The Little Bald Jew Ruining America

Guess who it is? ... Stephen N. Miller (born August 23, 1985) is an American political advisor serving as White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security advisor since 2025. He previously served as senior advisor to the president and director of speechwriting from 2017 to 2021 during the first Trump administration. Considered one of the most influential figures of the Trump administrations and Trumpism movement, his politics have been described as far-right,[1] anti-immigration,[2][3] and white nationalist.[4][5][6] Miller grew up in Santa Monica, California, and attended Duke University, where he was a columnist for The Chronicle and president of the Duke chapter of Students for Academic Freedom. After graduating in 2007, he worked as press secretary for US representatives Michele Bachmann and John Shadegg. In 2009, he joined the staff of Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, where he worked on immigration policy and helped defeat the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. As an aide to Sessions, Miller influenced the direction of Breitbart News. He advised both of Trump's presidential campaigns. After Trump's loss in the 2020 election, Miller founded America First Legal, a conservative legal advocacy organization, in 2021. Miller has been a central figure in the Trump administration's immigration policy, including the family separation policy and Executive Order 13769, which restricted travel from several Muslim-majority countries. As director of speechwriting, he supervised the writing of Trump's inaugural and State of the Union addresses. Miller is on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of extremists.[7][8][9] His influence and views are the subject of both traditional and independent media.[10] Family, early life, and education (1985–2007) Stephen N. Miller[11] was born on August 23, 1985,[12] in the affluent North of Montana neighborhood in Santa Monica, California,[13] the second of three children[14] of Miriam (née Glosser) and Michael Miller.[15][a] Miller is of Ashkenazi Jewish descent.[17] His family's lineage escaped Russian pogroms and the Holocaust.[18] Miller's mother, Miriam, was a Columbia University graduate and became a social worker.[15] She grew up in a family of New Deal Democrats,[19] but according to biographers, like the majority of the era's Californians,[15] had conservative views.[20] Miller's father, Michael, was a lawyer and worked in the Miller family real estate business.[21] In 1998, when Miller was thirteen, his parents sold their home and bought a smaller home in a less affluent area.[22] Miller went to Hebrew school at Beth Shir Shalom, where classmates thought of him as a contrarian.[19] In 1999, he began attending Santa Monica High School.[23] Miller opposed his high school's chapter of the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán and was described by the chapter founder as having taunted immigrants; he reportedly insisted to other students and teachers that they speak English.[24] Miller called into talk-radio's The Larry Elder Show (1993–2008; 2010–2014) and successfully brought the host to his high school.[25] He later appeared on Elder's show after the September 11 attacks to describe an incident in which a Canadian teacher placed the flag of the United States on the floor and discussed its importance. Although other students remembered otherwise, Miller alleged that the teacher had dragged the flag across the floor and trampled over it.[26] By his count, Miller appeared on the Elder show sixty-nine times and their relationship continued for years.[27] He was confirmed at the Santa Monica Synagogue, a Reform temple.[19] At Santa Monica, Miller garnered attention and was lampooned in an April Fools' Day issue of the school newspaper, The Samohi. In 2002, he ran for student announcer, giving a speech in which he questioned being told to pick up trash when the school hired custodians. The student body disapproved of Miller's comments and he lost the election. Miller was involved in the school's band program, tennis, religious studies, and political and youth groups.[28] Jean Guerrero writes that his favorite musician was Elvis Presley and favorite film was Martin Scorsese's Casino (1995).[29] Guerrero writes that at times he copied the look of Robert De Niro portraying a mobster,[30] and that he dressed up like the movies for trips to Las Vegas, where he was a skilled craps player.[31] During high school and continuing into university, Miller often wore a suit.[32] He told Elder that he liked to make a good first impression.[33] As an adult, he continued to wear expensive, American-made, bespoke suits.[34] Conservative writer David Horowitz heard Miller on The Larry Elder Show. Horowitz became another long-term relationship for Miller[35] who invited him to speak at his high school. Horowitz reciprocated, inviting Miller to his home.[36] Miller made several demands in an article on Horowitz's website, FrontPage Magazine. He asked for the school's culture to embrace "inclusive patriotism", in contrast to multiculturalism and that his school institute the Pledge of Allegiance five days a week.[37] The school instituted the pledge, which Miller reported as a "huge victory".[37] He wrote that Santa Monica's principal and its district superintendent blamed Miller for having caused a tax increase initiative to fail. According to Miller's article, the principal distributed a memorandum to teachers, ordering them to discuss the Iraq War in a neutral and balanced manner.[38] In Guerrero's estimation, by his graduation in 2003, Miller had received more publicity than "probably any other student in class".[39]

American Soldiers Are Gaming Addicts

The US Military offers active duty soldiers 4 day passes to play Grand Theft Auto as a re-enlistment bonus; Some U.S. military members who are itching to play a video game they've anticipated for over a decade can trade a commitment for several more years of their life in uniform for a few days off to play Grand Theft Auto VI. As an incentive to reenlist, a U.S. Army unit in Georgia is offering active duty soldiers a four-day pass to play the popular game when it's released this fall, U.S. officials told CBS News. Over the years, the Army has used various enlistment bonuses — college tuition, choice duty station assignments or access to special training programs where soldiers learn to jump from airplanes or rappel from helicopters to encourage soldiers to enlist or reenlist. The recruitment incentive isn't service-wide; it was proposed exclusively for one battalion. However, it is possible the program could be expanded. Twenty soldiers at Fort Stewart in Georgia in the Army's 9th Brigade Engineering Battalion, part of the 3rd Infantry Division, have already chosen this incentive as part of their reenlistment, an Army spokesperson told CBS News on Wednesday.

"The idea was to have a unique incentives program that connects to what Soldiers are interested in," Lt. Col. Angel Tomko, a spokesperson for the 3rd Infantry Division, said in a statement. "The command team, in conjunction with the career counselor, wanted to get soldiers excited to reenlist." Anticipation for the next version of the game is strong in certain circles, especially action fans and open-world game enthusiasts.

AI Making Students Stupid

Students across the country are using AI models to complete assignments and write entire essays. Some of this constitutes cheating, but in many cases schools are allowing students to make some use of AI tools. This is a slippery slop. As some experts argue, any intrusion of automation into the writing process isn’t just threatening students’ composition skills, but their entire ability to think. “Writing is a technology for thinking,” cognitive psychologist Ronald T. Kellogg told the New York Times in a new essay mulling the consequences of sidestepping the hard work of writing. Writing, the piece notes, helps develop all sorts of cognitive faculties, including building our working memory, executive planning skills, and our metacognition, or the ability to be aware of your own thinking. For all the romanticism around writing, it’s also a form of drudgery. Kellogg says that drafting a basic essay is as mentally taxing as digging a ditch is physically exhausting. You have to really rack your brain to find the right word and organize ideas in a way that makes sense to a broader audience. When they’re manifested in the real world, you revise your ideas by going over them yourself or asking for feedback.

Over The Years

KGB Sleeper-Agent Melania Knauss Nowhere In Sight

President Donald Trump’s wife has largely remained out of the public eye during his second term in office, which has raised questions about where she lives most of the time. Melania, 56, has been seen in public since she attended the FIFA World Cup final at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey on July 19. She was photographed next to Donald, 80, at the international soccer tournament. However, she has been noticeably absent from high-profile events in recent weeks. Journalist Michael Wolff — who rose to prominence for authoring four books about Donald’s political career as president — posted an article on his Substack Howl on Monday, August 17, in which he wrote, “Melania Trump does not live in the White House. Other than at ceremonial occasions, or in a strictly official capacity, she has given up the role of wife. Practically speaking, there is no room for her." Wolff also wrote about how Donald is constantly seen alongside his blonde aide, Natalie Harp, 35, who serves as his executive assistant. “Trump is, in virtually every instance, attached to Natalie Harp,” Wolff wrote in the post. “A would-be conservative media talking head, her campaign of reach-out and ingratiation with the Trump circle made her, by 2022, one of the Trump go-fetch-it people. Trump’s 2024 comeback campaign transformed Harp into the central presence in his life.”

