Inside the broligarchy: Is big tech running US politics? Carole Cadwalladr talks to DW News.
From Donald Trump’s alliances with tech billionaires to the collapse of US media outlets, investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr says we are accelerating towards a “techno‑fascist future.” Chapters 00:00 Where does government end and Big Tech begin? 00:26 DW speaks with Carole Cadwalladr, Investigative Journalist 02:40 What is the broligarchy? 06:45 Missing accountability for big tech 08:00 Tech entrepreneurs are taking over legacy media companies 10:30 A techno-Fascist future? 12:30 What can People do? 14:00 How Aware is the public about data collection risks? 15:20 AI and intellectual property 18:00 A positive way forward?
Warmongers Keep Generating AI Atrocity Propaganda About Iran
Caitlin Johnstone, May 29, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/warmongers-keep-generating-ai-atrocity?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=199683036&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Another AI atrocity propaganda project about Iran has been unleashed, this time in the form of a movie titled “Dreams of Violets” at the Tribeca film festival.
Variety calls the flick “the first full-length, live-action film generated by AI to be accepted by a major film festival,” describing the plot as follows:
“The film, which will premiere June 10 during the festival’s 25th anniversary, is a 75-minute docudrama inspired by the protests that swept Tehran in January, highlighting five Iranians who meet in a Tehran alley before they’re executed, all witnessed from a window by Amir, a 10-year-old boy with cerebral palsy. The clashes reflect the real-world protests between Iranian authorities and civilians, which left at least 7,000 people dead and more than 50,000 people arrested, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency.”
The film’s trailer depicts sympathetic protagonists being brutally victimized by Iranian authorities, and concludes with the image of fighter jets soaring overhead while an English-captioned Persian voiceover says “If Iran gets liberated, celebrate for me. Enjoy it for us!”
Tribeca Festival co-founder Jane Rosenthal gushed enthusiastically about the so-called “docudrama” and its implications, telling The Hollywood Reporter that “At this time in history when both artificial intelligence and Iran are central to global conversation, this film offers audiences a rare and intimate perspective into a conflict many have not been able to fully see or understand.”
Well hey, now they can see and understand the conflict! They can see and understand it with the help of completely fake AI video footage! Golly gosh, isn’t that deliciously convenient?
This follows our discussion last month about another project using AI-generated atrocity propaganda to manufacture consent for war with Iran called Generative AI for Good, which creates deepfakes of supposedly real women who say they were sexually assaulted by Iranian government forces.
The Canary reports:
“An Israel-based AI firm, Generative AI for Good, claims to be using deepfake technologies for positive ends. ‘Positive’ appears to mean creating deepfake videos to help the illegal US-Israel war on Iran.
“Generative AI for Good claims that it uses AI to ‘help survivors testify safely — in their real voice, without revealing their identity’. But Israel and its mouthpieces have been shown to have used false allegations of rapes and other atrocities on 7 October 2023 to justify its genocide in Gaza.”
The Canary notes that Generative AI for Good is staffed with Israelis who have very conspicuous agendas, including a creative director who pushes the discredited narrative about mass rapes on October 7, a marketing manager who served in the IDF’s “Psychotechnical Headquarter”, and a founder who said in early 2024 that “Artificial intelligence is a secret weapon of ours” in using the revolutionary technology to bolster the military’s efforts both online and on the ground in the information war being waged alongside the military battlefields in Gaza.
It is unsurprising that generative AI is being used to churn out atrocity propaganda to manufacture consent for imperial war projects, because these new technologies lend themselves perfectly to the task of creating realistic-looking video footage of events which never transpired. If you want to tug at people’s heart strings and push them toward anger at an empire-targeted government, generative AI is a cheap and easy tool for doing so.
We are only just beginning to catch the first glimpses of the ways in which AI-generated videos will be used to manipulate the minds of the public to advance imperial agendas. The projects we are seeing today are just the first droplets of ocean mist from a tsunami that is roaring to shore.
