploiting it, he's also deliberately sowing more confusion in the name of clarity (...disguised as an angel of light, since his stream is all about Lucifer anyway), deliberately and maliciously. "Again, you'll notice that he wants those 'liberal' norms [not being racist] back, but what James never admits, what James never makes clear, is that the 'liberal' norms got him Wokeness." If I thought this was true, I would have said it. I'm not hiding anything. I just think it's completely false and have dedicated an insane amount of effort into making it clear for people around the world. Maybe "Auron" should listen to any of the hundreds of talks, lectures, or podcasts in which I quoted directly from the book Critical Race Theory: An Introduction where the authors (Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic) explicitly state that one of the reasons Critical Race Theory exists is to attack "Enlightenment liberalism" (just like the Woke Right does!). Much of the writing in Critical Race Theory is explicitly, and at length, a criticism and rejection of liberalism and liberal norms in favor of completely different radical ones. If "Auron" did that, though, he'd risk exposing that Woke Right shares this in common with CRT while liberals do not. "The liberal obsession with equality, the liberal obsession with racism, is what brought you to Wokeness." This is a few misarticuated truths married to a lot of lies (that is, propaganda). It's a lot to unpack. Liberalism means equality before the law, not everyone is literally equal. CRT attacks liberalism exactly the same way, consider Robin DiAngelo's book titled Is Everyone Really Equal? As documented, say by Shelby Steele in White Guilt, it is true that the values of American equality and the circumstances of the Civil Rights Movement were hijacked by Race Marxists to open the door to the CRT racial dialectic, but that's not liberalism being obsessed with race or bringing us Woke. That's Communists exploiting people with certain sensibilities. That is, this is propaganda. This is already extremely long, and the rest devolves into him talking about ethnic hatred instead of "racism." I guess he needs more politically correct terms for it, "as a Christian," he says. The only reason to mention it is how he ends it. "However, James wants a much, much broader definition of 'racism.' He wants a political definition of racism. He doesn't care about how you treat people one-to-one [remember, I'm the individualist here...], he cares about using that definition to cancel you, right? And that's the plan. That's the plan." It's really more of the same thing, but it bears mentioning because it's the completion of his malicious straw man. It's not only completely false but obviously false except outside of the Woke Right narrative that he also pushes that I only created the term "Woke Right" (again, I didn't create it at all) to cancel people, which is the narrative he needs to get people to believe. That's underscored by his repetition of "that's the plan." My objectives with naming the Woke Right were abundantly simple: name a dangerous phenomenon in the hopes that it can be identified and stopped. I would not like to see people cancelled, but I won't tolerate this bad behavior either, not for any rewards they might dangle or withdraw. I hope every one of them realizes they are acting "Woke" and backs off from it. We need all the help we can get in stopping the huge global effort to subvert us and steal our liberty. My verdict here? This is among the rankest of rank propaganda. The Blaze, if (and only if) it wants to be considered a serious outlet in any regard, should be ashamed to be associated with this guy and what he's doing. I can't really even say this, though, because in light of the straw man built about me throughout, they'll say this is a Woke accusation on my part too, and an attempt to cancel him, but it's just a simple, plain fact. Rank propaganda isn't reporting or even really commentary, and there's nothing respectable about it. For years I've made the point that there's a key difference between "cancellation" and "taking responsibility." Anyone can find ample evidence of this. Why did I do that? Because the Woke Left claimed that anything that identified their bad behavior in our institutions was an attempt to "cancel" them too. It's a Woke (and psychopathic) technique called DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Deny that you're doing anything wrong, attack the person who called you out, and make yourself out to be the victim of their "cancellation" attempt. Of course, adding this here will guarantee they'll howl with laughter as they yet again insist that's what I'm doing to them with this.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1920582873217917439/amplify_video_thumb/1920567452460605440/img/bLWdKp3e0nnm0vIl.jpg)
![Iโm seeing a lot of questions on the launch of Chinaโs Changโe 6 mission yesterday to get samples - for the first time - from the far side of the moon. We donโt know (afaik) why specifically theyโre doing that, but we have a pretty good idea what grand vision China is working towards with their space program. How? From this 2022 video by Chas Freeman (former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Nixon's interpreter during his era-defining 1972 China visit), who imho is undoubtedly one of the most knowledgeable former US officials on China. He says that according to his own discussions with people running Chinaโs space program, theyโre following the vision described in the book "The high frontier" by Gerard K. O'Neill, which Freeman says has "become the bible of the Chinese space program". I read the book. So what vision does it describe? The book was written in 1976 by O'Neill who was a professor of physics at Princeton University. He also founded the Space Studies Institute, an organization devoted to funding research into space