2222 Posts

Now, why no comments? PG

AI Kills Thoughts

Students across the country are using AI models to complete assignments and write entire essays. Some of this constitutes cheating, but in many cases schools are allowing students to make some use of AI tools. This is a slippery slop. As some experts argue, any intrusion of automation into the writing process isn’t just threatening students’ composition skills, but their entire ability to think. “Writing is a technology for thinking,” cognitive psychologist Ronald T. Kellogg told the New York Times in a new essay mulling the consequences of sidestepping the hard work of writing. Writing, the piece notes, helps develop all sorts of cognitive faculties, including building our working memory, executive planning skills, and our metacognition, or the ability to be aware of your own thinking. For all the romanticism around writing, it’s also a form of drudgery. Kellogg says that drafting a basic essay is as mentally taxing as digging a ditch is physically exhausting. You have to really rack your brain to find the right word and organize ideas in a way that makes sense to a broader audience. When they’re manifested in the real world, you revise your ideas by going over them yourself or asking for feedback. Writing, in other words, is inextricable from the labor that goes into it. And so when you bring in a piece of machinery that offers to do the process for you, it’s no longer writing, and by no extension, no longer exercising the brain. An MIT study earlier this year found that people who used AI while they wrote an essay showed lower brain activity compared to people who didn’t. Moreover, the people who composed with AI struggled to remember a single line from the essays they just produced, with their brain activity staying at a reduced level even when they were later asked to write again without an AI’s help. As the NYT piece notes, though, few people would willingly dig a ditch, and the same goes for writing. But there’s no part of the writing process than can be offloaded to an AI without some cost, warned Steve Graham, a writing expert and educational psychologist at Arizona State University. Building off that warning, the NYT‘s Dana Goldstein pondered: “If writing is thinking, then any part of the struggle that is outsourced to technology amounts to relinquishing some freedom to perceive. How will students ever know what they really think of anything — whether it’s ‘The Crucible’ or AI itself — if they ask a machine to spit out an answer for them?” Schools and colleges are grappling with how to rein in students’ use of the tech. Some are returning to using pencil and paper to write essays and oral exams. Others are banning digital devices in freshman courses, and Ivy League schools like Princeton University have dropped Honor Code traditions that let students take tests and exams unsupervised. If there’s a silver lining, it’s that many students have to come to realize on their own that using AI to write an analysis of, for example, assigned literature, is robbing them of their own education.

Views Today #444

Something strange is going on; Views Today #444 And Finland is deporting nudocumented migrants: Since 2023, Finland’s right-wing government has tightened immigration rules, resulting in a surge in deportations and growing fears among undocumented migrants who could face persecution in their home countries. Stricter requirements for asylum, residence permits, and family reunification, along with closer scrutiny of applicants, have resulted in a decline in both work-related immigration and asylum approvals. Finland's tougher stance on immigration has triggered a surge in deportations, prompting concern among undocumented migrants who risk facing danger if deported to their home countries. Between January and September 2025, approximately 2,070 foreign nationals were deported, a 30 percent increase compared with the same period in 2024, according to data from Finland’s National Police Board. Chief Superintendent Janne Lepsu said foreigners' right of residence in Finland is now being "investigated more closely," French news agency AFP reported on November 1. "If it is found that a foreign national does not have this right, every effort will be made to ensure that they leave Finland or the Schengen area," he said. Estimates suggest there are between 3,500 and 5,000 undocumented people living in Finland in recent years.

Finland Deporting Illegals & Unwanteds

Orpo: Finland to set up removal centres for applicants who have been denied asylum Finland is set to establish one or more removal centres for asylum seekers whose applications have been turned down, Petteri Orpo (NCP), the Minister of the Interior, has revealed. As many as thousands of asylum applications may be rejected due to the unprecedented influx of asylum seekers into the country. “These people could then be accommodated in the removal centres with tighter controls,” Orpo said on Thursday. Canada should do the same - or is it too late? It seems too late which is why Newfound-Island and Labrador-Land should be a seperate Nation-State / Country like Iceland but bigger. PG KO PS

Finland's National Paper in English

Good paper free online https://www.hs.fi/english/ PG KO

Greenland Invasion Has Begun

By drilling for oil offshore Greenland(GreenIsland State) America has aready begun its invasion of Greenland. Neither Denmark, Europe, NATO, EY, CHINA or anyone else can do anything about it. Putin loves this by the way as it will be the distraction he will need when he Nukes Ukraine... PG KO

Power-Pete Hegseth Wants White House

Former Fox News personality and all-round macho-man Pete Hegseth wants to be your next president, according to officials familiar with the self-proclaimed Secretary of War’s thinking.

Those sources, who spoke anonymously in order to be frank about the Trump Cabinet member’s ambitions, told the Washington Post that Hegseth’s trip to Iowa on Monday suggests he may very well have his sights set on the White House. The Defense Secretary, 46, headed out to stump for GOP Rep. Zach Nunn in the battleground state, where presidential hopefuls have historically tested their mettle. He also stumped for Sen. Darline Graham in the early presidential primary state of South Carolina last week. He also showed up for congressional candidate Ed Gallrein in his successful primary run against incumbent Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie earlier in May. CBS notes that it’s rare for any sitting defense secretary to head out campaigning for candidates. Even Hegseth’s alleged “kill-them-all” orders during military strikes on suspected narcotrafficking boats in the Caribbean, slammed by legal experts as crimes against humanity, would likely prove an easier campaign sell than his tireless cheerleading for Trump’s war of choice with Iran. That campaign, which has included a U.S. airstrike on an Iranian school that killed 165 civilians, dozens of them children, is among the least popular conflicts since the advent of modern polling. A meager 28 percent of voters approve of the war, according to a CNN poll fielded in late July—just seven points below the 35 percent approval the network put Hegseth’s job performance at earlier in April. PG KO

Jew Ossoff Wants White House

Notice how Jewish Americans are pushing for this young Jewish up & comer John Ossoff?

JewMerica wants him to be its 1st publically notorious Jew-President. Once America starts electing Jews as President it is the end of the USA and we might as well refer to it as the Jewish States of Jewmerica... Jared K(ushner-Jew) is waiting in the wings to be VP. Stay tned. PG KO

JewMerica's Newest Star

Notice how Jewish Americans are pushing for this young Jewish up & comer?

JewMerica wants him to be its 1st publically notorious Jew-President. Once America starts electing Jews as President it is the end of the USA and we might as well refer to it as the Jewish States of Jewmerica... Jared K(ushner-Jew) is waiting in the wings to be VP. Stay tned. PG KO

PG Blog Stats

Proud to say this blog is averaging 1,825,000 views annually. TY Dear Readers. Now why does nobody comment?

PG KO PS I'm available for paid work @ paymentguy@gmail.com

How The Super-Rich Spend

The new AI super-rich are reshaping the market for jets, yachts and cars Those making fortunes in Silicon Valley are ditching the champagne for premium water while splashing their bitcoin