Global temperatures to reach near-record highs in next five years, report finds

By Olivia Le Poidevin and Cecile Mantovani,May 28, 2026
Average global temperatures are forecast to reach near-record levels in
the next five years, with Arctic temperatures expected to warm faster
than other regions, a report by the U.N. weather agency and the UK’s Met
Office said on Thursday. The annual report, opens new tab which gives
regional predictions for temperatures and rain predicts that annual global
mean near-surface temperatures will range between 1.3°C and 1.9°C above
the 1850-1900 pre-industrial period.
Reuters 28th May 2026, https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/global-temperatures-reach-near-record-highs-next-five-years-report-finds-2026-05-28/
Legal Victory for Kebaowek First Nation and Allies vs. Proposed Radioactive Megadump

Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Victory for Kebaowek First Nation and Allies in ”Species at Risk” Case Against Chalk River Nuclear Waste Project
Kebaowek, May 29, 2026 – Kebaowek First Nation, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, theCanadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and Sierra Club Canada Foundation welcome a significantvictory following the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal to dismiss Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’(CNL) appeal regarding the Species at Risk Act permit issued for the proposed Near Surface DisposalFacility (NSDF) at Chalk River. The Court upheld the Federal Court’s earlier ruling and ordered Environmentand Climate Change Canada (ECCC) to reconsider its decision to grant the permit.
The permit would have authorized CNL to destroy endangered species and their habitats in order to construct a massive radioactive waste disposal facility less than 1.1 kilometres from the Ottawa River (Kichi Sibi), a watershed that provides drinking water to millions of Canadians.
In its decision, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that ECCC failed to adequately explain how it determined that all reasonable alternatives had been considered and that the best solution had been selected, as required under the Species at Risk Act. The Court emphasized that the Minister’s reasons lacked sufficient transparency, intelligibility, and justification, and directed ECCC to conduct a new determination. The Court also confirmed that the Federal Court’s interpretation of section 73 of the Species at Risk Act is not binding on ECCC and that the Minister must independently provide a clear and reasonable analysis when reconsidering the permit application.
Furthermore, the Court found that the public notice issued by ECCC failed to provide a meaningful explanation to Canadians about why endangered species would be unharmed in support of the project.
Trump plan to give start-ups plutonium harvested from Cold War–era nuclear weapons is risky, experts say

Weapons-grade plutonium can fuel nuclear reactors known as mixed oxide reactors, but none of these exist in the U.S.
By Adam Kovac edited by Claire Cameron, May 28, 2026 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-warn-against-trump-plan-to-give-cold-war-plutonium-to-nuclear-power-companies/
The Trump administration’s plan to offer plutonium from dismantled Cold War–era nuclear weapons to private energy companies is drawing criticism from experts who say it makes little economic sense and presents a national security threat.
There are currently no operational nuclear reactors in the country that are built to use plutonium-derived fuel. Instead nuclear power plants in the U.S. are powered by a mixture of two uranium isotopes. A small portion, usually around 5 percent, of that fuel is uranium 235, which can also be used to make nuclear weapons. The majority is uranium 238, which cannot sustain a nuclear fission reaction on its own. Because of that balance, if some of this fuel were to fall into the wrong hands, it would be enormously difficult to weaponize, says Scott Roecker, vice president of nuclear materials security at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit dedicated to preventing nuclear catastrophe.
“The most difficult step in getting a nuclear weapon is having enough of that material,” he explains. “The U.S. government has spent probably billions of dollars over the last several decades to remove highly-enriched uranium and separated plutonium from countries that don’t need it.”
Plutonium, meanwhile, is considered a human-made element and is a by-product of the reactions that take place inside nuclear reactors. As uranium 238 is bombarded with neutrons inside the reactor, the molecules absorb some of these particles and become the heavier uranium 239, which rapidly decays and eventually becomes extremely radioactive plutonium.