manufacturing and colonization. In other words, he knew his stuff. The book makes the very fair point that we have massive resource constraints on earth, especially given the growing population. He estimated in 1976 that we should be "about six and a half billion people in the year 2000", and we were 6.114 billion back then so he was pretty prescient. He estimates that these constraints will progressively give rise to more and more social tensions as the growing earth population competes for our limited resources as well as faces global problems like climate change. In his view, dealing with this will either require "an authoritarian regime capable of mounting the immense task of social reorganization needed to escape catastrophe" or, alternatively, โmankind would [need to adopt] a static society [that would be] forced in self-defense to suppress new ideas". The 3rd alternative is of course the colonization of space. The most interesting aspect of the book is that he claims everything he writes is feasible with knowledge and technology that already existed in the late 70s. In short he calls for the establishment of large human habitats in the Earth-Moon system, located at stable Lagrange points ("parking spots" in space where gravity from different spatial bodies cancel each other out). In particular he developed the concept of what's known today as the "O'Neill cylinder" which he says "could support quite easily a population of ten million people, growing its food in agricultural cylinders near but outside the main habitat". Energy-wise, it'd simply make use of solar energy via a system of mirrors. As he describes it: "the concentration of the unvarying, intense sunlight of space by very lightweight, inexpensive mirrors can provide all the energy that industry will ever need [...] at a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour". He envisages building these habitats with material from the moon, shot into space via "mass drivers", a form of electromagnetic catapult. Also "the habitats would have artificial gravity similar as that of earth by rotating about twenty-eight times an hourโ, but he also envisages low-gravity areas, especially for recreational activities such as swimming pools or dancing representations. To trade with earth, he develops the idea of beaming solar power back to earth via "microwave from solar power stations in orbit". As he describes it "the microwave beam would arrive at Earth with a beam width of about seven kilometers. Its intensity would be modest, less than half that of sunlight. In contrast to sunlight, though, it would be there all the time, even at night or in clouds or rain, and it would be in a form ready for conversion to DC current with a loss of only 10 percent. The areas receiving these beamsโ output on Earth would be fenced, and outside the fence the intensity of microwave radiation would be no higher than outside a microwave oven with the door closed. He estimates that if "Satellite Solar Power Stations (SSPS) were to become the sole source of electric energy in the United States in the year 2000, the land area necessary for the SSPS antennas would still be only 0.2 percent of that of the continental United States". In short, the establishment of space colonies could lead to the fulfillment of a good share of Earth's energy needs. Last but not least he describes life in space habitats as better than that of earth, largely thanks to the level of control we'd have over the environment (total climate control which would enable an abundance of food and no natural disaster) as well as unlimited cheap energy. To conclude, Chas Freeman typically really knows his stuff when it comes to China and heโs very intellectually honest (a rare trait among US officials) so I have no doubt he tells the truth when he says the Chinese told him that was the vision. And China famously thinks very big and very long term so it would be quite like them to go for something like this. There are also quite a few tangible signs that China is working towards that vision. See for instance this November 2022 news where โChinaโs space station will join a project to collect solar power from space and send it to Earth in a high-energy microwave beamโ: Thatโs exactly OโNeillโs vision! Or check this October 2022 news that says China is developing new "electromagnetic sledges" that can propel a carriage weighing a few tonnes to a record speed, with a key application for this being โaerospaceโ: Remember: OโNeillโs vision is to build his habitats with material from the moon, shot into space via "mass drivers", a form of electromagnetic catapult. So there you goโฆ Or also the fact that the Chinese will build, together with the Russians, a moon base - planned for 2028 - powered by a โspace nuclear reactorโ thatโs already been developed (on Earth) and has passed review by Chinaโs Ministry of Science: The space nuclear reactor can generate 1MW of electricity, enough to power 10 International Space Stations. Enough power, maybe, to undertake mining activity and power an electromagnetic catapultโฆ After visions change, the world changes, so itโs also possible that Chinaโs view on what they want to do has evolved. In any case, Chas Freeman is right that Chinaโs motivation for all its initiatives in space canโt just be to โboldly explore where no-one has been beforeโ, they have to be working towards something. And Freeman is also absolutely right to lament that the U.S. decided to ban any cooperation in space with the Chinese. Those endeavors are something that could have been jointly developed as a multilateral effort to unite us all as a speciesโฆ Instead China is now forced to go at it alone with Russia and we face a future where our petty divisions on Earth will be carried with us to spaceโฆ](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1786611294218702934/ext_tw_video_thumb/1786610517114851328/pu/img/OoYUvR3PovMC-WFS.jpg)