The rapid growth of AI-focused companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic has created a wave of millionaires and billionaires, and they are starting to spend — with trophy assets near the top of their lists. The number of billionaires globally rose 13 per cent year-on-year to 3,302 in the 12 months that ended in April, more than a thousand of whom are based in the US, according to UBS. The first trophy is always a house. There has been a surge in property prices in San Francisco, where the median price for a single-family home jumped to $2.1mn in June, up almost 25 per cent from the same month in 2025, according to real estate brokerage Compass. But once they have a home, those with fortunes minted in the AI boom are spending big on hyper-personalised and high-performance yachts, jets and cars. They are spurning the champagne and white-glove service typically associated with luxury travel and instead looking for things that are practical, private and allow them to maintain their healthy lifestyles. They don’t want to wait and they do want to pay with crypto. “The emergence of the AI super-wealthy has opened up a whole new wave of demand for those companies providing access to private jets, yachts and supercars,” said Paul Charles, a luxury travel consultant. “The notion of the discerning client is rather outdated and so companies now have to adapt to cater to a new generation of luxury-focused traveller, created by this AI wealth.” Companies that supply such assets are having to learn very quickly about the very particular demands of this new class of wealthy. Private jets Flexjet Embraer EMB-505 Phenom 300 with registration N356FX approaching to land at San Diego International Airport. The AI super-rich are flying private jets ‘for efficiency and discretion’ Few modes of travel are a greater hallmark of vast wealth than a private jet. Flexjet, which allows people to buy fractional ownership of an aircraft, has noted an increase in clients who made money through AI or in other technology flotations. The trend has pushed the average age of its customers down by a decade, said Flexjet’s chief executive Andrew Collins. That wealth is also spreading to those in businesses adjacent to AI. One of jet charter group FlyVictor’s newest clients is a data centre builder who has been chartering planes in the US and Europe while waiting for his purchase of a new long-range Bombardier jet to go through. That new breed of buyer, some as young as 25, brings new demands, according to FlyVictor’s co-chief executive Toby Edwards. As well as wanting to pay in bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, these digital-native clients typically prefer to book using a company’s app or WhatsApp, bypassing brokers and the “theatre of traditional private aviation”, said Charles Robinson, founder of charter marketplace EnterJet. “If it takes more than a few minutes to get quotes and confirm, many will lose interest.” Onboard standards have also been updated. “The private aviation golden standard of yesteryears, sipping champagne on crisp linen [tablecloths], has largely gone out the window with this cohort,” said Robinson, adding that they looked for “specific types of water” such as artisanal brand Fiji and Acqua Panna as well as “health-conscious catering”. “They’re flying privately for efficiency and discretion — not to impress socially,” he added. Cars The Urus sport utility vehicle has been a hit with the younger tranche of the AI super-wealthy © Sjoerd van der Wal/Getty Images The new AI multimillionaires and billionaires prioritise exclusive features and are willing to change vehicles after as little as six months to secure the latest models. Lamborghini has been particularly successful in attracting the younger generation of AI entrepreneurs, according to brokers, with its Urus sport utility vehicle, which can be hyper-personalised with a choice of more than 150 colours. Beyond the customisation options offered by the carmaker, younger buyers can add aerodynamics and carbon-fibre kits to their Lamborghinis to change the look of the body, perfect for posting on social media. “This kind of car, at the end of the day, is like a toy. It’s a way to express the personality of a customer,” said Stefano Cossalter, Urus product line director at Lamborghini. Ferrari, according to people close to the company, has received positive feedback from customers in Silicon Valley for the Luce, its first electric vehicle, which drew backlash among some traditional fans for its polarising design. Benedetto Vigna, the Italian luxury group’s chief executive, has defended it, stressing the importance of widening the brand’s appeal. On the day of the EV’s launch, he pointed to interest he’d received from a technology entrepreneur in San Francisco. “It’s for sure a good opportunity for us,” Vigna said when asked about the AI-related new wealth creation. “Whenever you have a new flush of money in the market . . . Ferrari is a good source.” Porsche’s chief executive Michael Leiters also said new customer groups were emerging from the AI boom. “Naturally, we are making every effort to reach these customers and win them over to the Porsche brand,” he added. EMJ Exclusive, which provides a range of services to wealthy individuals, recently bought a low-mileage Rolls-Royce Cullinan for a LA-based AI entrepreneur in his twenties who had asked for a “one of a kind” vehicle. The company customised the vehicle extensively, including by changing its signature black exterior and interior to a bespoke bright blue and orange. “I think the thing individuals of AI wealth care about is exclusivity,” said EMJ Exclusive founder Ed Somner Bogard. “Our client is never going to drive somewhere with his Rolls-Royce and someone has the same car.” Yachts The Princess Yachts X90 super yacht cruising at speed, creating a large wake in open water. Princess Yacht’s new 90ft superyacht model X90 © Princess Yachts Jeff Brown’s San Diego-headquartered yacht dealership has “benefited greatly” from a new wave of San Francisco-based buyers that “became wealthy overnight”, he said. Customers at his branch in Sausalito, just across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, include new multimillionaires seeking smaller boats that can take on the rough Pacific Ocean and travel up the winding Napa River. These buyers — who include employees of and investors in chipmaker Nvidia — are not looking for gin palaces, but rather faster and longer-range expeditionary vessels. “These aren’t luxurious boats. These are very functional machines that can go long distances fast and carry a lot of fun stuff,” he said. They also place a greater premium on privacy measures, such as more heavily tinted windows, than Brown’s traditional clientele. Wave of AI Wealth Annie Reed, chief commercial officer of British luxury yacht manufacturer Princess Yachts, said the company was “sending more boats to the west coast of America”, as well as to Florida, and had already sold five units of its new 90ft superyacht model X90, which costs upwards of £10mn, to US buyers ahead of its official launch in September. Princess has received multiple requests to fit high-end Technogym fitness equipment, including functional and strength-training equipment, onboard its vessels. One customer even asked to install a Peloton bike on their flybridge, the open-air deck on a yacht’s rooftop. The company has also been asked to fit Starlink internet terminals. Health is also a growing focus in his business, said Brown. His customers are requesting more and fancier “toys” — from scuba diving kits to hydrofoil sailboats — in place of catering and alcohol: “These clients are into fitness and they’re out doing stuff. They’re not sipping a Mai Tai on the beach or deck.” Cool... PG KO

Make Money Blogging

PG KO PS PG is available for consulting gigs and legal work ...

Age is Just A #

PG'S Exact Age Breakdown

54 years, 6 months and 1 week Days: 19,912 days alive Next Birthday: February 11, 2027 (in 5 months and 24 days) FYI; Brad Pitt wishes he had his 50's back and if he had a chance to do it all over again he would; GO FOR IT!!!

PG KO

Putin Will Nuke Ukraine After Trump Invades Greenland

Just watch the obvious play out. Not only are both DICTATORS OLD, ISOLATED, UNPOPULAR AND UNDER LEGAL JEOPARDY, they both are facing Jail time (or worse in Putin's case) when they are out of office. Both Dictators need reasons to stay in office for legal immunity and/or be pardoned from criminal prosecution.

By drilling for oil offshore Greenland(GreenIsland State) America has aready begun its invasion of Greenland and Denmark, Europe, CHINA or anyone else can do anything about it... Putin loves this by the way as it will be the distraction he will need when he Nukes Ukraine... Watch these Political-Wars play out. Stay tuned. PG KO

Corner Brook's QUASI-MINI Hospital On A Hill

ATM CB has 2 useless medical care facilites generously referred to as "Hospitals". CB needs a NEW HOSPITAL NOW!!! How stupid to spend SOOOOOOOO much time, money and opportunity cost on a MICRO-HOSPITAL on a HILL and be forced to use an old mouldy decrepit out of date Hospital for patient over-flow. Pathetic. ONLY IN NEWFEELAND LOL

And nobody held accountable as usual. Disgustingly shanmeful and nauseating... Just another Newfee Rip-Off job for all concerned leaving a Quasi-Mini-Hospital on a Hill requiring back-up from an outdated useless derelict unfunctional farce of a Historical Monument of a Hospital. ONLY IN NEWFEELAND - THE ISLAND OF STUPIDITY. PG KO

Corner Brook Needs A REAL HOSPITAL NOW

ATM CB has 2 useless medical care facilites generously referred to as "Hospitals". CB needs a NEW HOSPITAL NOW!!! How stupid to spend SOOOOOOOO much time, money and opportunity cost on a MICRO-HOSPITAL on a HILL and be forced to use an old mouldy decrepit out of date Hospital for patient over-flow. Pathetic. ONLY IN NEWFEELAND LOL

And nobody held accountable as usual. Disgustingly shanmeful and nauseating... Just another Newfee Rip-Off job for all concerned leaving a Quasi-Mini-Hospital on a Hill requiring back-up from an outdated useless derelict unfunctional farce of a Historical Monument of a Hospita;... ONLY IN NEWFEELAND - THE ISLAND OF STUPIDITY. PG KO

Why CORNER BROOK'S Mini Hospital Failed

How stupid to spend soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much money on a MICRO-HOSPITA on a HILL and be forced to use an old out of date Hspital for patient over-flow. Only on The Rock!!! lol

And nobody held accountable. Disgustingly shanmeful and nauseating... Just another Newfee Rip-Off job for all concerned leaving a Quasi-Mini-Hospital on a Hill requiring back-up from an outdated useless derelict unfunctional farce of a Historical Monument of a HospitaL... ONLY IN NEWFEELAND - THE ISLAND OF STUPIDITY. LOL PG KO

Corner Brook's Stupid Mini-Hospital

This 2 year old farce of a "Hospital" was built as an exercise in Energy-Efficciency on an Island replete with any and every kid of ENERGY SOURCE you can imagine. so the whole purpose of the Hospital was FLAWED TO BEGIN WITH as the focus was on saving money through unproven and quirky energy-saving experiments RATHER THAN HEALTH CARE NEEDS OF AN AGING POPULATION!!! Western Memorial Regional Hospital Sets New Infrastructure Precedent and Receives LEED Silver Certification 

The new Western Memorial Regional Hospital in Corner Brook is home to Canada’s largest geothermal system, which has set a precedent for modern infrastructure for both Newfoundland and Labrador and North America. The geothermal field is approximately 600 feet below the hospital’s parking lot, and provides 100 per cent of the ground source geothermal heating for the hospital – the largest solution of its kind for a health care facility in North America. With efficiency and cost-savings at the forefront, this groundbreaking system provides approximately 12 per cent total cost savings over the life span of 30 years. The geothermal system was also key in eliminating cooling towers at the hospital, saving up to two million gallons of water per year. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design® (LEED®) Silver Certification is issued by the Canada Green Building Council, LEED®, an international symbol of sustainability excellence and green building leadership. LEED® certification provides independent, third-party verification that a building project was designed and built, or operated, to achieve high performance in six areas of human and environmental health: • Location and transportation • Sustainable site development • Water savings • Energy efficiency • Materials selection • Indoor environmental quality

Corner Brook Has 2 Useless Hospitals

Only on NewfoudIsland CANADA can the Government Fuck-Up building a new criticlly-needed HOSPITAL!!! Anyone on the West Coast Corner Brook NewfoundISLAND can look out their windows and SEE 2 USELESS HOSPITALS; 1. one old, out of date and worn-out, 2. the other brand-new but tiny, microscopically small and stupidly placed on top of a hilly hill and hard to get to ...

STUPIDITY @ ITS BEST! ONLY IN NEWFOUNDISLAND CANADA... LOL PG KO

Corner Brook's Mini Hospital

Or you could call it Corner Brook's Micro Hospital.