That plutonium can be mixed back with uranium to be used as fuel in specific nuclear reactors called mixed oxide reactors. The U.S. abandoned mixed oxide reactors in the 1970s because they were both difficult and expensive to run. These kinds of reactors do exist elsewhere, though—in Japan, Russia and France—but those countries have encountered their own problems with the reactors, Roecker says.
“In France, the government’s subsidizing that process,” he says. “Only I think 1 percent of the uranium that’s actually reprocessed is being reused. And in Japan, it’s cost the country billions of dollars and has still not started operation, and who knows if it actually ever will.”
The U.S. Department of Energy has defended the plan, saying the private sector could play a vital role in advancing U.S. nuclear power infrastructure. Ted Garrish, assistant secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy, said in April that decommissioned nuclear fuel “represents an immense, untapped energy resource for the United States.”
“The Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program is anticipated to help companies unlock the next level of private funding to broaden domestic nuclear fuel supplies, spur innovation on American recycling technologies, and unlock private sector funding to fuel the nation’s nuclear renaissance,” said a DOE spokesperson in a statement, adding that five companies have been selected to take part in the program.
Aside from the concern over cost and feasibility, other experts point out that keeping plutonium secure is much more difficult than doing so with typical uranium-based nuclear fuel. Daniel Speyer, a professor of nuclear power plant systems at New York University, says he isn’t convinced that energy start-ups could properly store plutonium. Even if the material is mixed back with uranium, separating the two to isolate the highly fissile material isn’t so difficult as to be impossible—which introduces a clear security threat, he says.
“It’s not something that a small organization really probably could do, but if you give them plutonium in purer form, I think it’s almost a trivial act to make a bomb,” he says. “A simple atomic bomb is not difficult to make.”
The DOE says that any company selected to receive the Cold War–era plutonium will have to show a deep understanding of the technology involved, as well as robust security plans and regulatory compliance. The plan has also met some pushback on Capitol Hill, however. Last September Democratic senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts and two Democratic congressional representatives sent a letter to President Donald Trump raising concerns over the risk to national security.
“The transfer of weapons-usable plutonium to private industry would increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, including to rogue states or terrorists,” they wrote.
Getting Iran’s Right to Enrich Wrong (RealClearDefense)
May 28, 2026, https://npolicy.org/getting-irans-right-to-enrich-wrong-realcleardefense/
It’s unclear if the United States and Iran will be able to reach an agreement on Iran’s suspect nuclear weapons-related activities and stockpiles. What should be obvious, however, is that whatever Washington proposes will be seen by Iran’s neighbors and other would-be bombmakers as a standard that might be applied to them next.
As I explain in the attached RealClearDefense piece, “Getting Iran’s Right to Enrich Wrong,” whatever the United States calls upon Iran to do will be seen by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Turkey, and Egypt as a nuclear standard for their own nuclear behavior. If President Trump says Iran has a conditional right to make nuclear fuel after a moratorium, it will be easier for the United States to strike a cooperative civilian nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia that would help Riyadh enrich uranium as well.
This, in turn, is almost certain to prompt the UAE to demand equal treatment under its own nuclear deal with the United States. Finally, Turkey and Egypt, which have large civilian reactor construction projects underway and have previously rejected U.S. pleas to foreswear enriching uranium or reprocessing plutonium, would be even more inclined to do so.
How a Middle East loaded up with nuclear fuel-making nations, only months away from being able to make bombs, will be able to remain peaceful is anybody’s guess. As I argue, this is a path best not taken. The alternative is to hang tough, not only against nuclear fuel-making in Iran, but in Saudi Arabia as well.
The False Promise of Nuclear Power: Why Scotland Doesn’t Need New Nuclear.
Just before the 40th anniversary of the Chornobyl nuclear disaster,
Scottish CND host 3 excellent guests to discuss the risks, false promises
and opportunity costs of nuclear power.