This farce of a tiny Clinic on a Hill was built microscopically small so contractors could make more money $$$; simply a major league rip-off job;

RUSSIA NUKING UKRAINE

If Putin cannot bring Ukraine under control he will NUke Ukraine, anyone who says otherwise is foolish because he has no choice; The long and the short of it is - "No". The arguments that Putin won’t use nuclear weapons because doing so would endanger Russians, including himself, are blind to the fact that Putin believes he has the right, possibly the moral obligation, to sacrifice hundreds of thousands or millions of people. The argument that a nuclear strike wouldn’t help Putin achieve his strategic goals mistakes Russia’s strategic goals as anything but inflicting terror on Ukrainians. The losses the Russian military is suffering now can only motivate Putin to create more terror, against more people. The one credible argument remaining is that Putin may fear repercussions. He is not afraid of nuclear retaliation—because Ukraine doesn’t have its own nuclear weapons and NATO is unlikely to mount a nuclear response against the use of a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine. (And, if NATO did, Putin believes that he would have a totally mobilized, albeit diminished, nation.) What he may fear, however, is an extreme response from NATO using conventional weapons—a series of strikes, for example, that would devastate Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and destroy all its remaining military capability in Ukraine. This would be a blow so humiliating that nothing but a second, more powerful nuclear strike could avenge it. Is that a prospect that Putin is unwilling to contemplate? Possibly not, but it is as close as the West can get to deterrence these days. PG KO

Sprinting Is The Best Exercise

Always knew this. Makes sense as that is how we ran away from enemies in the Primitive Ape-Ages ... Most people assume more time at the gym means more benefit. A major new study published in Cell Reports Medicine complicates that idea. Three minutes of all-out effort, spread across six 30-second cycling sprints, triggered changes in far more blood proteins than a full 90 minutes of steady, moderate-pace cycling. Whether that bigger internal reaction actually adds up to better long-term health is a separate question the study raises but doesn’t fully answer. Sprint for Life! Fuck indoor gyms ... PG KO

Will Russia Nuke Ukraine?

The long and the short of it is - "No". The arguments that Putin won’t use nuclear weapons because doing so would endanger Russians, including himself, are blind to the fact that Putin believes he has the right, possibly the moral obligation, to sacrifice hundreds of thousands or millions of people. The argument that a nuclear strike wouldn’t help Putin achieve his strategic goals mistakes Russia’s strategic goals as anything but inflicting terror on Ukrainians. The losses the Russian military is suffering now can only motivate Putin to create more terror, against more people. The one credible argument remaining is that Putin may fear repercussions. He is not afraid of nuclear retaliation—because Ukraine doesn’t have its own nuclear weapons and NATO is unlikely to mount a nuclear response against the use of a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine. (And, if NATO did, Putin believes that he would have a totally mobilized, albeit diminished, nation.) What he may fear, however, is an extreme response from NATO using conventional weapons—a series of strikes, for example, that would devastate Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and destroy all its remaining military capability in Ukraine. This would be a blow so humiliating that nothing but a second, more powerful nuclear strike could avenge it. Is that a prospect that Putin is unwilling to contemplate? Possibly not, but it is as close as the West can get to deterrence these days. PG KO