Linda Pentz-Gunter is an
environmental campaigner who founded the advocacy organisation “Beyond
Nuclear” in 2007. In her advocacy, she is primarily concerned with the
environmental costs of nuclear power and its false promise as a climate
change solution. She also campaigns for nuclear weapons abolition. As the
international specialist at Beyond Nuclear, she edits and curates the
Beyond Nuclear International website, an essential resource for information
and updates on world nuclear news.
Pete Roche is also an environmental
campaigner who has recently revived the civic campaign SCRAM (Scottish
Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace), which organised extensive
demonstrations against the construction of Torness nuclear plant in the
1980s. Pete is also a professional energy consultant and proprietor of the
website No2NuclearPower, another key resource for information and updates
on nuclear power in the UK.
Dylan Morgan is spokesperson for the People
Against Wylfa B campaign, and is strongly involved in the
recently-relaunched Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance, also originally launched
in the 1980s and is composed of several important civic organisations in
Wales including CND Cymru.
Scottish CND 28th May 2026 –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfLQs9LRo50
Huge injection of public money to build nuclear submarines at Barrow-in-Furness
“In 2014, Barrow-in-Furness was named the unhappiest place in the UK.
“Since then, the much-maligned former industrial powerhouse has received a
potentially transformative boost in the form of a huge injection of public
money to build nuclear subs there. “
To discuss the prospects of this
crucial part of Britain’s defence and industrial capability, and the 56,000
people who call it home, Lord Simon Case, the former cabinet secretary
deputed by Sir Keir Starmer to lead the town’s revival, heads a panel
moderated by Christopher de Bellaigue.”
The talk will also include Sam
Plum, the former Chief Executive of Westmorland and Furness Council. They
will be joined by Jean McSorley, a policy analyst for the government on
public health and nuclear safety and a key figure for Greenpeace.
NW Evening Mail 27th May 2026, https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/26139450.barrow-revival-heart-upcoming-lake-district-festival/
Barbarism With Better Software: Pope Leo Warns of the AI Future

Joshua Scheer, May 26, 2026 , https://scheerpost.com/2026/05/26/barbarism-with-better-software-pope-leo-warns-of-the-ai-future/
Pope Leo XIV is warning that artificial intelligence, if left in the hands of profit-hungry corporations and unaccountable tech oligarchs, could unleash a “social calamity” by replacing human work. And now even the markets are beginning to price in the fear. Prediction traders on Kalshi see a 60% chance that U.S. unemployment crosses 8% before 2030, while also betting that AI may already be the leading cause of job cuts this month.
With the Pope writing “Work remains a fundamental dimension of the human experience, for not only is it a means of sustenance, but it is also a context for expression, relationships and contributing to the community,” … A society that guarantees employment to only a small fraction of the population, despite having a high level of technical development, risks exposing many to forced inactivity, a lack of responsibility and the absence of daily tasks and stimuli, resulting in human and cultural impoverishment.”
Tolkien, Gandalf and the Fight Over Humanity in the Age of AI
In one of the encyclical’s most striking moments, Pope Leo invokes the spirit of J.R.R. Tolkien while calling for humanity to “disarm” artificial intelligence and resist technological domination. Without directly naming Gandalf, Leo references a passage from one of Tolkien’s novels that reflects a central moral theme running through The Lord of the Rings: ordinary people confronting immense forces of power and corruption not by controlling the world, but by defending what is human within it.The passage speaks to the responsibility of people to care for “the fields that we know,” preserving a livable future for those who come after us rather than seeking mastery over all things.
The reference is notable not only because it is believed to be the first major incorporation of Tolkien into a high-level Vatican doctrinal document, but because it reveals the philosophical core of Leo’s warning about AI. Like Tolkien, the Pope appears deeply concerned with the dehumanizing effects of technological power when detached from morality, community and human dignity.