Putin Nuking Ukraine

Vladimir will Nuke Ukraine rather than lose it to the West. While Russian President Vladimir Putin has not used nuclear weapons in Ukraine, Moscow has engaged in continuous nuclear rhetoric, lowered its formal nuclear threshold, and deployed advanced nuclear-capable delivery systems like the Oreshnik ballistic missile with non-nuclear payloads, actual use of a nuclear weapon has not occurred.Current Context of Russian Nuclear SignalingDoctrines and Threats: Putin has repeatedly revised Russia's nuclear doctrine to explicitly threaten retaliation against conventional attacks backed by Western allies.Advanced Missile Deployments: Russia has test-fired and deployed nuclear-capable intermediate-range systems (such as the Oreshnik) against Ukrainian infrastructure, using conventional warheads as psychological and strategic demonstrations.Joint Drills: Moscow and Belarus have conducted tactical and strategic nuclear readiness exercises to pressure Western nations over long-range military aid to Kyiv.International AssessmentNo Nuclear Detonation: Western intelligence and independent monitoring agencies confirm that no nuclear warheads have been deployed or detonated in the conflict.Deterrence Dynamic: Analysts note that Putin's repeated atomic warnings are designed to deter NATO escalation and restrict the supply of advanced weaponry to Ukraine, rather than signaling an imminent operational nuclear strike, which would carry catastrophic and unpredictable global consequences. On October 23rd, the Russian defense minister, Sergei Shoigu, made phone calls to the defense ministers of four NATO member countries to tell each of them that Ukraine was planning to detonate a “dirty bomb”—that is, a conventional weapon spiked with radioactive material—on its own territory. Three of the four recipients of this information—France, the United Kingdom, and the United States—responded that day with an unusual joint statement denouncing the claim. (Shoigu’s fourth interlocutor was Turkey.) Russian leaders and propagandists, who covered the phone calls in some detail, don’t necessarily think that anyone, anywhere, will believe that Ukraine would use a radioactive weapon against its own people just so it can blame Russia for the attack. Shoigu’s phone calls were preëmptive, another example of Russia creating information noise, sowing doubt, asserting the fundamental unknowability of the facts of war. On Thursday, Vladimir Putin said that he had personally directed Shoigu to make the calls, and this claim underscored their true meaning: Russia is preparing for a nuclear, or nuclearish, strike in Ukraine. This was not the first, second, or third time that Moscow had sent this message. Putin has been rattling the nuclear sabre since the start of the full-scale invasion in February, and, indeed, for many years before. In 2014, months after annexing Crimea and at the height of engineering a pro-Russian insurgency war in eastern Ukraine, Russia changed its military doctrine to open up the possibility of a nuclear first strike in response to a threat from NATO. In 2018, Putin first proffered his promise—since reprised, and replayed many times by Russian television—that, in a world-scale nuclear event, Russians will go to heaven while Americans “just croak.” The threat of a nuclear strike has become more apparent—more frequently repeated on Russian propaganda channels—since the Ukrainian counter-offensive began, at the end of the summer. The more the Kremlin has signalled its readiness to drop a nuclear bomb, the more the rest of the world has sought a reason to believe that it will not. Earlier this month, the U.K.’s defense secretary, Ben Wallace, reassured the audience at a Conservative Party conference that, although Putin’s actions could be “totally irrational,” he wouldn’t use nuclear weapons because he couldn’t risk losing the support of China and India—both of which, Wallace asserted, had put Putin on notice. President Biden has offered a different perspective: Putin, he said, is a “rational actor who has miscalculated significantly” in launching his offensive in Ukraine, and this was the reason he wouldn’t use nuclear arms. (On another occasion, Biden said that a Russian nuclear strike would unleash Armageddon.) Jake Sullivan, the U.S. national-security adviser, has consistently said that the White House takes Putin’s threats seriously and would respond decisively in the case of a nuclear attack. Still, in recent weeks, as Moscow has ramped up its warnings, it has become conventional wisdom, or perhaps just good form, to say that Putin isn’t really going to use nukes. “Russian President Vladimir Putin will probably not drop an atomic bomb on Ukraine,” a September Washington Post editorial began, axiomatically. Bloomberg’s European-affairs columnist Andreas Kluth started a recent column by instructing the reader to “put aside, if you can, the growing anxiety about Russian President Vladimir Putin going nuclear in his barbaric war in Ukraine” because, Kluth asserted, the risk “remains small.” Such is the feedback loop of propaganda, ambition, and fear that shapes Putin’s perceptions of the world. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Bondarev writes, many of his colleagues “took pride in our increasingly bellicose behavior.” When questioned, “they gestured at our nuclear force.” This was during the very early days of the full-scale war, when Russians and much of the world believed that Ukraine would quickly lose. As the Russian offensive faltered, the deployment of the nuclear threat went from triumphant to menacing. “One official, a respected expert on ballistic missiles, told me that Russia needed to ‘send a nuclear warhead to a suburb of Washington,’ ” Bondarev writes. “He added, ‘Americans will shit their pants and rush to beg us for peace.’ He appeared to be partially joking. But Russians tend to think that Americans are too pampered to risk their lives for anything, so when I pointed out that a nuclear attack would invite catastrophic retaliation, he scoffed: ‘No, it wouldn’t.’ ” Although it may be evident to a non-Russian military strategist that the use of a nuclear weapon would be strategically disastrous for Russia, Putin sees his mission in grander and less pragmatic terms. He believes that, on the one hand, he is facing down an existential threat to Russia and, on the other, that Western nations don’t have the strength of their convictions to retaliate if it comes to nukes. Any small sign of a crack in the Western consensus—be it French President Emmanuel Macron pressuring Ukraine to enter peace negotiations, or the House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy criticizing what he sees as unconditional aid to Ukraine—bolsters Putin’s certainty. An army of yes-men and the propaganda machine amplify both the threat Russia ostensibly faces and the support it supposedly enjoys. Last week, Putin hosted his annual Valdai policy conference, an invitation-only junket that has traditionally served as a way for him to broadcast his message to the world. In the past, the audience has consisted largely of Western journalists and Russia scholars. But the crowd at this year’s event was different. The topic was “A Post-Hegemonic World: Justice and Security for All.” Putin delivered a nearly hour-long talk on the need to liberate the non-Western world from the choke hold of “cancel culture” and “the ten different genders” that the West inflicts on countries in place of “traditional values.” For a couple of hours afterward, he fielded questions from representatives of Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Brazil, former Soviet republics in Central Asia and the Caucasus, and others; most speakers began by expressing respect bordering on adulation. “Many countries are tired of living under the rule of external powers,” Putin remarked at one point. “The more they see us pushing back against that pressure, the more they support us. That support will only grow.” Putin’s world view—in which he, a once-lowly K.G.B. bureaucrat, wields a mighty sword that will save the world from decadence and decay—is the product of his specific background and historical moment, but it also belongs to a recognizable type of thought. Charles Strozier, who founded the Center on Terrorism at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, has written extensively on what he calls the “fundamentalist mindset,” the kind of thinking that can fuel genocidal violence. And he has recently written about the evidence that suggests Putin, like Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden, has it. Strozier told me, “The thing that psychologically infuses the leadership style of someone like Putin, or Hitler, is the certainty that comes with paranoia.” That Putin is paranoid is an observable fact: he is obsessed with the idea that Russia is surrounded by enemies; he is terrified of all protest and dissent, even though he has long since disabled any levers by which either could influence his regime; his fear of the coronavirus and, possibly, assassination, has driven him into near-total isolation and compels him to hold in-person conversations across giant tables. “The certainty that comes with paranoia is a strength of their leadership style, but, because they are inflexible, they make huge mistakes,” Strozier said. The fundamentalist mind-set is apocalyptic and millenarian. Hitler had the idea of the “thousand-year Reich,” which positioned him as a successor to Roman and German emperors. Putin’s excursions into history have been similarly grandiose: he views himself as the last of a lineage of Russian emperors, and he explicitly dismisses historical facts—such as the existence of the Ukrainian state—that interfere with this narrative. Snyder, the Yale historian, has written extensively about the apparent influence on Putin of Ivan Ilyin, a twentieth-century Russian émigré philosopher who believed that the world, corrupted by Western-style liberalism and individualism, was ripe for radical renewal at the turn of the new millennium. I think that Snyder may overestimate the primacy of Ilyin’s teachings in Putin’s thinking: Putin uses ideas instrumentally, picking up and wielding them when he needs to say something that affirms his intuition. He has, similarly, used the ideas of the contemporary philosopher Alexander Dugin, another mystical thinker who believes that Russia’s mission is to restore traditional order to a world endangered by chaos coming from the West. The specific words and concepts are less important than Putin’s sense of his own vast historic mission. In a 1990 book called “The Genocidal Mentality,” Lifton, the psychohistorian, discussed the term “nuclearism,” which he viewed as an ideology akin to Nazism. The politics of deterrence, he argued—the entire school of thought that saw the survival of the world as contingent on a balance between powers capable of annihilating it—activated “a mind-set that includes individual and collective willingness to produce, deploy, and, according to certain standards of necessity, use weapons known to destroy entire human populations.” Both nuclearism and Nazism offered themselves as cures for historical disasters: Nazism for the humiliation Germany supposedly suffered in the aftermath of the First World War and nuclearism for the catastrophe wrought by the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both Nazism and nuclearism positioned themselves as preventive, as hedges against a greater threat—to the Aryan race by Jews and others, or to all of human life by nuclear holocaust. Both ideologies are peculiarly modern in that they “include near worship of science and technology.” And both feature “vast societal involvement in a genocidal project, creating dangerous forms of bureaucratic momentum that can carry one across the threshold into genocide.” The threat against which Russia must wield its nuclear shield is the encroachment of the West, framed variously as the expansion of NATO, an assault on traditional values, the advancement of “gender ideology,” and a spreading decadence. All of it adds up to an existential threat to Russia, which in Putin’s view is a besieged island of heterosexuality, whiteness, and truth. Strozier has written that the fundamentalist mind-set involves an overarching mission that justifies all means. “The salvational notion is always present in genocide,” he told me, citing Hitler’s belief that inferior forms of life had to be exterminated to enable the thousand-year Reich. “Large-scale violence, genocide is embarked upon for a moral purpose.” Putin and his propaganda machine have also framed the war in Ukraine as a struggle that flows directly out of the battles of the Second World War. Over the years, Putin has reminded Russians that they sacrificed the most in the fight against the Nazis—at least twenty six and a half million killed, according to post-Soviet historians. (A disproportionate number of those lost lives were Ukrainian, but Russia lays claim to their legacy, too.) He has also asserted that Russia was “alone” in fighting the Nazi menace and therefore Russia has the right to determine who is a Nazi now. But Russia is not just cosplaying the Second World War—the country is still prosecuting it, fighting to regain the superpower status once achieved by beating back Nazi Germany. This narrative bolsters Putin’s belief that he has the moral right to use nuclear arms. The Americans did it, so the Russians can, too. Lifton won the National Book Award in 1969 for a book about survivors of the bombing of Hiroshima, in which he described the predicament of the city’s residents as a “lifelong immersion in death.” The phrase can just as well be used to describe the experience of Russians who grew up in the shadow of the Second World War. Putin was born in the first postwar decade, and raised in Leningrad, a city that lost a still uncounted number of civilians—the official toll was six hundred and thirty-two thousand, but estimates range upward of a million—during a nearly nine-hundred-day siege. The siege of Leningrad was, by contemporary standards, a war crime, one that Russian troops have repeated this year in Mariupol and elsewhere in Ukraine. The devastation of the city and the degradation of its residents were total: people died of hunger, but not before they had eaten, pawned, or used as fuel whatever remained of their lives. After the war, Soviet propaganda glossed over the ugly brutality of the siege while it valorized its victims and survivors. Polina Barskova, a Russian poet, literary scholar, and historian at the University of California, Berkeley, told me, “What distinguished books about the siege that could be published from those that couldn’t was that the former claimed the sacrifice had a purpose. It was Victory with a capital ‘V’ over Enemy with a capital ‘E’ and Evil with a capital ‘E.’ It’s the kind of goal for which you can sacrifice any number of human lives.” For Leningrad natives, this myth is a birthright. For Putin, it is further proof that he has the moral right to kill, or condemn, entire human populations. Putin’s older brother died, as a toddler, during the siege. His parents survived—barely, miraculously. “No one could survive by living solely off the ration cards issued by the government,” Barskova, whose book of short stories and essays about the siege, “Living Pictures,” was recently published in an English translation, said. “That is just a fact. Every survivor was a miracle, and most acts of surviving were transgressive, criminal.” Survivors had access to state power—nomenklatura rations—or committed crimes to pull through, or both. Putin is now the head of the criminal state that is Russia. He believes that he is exceptional and will survive the nuclear disaster he unleashes. It also helps that he has built a series of bunkers, underground palaces where, he imagines, he can survive the nuclear holocaust in luxury. In the end, every “rational” case for why Putin won’t use nuclear weapons in Ukraine falls short. He is not afraid of losing support from his current allies, because he misapprehends Russia’s position in the world; he sees Russia as politically, economically, and militarily stronger than it is. Chinese and Indian leaders may express alarm at the use of extreme measures such as nuclear weapons, but to Putin this points to their lack of resolve—their weakness, not the Kremlin’s. And, if need be, he is prepared to make outlandish denials, no matter how implausible. Russian propagandists have argued that the Malaysian airliner shot down over eastern Ukraine in 2015 was packed with corpses by bad actors trying to frame Russia and that the scenes of war crimes in Bucha were “staged.” Indeed, Shoigu’s Sunday phone calls opened the possibility of Russia deflecting blame for a nuclear strike by claiming that it was a Ukrainian false-flag operation. The arguments that Putin won’t use nuclear weapons because doing so would endanger Russians, including himself, are blind to the fact that Putin believes he has the right, possibly the moral obligation, to sacrifice hundreds of thousands or millions of people. The argument that a nuclear strike wouldn’t help Putin achieve his strategic goals mistakes Russia’s strategic goals as anything but inflicting terror on Ukrainians. The losses the Russian military is suffering now can only motivate Putin to create more terror, against more people. The one credible argument remaining is that Putin may fear repercussions. He is not afraid of nuclear retaliation—because Ukraine doesn’t have its own nuclear weapons and NATO is unlikely to mount a nuclear response against the use of a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine. (And, if NATO did, Putin believes that he would have a totally mobilized, albeit diminished, nation.) What he may fear, however, is an extreme response from NATO using conventional weapons—a series of strikes, for example, that would devastate Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and destroy all its remaining military capability in Ukraine. This would be a blow so humiliating that nothing but a second, more powerful nuclear strike could avenge it. Is that a prospect that Putin is unwilling to contemplate? Possibly not, but it is as close as the West can get to deterrence these days. PG KO

Putin Will Nuke Ukraine When Trump Invades Greenland

Putin cannot lose Ukraine or it will cease to be relevant. America needs Greenland because it has run out of space. Both countries will use Nuclear force to achieve their National Strategic Objecties. For RUSSIA and America, Nuclear Force is likely a necessary course of action, not just an option. 1. RUSSIA is losing the Urainian War despite the fact that it has America in its back pocket through its extortion and ownership of DJ Trump. America is nowhere to be seen as a Ukrainian "Ally"because Putin owns Trump, simple. RUSSIA will NUKE Ukraine rather than have it fall into Western Democratic auspiscies (owned by the West/EU et al CANADa etc,,); 2. Trump needs a distraction from his pending personal legal jeopardy and once out of office he will be sued and litigated ad nauseum. Trump simply needs a World War to stay in office to avoid incarceration. If DJ Trumpdoes not have a reason to stay in Office or get a Pardon he will be put in jail for the rest of his natural life. Putin Nuking Ukraine; While Russian President Vladimir Putin has not used nuclear weapons in Ukraine, Moscow has engaged in continuous nuclear rhetoric, lowered its formal nuclear threshold, and deployed advanced nuclear-capable delivery systems like the Oreshnik ballistic missile with non-nuclear payloads, actual use of a nuclear weapon has not occurred.Current Context of Russian Nuclear SignalingDoctrines and Threats: Putin has repeatedly revised Russia's nuclear doctrine to explicitly threaten retaliation against conventional attacks backed by Western allies.Advanced Missile Deployments: Russia has test-fired and deployed nuclear-capable intermediate-range systems (such as the Oreshnik) against Ukrainian infrastructure, using conventional warheads as psychological and strategic demonstrations.Joint Drills: Moscow and Belarus have conducted tactical and strategic nuclear readiness exercises to pressure Western nations over long-range military aid to Kyiv.International AssessmentNo Nuclear Detonation: Western intelligence and independent monitoring agencies confirm that no nuclear warheads have been deployed or detonated in the conflict.Deterrence Dynamic: Analysts note that Putin's repeated atomic warnings are designed to deter NATO escalation and restrict the supply of advanced weaponry to Ukraine, rather than signaling an imminent operational nuclear strike, which would carry catastrophic and unpredictable global consequences.

Russia Controls Trump Who Will Invade Greenland To Distract From Ukraine War

Trump will invade Greenland to distract from Russia's War in Ukraine. Russia own Trump ad His Jew-House and will have DJ Trump invade Greenland so it can Nuke Ukraine into submission while the West frets about Grenland's take-over by America:

By drilling for oil offshore Greenland(GreenIsland State) America has aready begun its invasion of Greenland Stay tuned... PG KO PS Anhone notice there is ALMOST ZERO MAINSTREAM NEWS COVERAGE OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE???

Trump Has Already Invaded Greenand

By drilling for oil offshore Greenland(GreenIsland State) America has aready begun its invasion of Greenland. Neither Denmark, Europe, NATO, EY, CHINA or anyone else can do anything about it. Putin loves this by the way as it will be the distraction he will need when he Nukes Ukraine... PG KO

America Is Too Big For Its Britches

America Is Overpopulated & Has Run Out of Living Space For It's Rich & Growing Population & Economy America needs Greenland because it is @ Capacity and needs more Living Space or Lebensraum in the form of physical space or population and economic "Carrying Capacity"; Lebensraum (Background); Trump is German.His Mother was Scottish.Both countries struggled with overpopulation hence why Trump's parents emigrated to the USA for opportunities not avaiable in their homecountries Germany and Scotland. The renowned German geographer Friedrich Ratzel coined the term in 1901. He and many others at the turn of the century believed that a nation had to be self-sufficient in terms of resources and territory (a concept known as autarky) to protect itself from external threats.