Rather than treating technology as destiny, Leo frames the struggle over AI as a profoundly human and ethical question: whether society will allow machines, corporations and systems of profit to dominate human life — or whether people can still reclaim technology for the common good.
What is striking is not that the Vatican is sounding the alarm. It is that Wall Street, usually eager to celebrate every job-killing “innovation” as efficiency, appears to share the anxiety. The same financial class that cheers automation when it boosts margins is now wagering on the social wreckage it may leave behind.
Pope Leo XIV vs. the AI Oligarchy
Leo’s warning cuts directly through Silicon Valley’s favorite lie: that technology is automatically progress. Work, he argues, is not merely a paycheck. It is dignity, community, purpose and participation in society. A world where machines enrich the few while millions are pushed into “forced inactivity” is not advanced. It is barbarism with better software.
The AI revolution is being sold as liberation. But without democratic control, labor protections and a moral economy, it risks becoming the most sophisticated union-busting machine ever built — a system that turns human beings into obsolete costs while calling the wreckage innovation.
The high priests of the digital economy are beginning to admit what workers have feared for years: artificial intelligence is not simply another technological innovation. It is a mechanism for social restructuring on a scale capable of hollowing out entire societies while concentrating unprecedented power into the hands of a tiny technological elite.
Now, in an extraordinary moment that reveals just how deep the anxiety has become, Pope Leo XIV has entered the fight.
In his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, Leo issued a direct moral indictment of the AI economy now being constructed by Silicon Valley and Wall Street. He warned that mass unemployment caused by automation could produce “social calamity,” condemning an economic order that treats human beings as disposable inputs in the pursuit of profit.
“The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs,” Leo wrote, arguing that the human person “is an end, not a means.”
The remarkable thing is not simply that the Pope is saying this. It is that the financial markets appear to agree.
On prediction platform Kalshi, traders now place a 60% chance that U.S. unemployment rises above 8% before 2030, with nearly even odds it surpasses 9%. Those are recession-level numbers — the kind associated historically with economic collapse, mass foreclosures and social instability. Yet this time the fear is not merely financial panic. It is technological displacement.
The same corporate class that spent the last decade promising AI would “augment” workers is now openly discussing which sectors can be eliminated first.
Customer service. Journalism. Translation. Design. Coding. Accounting. Legal research. Teaching assistance. Medical diagnostics. Administrative work. Truck driving. Retail logistics. The language has become chillingly clinical: “labor optimization,” “efficiency gains,” “redundancy reduction.” Human lives reduced to balance-sheet obstacles.
Silicon Valley presents this process as inevitable — a law of nature rather than a political choice. But Leo’s encyclical rejects that mythology outright. Technology, he argues, is not neutral when it is controlled by systems organized around extraction and domination.
The Pope’s critique goes far beyond unemployment statistics. He warns that AI is creating a new form of digital colonialism in which data itself becomes the raw material of empire. Entire populations, he writes, are being transformed into “rare earths of power” — mined not for minerals but for behavioral information, biometric profiles, consumption patterns and predictive intelligence.
A handful of corporations now possess more behavioral information about humanity than any government in history. They monitor speech, movement, emotion, consumption and political behavior at planetary scale. AI supercharges that power by transforming raw data into predictive control systems — systems capable not merely of understanding populations, but manipulating them.
And as wealth concentrates upward, the social contract below begins to collapse.
Leo warns that a society where only a small fraction of people maintain meaningful employment — despite immense technological abundance — risks “human and cultural impoverishment.” Work, he insists, is not simply economic survival. It is participation in human life itself: purpose, responsibility, relationships and community.
This is precisely what Silicon Valley’s utopian rhetoric ignores.
For decades, tech billionaires promised automation would liberate humanity from drudgery. Instead, millions find themselves trapped in algorithmic management systems, precarious gig work, surveillance workplaces and endless digital dependency. Productivity exploded while wages stagnated. Corporate profits soared while social bonds disintegrated.