Ratzel and others were also deeply influenced by the new work of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. However, they mistakenly applied the concept to nation states, contending that, like the species Darwin studied, nations too struggled over resources for survival where only the fittest would win. Ratzel argued that the development of a people was influenced by their geographic situation, and that a society who effectively adapted to one geographic territory would logically expand the borders of their country into other territory. Pointing to the British and French Empires and to American “Manifest Destiny,” Ratzel contended that Germany required overseas colonies to relieve German over-population. The East presented another logical outlet for growth. Long before the Nazi period, many Germans looked to eastern Europe as the natural source of their Lebensraum. Beginning in the Middle Ages, the social and economic pressures of over-population in the German states had led to a steady colonization of Germanic peoples in eastern Europe. Increasingly by the twentieth century, however, scholars and the public alike began to view the East as a region whose vast natural resources were wasted on racially “inferior” peoples like Slavs and Jews. A biological view of Lebensraum resonated with an inaccurate historical view of the German role in the East during the ancient and medieval periods. Expansionists clung to this mythic German “history” in eastern Europe, arguing that these regions were actually lost German lands. As one German publication stated in 1916, “we Germanic people build up—create—the Slav broods and dreams—like his earth.” Lebensraum and World War I Ironically, during World War I, the German state achieved its goal of conquering Lebensraum in the East, extending German dominance as far east as Minsk and constructing a military dictatorship dedicated to exploiting and altering the landscape. The eventual German defeat in World War I resulted in not only the loss of all its overseas colonies but also the eastern military “kingdom” known as Ober Ost. The war and accompanying deep sense of loss heightened the German conviction that its salvation lay in the East. Hitler, himself a World War I veteran, recognized the effect that the British naval blockade and materiel shortages at home had had on the home front, weakening morale and increasing civilian suffering. This contributed, in many conservative Germans' minds, to the “Stab-in-the-back” explanation for Germany's defeat which blamed the loss not on military failures but on Jews, liberals, war profiteers, and others on the home front who had compromised the war effort. Hitler vowed that Germany would never again be defeated by a lack of resources. In his unpublished second book, he lamented that “the German people is today even less in a position than in the years of peace to feed itself from its own land and territory.” In 1936, he glowingly spoke of the “incalculable raw materials” in the Urals, the “rich forests” of Siberia, and the “incalculable farmlands” of the Ukraine. Lebensraum and the Nazi State In the Nazi state, Lebensraum became not just a romantic yearning for a return to the East but a vital strategic component of its imperial and racist visions. For the Germans, eastern Europe represented their “Manifest Destiny.” Hitler and other Nazi thinkers drew direct comparisons to American expansion in the West. During one of his famous “table talks,” Hitler decreed that “there's only one duty: to Germanize this country [Russia] by the immigration of Germans and to look upon the natives as Redskins.” The concrete measures taken by the Nazis to secure their Lebensraum demonstrate the very real power of ideas. Again, in his second book, Hitler wrote that Germany should “[concentrate] all of its strength on marking out a way of life for our people through the allocation of adequate Lebensraum for the next one hundred years.” Naturally, the inferior races that occupied this region must be removed, both Slavs and Jews. The drive to clear the East of inferior populations in preparation for German colonization led to intensive planning for the mass starvation of over 30 million people there. Policy guidelines issued before the invasion of the Soviet Union stated unequivocally that “many tens of millions of people in this territory will become superfluous and will have to die or migrate to Siberia… With regard to this, absolute clarity must reign.” Known as the Generalplan Ost, this set of economic and demographic plans placed the necessity for Lebensraum and the colonization of the East at the center of the invasion. By blaming Jews and Bolshevists for the “backwardness” of the region, the plans also reinforced other forms of Nazi antisemitism demanding the removal of Jews from the territory and eventually their physical destruction. The concept of Lebensraum was not solely responsible for the Holocaust, but powerfully connected a variety of imperialist, nationalist, and racist currents that would contribute to the murder of the Jews of Europe. is a German word that means "living space". It is a historical and geopolitical theory. The concept argues that a nation or a people needs a certain amount of land and natural resources to grow and survive.You can read more about the core details and history of this concept in the Holocaust Encyclopedia definition of Lebensraum.Origins of the ConceptCoined in 1901 by German geographer Friedrich Ratzel.First used as a biological idea about animals and plants needing space to live.Later applied to human societies and cultures using social Darwinism.Used during World War I by German leaders who wanted to expand their empire in Europe.Nazi Germany and World War IIAdopted and twisted by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.Used to justify taking land in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.Claimed that the German "master race" deserved more land for farming and living.Led to the violent removal, enslavement, or mass murder of Jewish, Slavic, and other local populations.Served as a main reason for starting World War II in Europe. AMERICA simply is pverppoulated and its growing population and economy need more "Lebensraum" or "Living Space". The United States of America has reached its "Carrying Capacity" @ Capacity ; America is now at Capacity economically speaking. When an economy is "at capacity" means it has reached its highest sustainable output using current workers, factories, and technology without causing high inflation. At this point, supply cannot easily rise to meet extra demand, which often causes prices and wages to go up.Key Signs of Capacity LimitsLow unemployment: Jobless rates drop near the lowest stable level (known as NAIRU).High factory use: Industrial and manufacturing plants run near or above 85% of their total potential.Rising inflation: Prices and labor costs climb because goods and workers are hard to find.Inelastic supply: Firms cannot produce more units quickly unless they spend time and money building new facilities.Economic Impact and PolicyOutput gaps: When demand pushes production past normal limits, it creates a positive output gap and forces prices higher.Central banks: Policymakers track these limits to decide when to raise interest rates to cool down spending.Long-term growth: To push past a capacity ceiling, an economy needs new technology, better skills, or more physical capital. The carrying capacity of an ecosystem is the maximum population size of a living biological species that can be sustained by that specific environment, given the food, habitat, water, and other resources available, over a fixed amount of time. The carrying capacity is defined as the environment's maximal load,[clarification needed] which in population ecology corresponds to the population equilibrium, when the number of deaths in a population equals the number of births (as well as immigration and emigration). Carrying capacity of the environment implies that the resources extraction is not above the rate of regeneration of the resources and the wastes generated are within the assimilating capacity of the environment. The effect of carrying capacity on population dynamics is modelled with a logistic function. Carrying capacity is applied to the maximum population an environment can support in ecology, agriculture and fisheries. The term carrying capacity had been applied to a few different processes in the past before finally being applied to human population limits in the 1950s.[1] The notion of carrying capacity for humans is covered by the notion of sustainable population. An early detailed examination of global limits on human population was published in the 1972 book Limits to Growth, which has prompted follow-up commentary and analysis, including much criticism.[2] A 2012 review in the journal Nature by 22 international researchers expressed concerns that the Earth may be "approaching a state shift" in which the biosphere may become less hospitable to human life, and in which the human carrying capacity may diminish.[3] This concern that humanity may be passing beyond "tipping points" for safe use of the biosphere has increased in subsequent years.[4][5] Although the global population has now passed 8 billion, recent estimates of Earth's carrying capacity run from two to four billion people, depending on how optimistic researchers are about the prospects for international cooperation to solve problems requiring collective action.[6] Origins In terms of population dynamics, the term 'carrying capacity' was not explicitly used in 1838 by the Belgian mathematician Pierre François Verhulst when he first published his equations based on research on modelling population growth.[7] The origins of the term "carrying capacity" are uncertain, with sources variously stating that it was originally used "in the context of international shipping" in the 1840s,[8][9] or that it was first used during 19th-century laboratory experiments with micro-organisms.[10] A 2008 review finds the first use of the term in English was an 1845 report by the US Secretary of State to the US Senate. It then became a term used generally in biology in the 1870s, being most developed in wildlife and livestock management in the early 1900s.[9] It had become a staple term in ecology used to define the biological limits of a natural system related to population size in the 1950s.[8][9] Neo-Malthusians and eugenicists popularised the use of the words to describe the number of people the Earth can support in the 1950s,[9] although American biostatisticians Raymond Pearl and Lowell Reed had already applied it in these terms to human populations in the 1920s.[11] Hadwen and Palmer (1923) defined carrying capacity as the density of stock that could be grazed for a definite period without damage to the range.[12][13] It was first used in the context of wildlife management by the American Aldo Leopold in 1933, and a year later by the American Paul Lester Errington, a wetlands specialist. They used the term in different ways, Leopold largely in the sense of grazing animals (differentiating between a 'saturation level', an intrinsic level of density a species would live in, and carrying capacity, the most animals which could be in the field) and Errington defining 'carrying capacity' as the number of animals above which predation would become 'heavy' (this definition has largely been rejected, including by Errington himself).[12][14] The important and popular 1953 textbook on ecology by Eugene Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology, popularised the term in its modern meaning as the equilibrium value of the logistic model of population growth.[12][15] This is a graph of population change utilizing the logistic curve model. When the population is above the carrying capacity it decreases, and when it is below the carrying capacity it increases. The Verhulst equation is a first-order ordinary differential equation. Combined with an initial value The logistic growth curve depicts how population growth rate and carrying capacity are inter-connected. As illustrated in the logistic growth curve model, when the population size is small, the population increases exponentially. However, as population size nears carrying capacity, the growth decreases and reaches zero at K.[21] What determines a specific system's carrying capacity involves a limiting factor; this may be available supplies of food or water, nesting areas, space, or the amount of waste that can be absorbed without degrading the environment and decreasing carrying capacity. Population ecology Main articles: Population ecology and Population dynamics See also: Ecological overshoot Carrying capacity is a commonly used concept for biologists when trying to better understand biological populations and the factors which affect them.[1] When addressing biological populations, carrying capacity can be seen as a stable dynamic equilibrium, taking into account extinction and colonization rates.[17] In population biology, logistic growth assumes that population size fluctuates above and below an equilibrium value.[22] Numerous authors have questioned the usefulness of the term when applied to actual wild populations.[12][13][23] Although useful in theory and in laboratory experiments, carrying capacity as a method of measuring population limits in the environment is less useful as it sometimes oversimplifies the interactions between species.[17] Agriculture It is important for farmers to calculate the carrying capacity of their land so they can establish a sustainable stocking rate.[24] For example, calculating the carrying capacity of a paddock in Australia is done in Dry Sheep Equivalents (DSEs). A single DSE is 50 kg Merino wether, dry ewe or non-pregnant ewe, which is maintained in a stable condition. Not only sheep are calculated in DSEs, the carrying capacity for other livestock is also calculated using this measure. A 200 kg weaned calf of a British style breed gaining 0.25 kg/day is 5.5DSE, but if the same weight of the same type of calf were gaining 0.75 kg/day, it would be measured at 8DSE. Cattle are not all the same, their DSEs can vary depending on breed, growth rates, weights, if it is a cow ('dam'), steer or ox ('bullock' in Australia), and if it weaning, pregnant or 'wet' (i.e. lactating). In other parts of the world different units are used for calculating carrying capacities. In the United Kingdom the paddock is measured in LU, livestock units, although different schemes exist for this.[25][26] New Zealand uses either LU,[27] EE (ewe equivalents) or SU (stock units).[28] In the US and Canada the traditional system uses animal units (AU).[29] A French/Swiss unit is Unité de Gros Bétail (UGB).[30][31] Summering of milk cows in the Swiss Alps in Valais Canton In some European countries such as Switzerland the pasture (alm or alp) is traditionally measured in Stoß, with one Stoß equaling four Füße (feet). A more modern European system is Großvieheinheit (GV or GVE), corresponding to 500 kg in liveweight of cattle. In extensive agriculture 2 GV/ha is a common stocking rate, in intensive agriculture, when grazing is supplemented with extra fodder, rates can be 5 to 10 GV/ha.[citation needed][32] In Europe average stocking rates vary depending on the country, in 2000 the Netherlands and Belgium had a very high rate of 3.82 GV/ha and 3.19 GV/ha respectively, surrounding countries have rates of around 1 to 1.5 GV/ha, and more southern European countries have lower rates, with Spain having the lowest rate of 0.44 GV/ha.[33] This system can also be applied to natural areas. Grazing megaherbivores at roughly 1 GV/ha is considered sustainable in central European grasslands, although this varies widely depending on many factors. In ecology it is theoretically (i.e. cyclic succession, patch dynamics, Megaherbivorenhypothese) taken that a grazing pressure of 0.3 GV/ha by wildlife is enough to hinder afforestation in a natural area. Because different species have different ecological niches, with horses for example grazing short grass, cattle longer grass, and goats or deer preferring to browse shrubs, niche differentiation allows a terrain to have slightly higher carrying capacity for a mixed group of species, than it would if there were only one species involved.[34] Some niche market schemes mandate lower stocking rates than can maximally be grazed on a pasture. In order to market ones' meat products as 'biodynamic', a lower Großvieheinheit of 1 to 1.5 (2.0) GV/ha is mandated, with some farms having an operating structure using only 0.5 to 0.8 GV/ha.[citation needed] The Food and Agriculture Organization has introduced three international units to measure carrying capacity: FAO Livestock Units for North America,[35][36] FAO Livestock Units for sub-Saharan Africa,[35][36] and Tropical Livestock Units.[37] Another rougher and less precise method of determining the carrying capacity of a paddock is simply by looking objectively at the condition of the herd. In Australia, the national standardized system for rating livestock conditions is done by body condition scoring (BCS). An animal in a very poor condition is scored with a BCS of 0, and an animal which is extremely healthy is scored at 5: animals may be scored between these two numbers in increments of 0.25. At least 25 animals of the same type must be scored to provide a statistically representative number, and scoring must take place monthly -if the average falls, this may be due to a stocking rate above the paddock's carrying capacity or too little fodder. This method is less direct for determining stocking rates than looking at the pasture itself, because the changes in the condition of the stock may lag behind changes in the condition of the pasture.[24] Humans and American Overpopulation - See also: Human overpopulation and Overshoot (population) Human carrying capacity is a function of how people live and the technology at their disposal. The two great economic revolutions that marked human history up to 1900—the agricultural and industrial revolutions—greatly increased the Earth's human carrying capacity, allowing human population to grow from 5 to 10 million people in 10,000 BCE to 1.5 billion in 1900.[47] The immense technological improvements of the past 100 years—in applied chemistry, physics, computing, genetic engineering, and more—have further increased Earth's human carrying capacity, at least in the short term. Without the Haber-Bosch process for fixing nitrogen, modern agriculture could not support 8 billion people.[48] Without the Green Revolution of the 1950s and 60s, famine might have culled large numbers of people in poorer countries during the last three decades of the twentieth century.[49] Recent technological successes, however, have come at grave environmental costs. Climate change, ocean acidification, and the huge dead zones at the mouths of many of world's great rivers, are a function of the scale of contemporary agriculture[50] and the many other demands 8 billion people make on the planet.[51] Scientists now speak of humanity exceeding or threatening to exceed 9 planetary boundaries for safe use of the biosphere.[52] Humanity's unprecedented ecological impacts threaten to degrade the ecosystem services that people and the rest of life depend on—potentially decreasing Earth's human carrying capacity.[53] The signs that we have crossed this threshold are increasing.[54][55] The fact that degrading Earth's essential services is obviously possible, and happening in some cases, suggests that 8 billion people may be above Earth's human carrying capacity. But human carrying capacity is always a function of a certain number of people living a certain way.[56][57] This was encapsulated by Paul Ehrlich and James Holdren's (1972) IPAT equation: environmental impact (I) = population (P) x affluence (A) x the technologies used to accommodate human demands (T).[58] IPAT has found spectacular confirmation in recent decades within climate science, where the Kaya identity for explaining changes in CO2 emissions is essentially IPAT with two technology factors broken out for ease of use.[59] This suggests to technological optimists that new technological discoveries (or the deployment of existing ones) could continue to increase Earth's human carrying capacity, as it has in the past.[60] Yet technology has unexpected side effects, as we have seen with stratospheric ozone depletion, excessive nitrogen deposition in the world's rivers and bays, and global climate change.[53][5] This suggests that 8 billion people may be sustainable for a few generations, but not over the long term, and the term 'carrying capacity' implies a population that is sustainable indefinitely. It is possible, too, that efforts to anticipate and manage the impacts of powerful new technologies, or to divide up the efforts needed to keep global ecological impacts within sustainable bounds among more than 200 nations all pursuing their own self-interest, may prove too complicated to achieve over the long haul.[61] One issue with applying carrying capacity to any species is that ecosystems are not constant and change over time, therefore changing the resources available. Research has shown that sometimes the presence of human populations can increase local biodiversity, demonstrating that human habitation does not always lead to deforestation and decreased biodiversity. World population supported with and without synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. Another issue to consider when applying carrying capacity, especially to humans, is that measuring food resources is arbitrary. This is due to choosing what to consider (e.g., whether or not to include plants that are not available every year), how to classify what is considered (e.g., classifying edible plants that are not usually eaten as food resources or not), and determining if caloric values or nutritional values are privileged. Additional layers to this for humans are their cultural differences in culinary preferences (e.g., some consume flying termites) and individual choices on what to invest their labor into (e.g., fishing vs. farming), both of which vary over time. This leads to the need to determine whether or not to include all food resources or only those the population considered will actually consume. Measuring water resources carrying capacity is likewise highly arbitrary: choices in temporal resolution (e.g., monthly versus annual), spatial resolution (e.g., how subbasins are delineated), and whether to include human activities such as inter-basin water transfers and reservoir storage in the assessment can all lead to vastly different WRCC results.[62] Carrying capacity measurements over large areas also assumes homogeneity in the resources available but this does not account for how resources and access to them can greatly vary within regions and populations. They also assume that the populations in the region only rely on that region's resources even though humans exchange resources with others from other regions and there are few, if any, isolated populations. Variations in standards of living which directly impact resource consumption are also not taken into account. These issues show that while there are limits to resources, a more complex model of how humans interact with their ecosystem needs to be used to understand them.[63] Recent warnings that humanity may have exceeded Earth's carrying capacity Between 1900 and 2020, Earth's human population increased from 1.6 billion to 7.8 billion (a 390% increase).[64] These successes greatly increased human resource demands, generating significant environmental degradation.[65] Millennium ecosystem assessment The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) of 2005 was a massive, collaborative effort to assess the state of Earth's ecosystems, involving more than 1,300 experts worldwide.[65] Their first two of four main findings were the following. The first finding is: Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and fuel. This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth.[66] The second of the four main findings is: The changes that have been made to ecosystems have contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development, but these gains have been achieved at growing costs in the form of the degradation of many ecosystem services, increased risks of nonlinear changes, and the exacerbation of poverty for some groups of people. These problems, unless addressed, will substantially diminish the benefits that future generations obtain from ecosystems.[66] According to the MEA, these unprecedented environmental changes threaten to reduce the Earth's long-term human carrying capacity. "The degradation of ecosystem services could grow significantly worse during the first half of this [21st] century," they write, serving as a barrier to improving the lives of poor people around the world.[66] Ecological footprint accounting Ecological footprint accounting measures the demands people make on nature and compares them to available supplies, for both individual countries and the world as a whole.[67] Developed originally by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees, it has been refined and applied in a variety of contexts over the years by Global Footprint Network (GFN). On the demand side, the ecological footprint measures how fast a population uses resources and generates wastes, with a focus on five main areas: carbon emissions (or carbon footprint); land devoted to direct settlement; timber and paper use; food and fiber use; and seafood consumption.[68] It converts these into per capita or total hectares used. On the supply side, national or global biocapacity represents the productivity of ecological assets in a particular nation or the world as a whole; this includes "cropland, grazing land, forest land, fishing grounds, and built-up land."[68] Again the various metrics to capture biocapacity are translated into the single term of hectares of available land. As Global Footprint Network (GFN) states: Each city, state or nation's Ecological Footprint can be compared to its biocapacity, or that of the world. If a population's Ecological Footprint exceeds the region's biocapacity, that region runs a biocapacity deficit. Its demand for the goods and services that its land and seas can provide—fruits and vegetables, meat, fish, wood, cotton for clothing, and carbon dioxide absorption—exceeds what the region's ecosystems can regenerate. In more popular communications, this is called "an ecological deficit." A region in ecological deficit meets demand by importing, liquidating its own ecological assets (such as overfishing), and/or emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If a region's biocapacity exceeds its Ecological Footprint, it has a biocapacity reserve.[68] According to the GFN's calculations, humanity has been using resources and generating wastes in excess of sustainability since approximately 1970: currently humanity use Earth's resources at approximately 170% of capacity.[69][70] This implies that humanity is well over Earth's human carrying capacity for our current levels of affluence and technology use. According to Global Footprint Network: In 2024, [Earth Overshoot Day] fell on August 1. Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity has exhausted nature's budget for the year. For the rest of the year, we are maintaining our ecological deficit by drawing down local resource stocks and accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We are operating in overshoot.[71] The concept of 'ecological overshoot' can be seen as equivalent to exceeding human carrying capacity.[72][67] According to the most recent calculations from Global Footprint Network, most of the world's residents live in countries in ecological overshoot (see the map on the right). Nations living within their ecological means (shaded green) or in ecological overshoot (shaded red) in 2022. This includes countries with dense populations (such as China, India, and the Philippines), countries with high per capita consumption and resource use (France, Germany, and Saudi Arabia), and countries with both high per capita consumption and large numbers of people (Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States).[68] Planetary boundaries framework According to its developers, the planetary boundaries framework defines "a safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth system."[52] Human civilization has evolved in the relative stability of the Holocene epoch; thus crossing planetary boundaries for safe levels of atmospheric carbon, ocean acidity, or one of the other stated boundaries could send the global ecosystem spiraling into novel conditions that are less hospitable to life—possibly reducing global human carrying capacity. This framework, developed in an article published in 2009 in Nature[73] and then updated in two articles published in 2015 in Science[52] and in 2018 in PNAS,[74] identifies nine stressors of planetary support systems that need to stay within critical limits to preserve stable and safe biospheric conditions (see figure below). Climate change and biodiversity loss are seen as especially crucial, since on their own, they could push the Earth system out of the Holocene state: "transitions between time periods in Earth history have often been delineated by substantial shifts in climate, the biosphere, or both."[52] Estimates of how the different control variables for seven of nine planetary boundaries have changed from 1950 to present. The green shaded polygon represents the safe operating space. The scientific consensus is that humanity has exceeded three to five of the nine planetary boundaries for safe use of the biosphere and is pressing hard on several more.[74] By itself, crossing one of the planetary boundaries does not prove humanity has exceeded Earth's human carrying capacity; perhaps technological improvements or clever management might reduce this stressor and bring us back within the biosphere's safe operating space. But when several boundaries are crossed, it becomes harder to argue that carrying capacity has not been breached.[75] Because fewer people helps reduce all nine planetary stressors, the more boundaries are crossed, the clearer it appears that reducing human numbers is part of what is needed to get back within a safe operating space.[76][77] Population growth regularly tops the list of causes of humanity's increasing impact on the natural environment in Earth system science literature.[78] Recently, planetary boundaries developer Will Steffen and co-authors ranked global population change as the leading indicator of the influence of socio-economic trends on the functioning of the Earth system in the modern era, post-1750.