AI threatens to accelerate this process to catastrophic speed.
Even some within the industry appear unnerved by what they are building. Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah, appearing beside Pope Leo at the Vatican, admitted there is “a real possibility that AI will displace human labor at very large scale.” He acknowledged that no mechanism currently exists to distribute the gains globally or prevent mass social devastation.
That admission alone should shatter the fantasy that the architects of AI possess a coherent plan for humanity’s future.
Because the truth is increasingly obvious: the market has no moral framework for handling technological power of this magnitude.
Capital rewards efficiency, not justice.
Profit, not dignity.
Extraction, not community.
If replacing millions of workers with algorithms increases shareholder returns, the system treats that outcome as success — regardless of the social consequences. Entire regions can collapse into unemployment while stock valuations soar.
This is why Leo’s intervention matters.
He is not merely criticizing technology. He is challenging the economic religion surrounding it.
The modern AI boom rests on an almost theological belief that technological progress is inherently good, that innovation justifies itself, and that those who question the social costs are irrational enemies of the future. Silicon Valley speaks of AI in messianic terms: salvation through computation, transcendence through automation, immortality through machines.
But Leo offers a radically different vision. Human beings are not inefficient machines to be optimized away. Society cannot survive if millions are stripped not only of income, but of meaning and social participation itself.
The danger is not simply that AI becomes powerful.
The danger is that it becomes powerful inside an economic system already defined by staggering inequality, democratic decay and corporate domination.
Under those conditions, automation does not liberate workers.
It liberates corporations from workers.
And unless democratic control over technology emerges soon, the future now being constructed may look less like liberation than a technologically sophisticated form of mass abandonment — a world where unprecedented wealth and productivity coexist beside social despair, permanent unemployment and the slow erosion of human dignity itself.
You can read Leo’s words here:
Arming for extinction: The climate cost of militarism

COMMENT. The above video does tackle the problem, but eventually in a rather limited way, even putting in an advertisement for nuclear power as a way to combat climate change!
The military-industrial complex is not merely burning the planet. It is funding the political opposition to anyone attempting to put out the fire.
Every modern war is also a chemical event, a water event, an atmospheric event — consequences that accumulate in soil and groundwater long after the last ceasefire is signed and the reconstruction contracts are issued to the same companies that manufactured the weapons.
By Wayne Hawkins | 27 May 2026, https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/arming-for-extinction-the-climate-cost-of-militarism,21093
As global military spending surges to record levels, the climate cost of war and rearmament remains largely uncounted, unreported and exempt from scrutiny, writes Wayne Hawkins.
HUMANITY HAS A PROBLEM. Actually, humanity has several, but let us focus on the one where we are simultaneously spending nearly $3 trillion a year preparing to destroy civilisation while solemnly promising to save it.
Welcome to the military-industrial complex’s quiet war on the atmosphere. Fought without declaration. Exempt from accounting. Winning convincingly.
The number nobody counts
Here is a figure worth sitting with. Scientists for Global Responsibility estimate that the global military sector produces around 2.75 billion tonnes of CO₂ every year. That is not from active wars. That is peacetime — bases humming, jets training, supply chains churning.
If the world’s militaries were a country, they would be the fourth-largest emitter on Earth, behind only the United States, China and India. They would also be the only “country” explicitly exempt from international climate reporting requirements. Convenient.
The year 2025 was a banner year for the defence industry. Global military spending hit a record $2.887 trillion — the 11th consecutive year of growth. Europe increased defence budgets by 14%. NATO, not to be outdone, set a new target of 5% of GDP by 2035. The United States, briefly the exception, has already approved over $1 trillion for 2026, with $1.5 trillion potentially on the way.
Meanwhile, at COP30 in Belém in November, delegates scrutinised aviation, agriculture, steel and cement for their climate contributions. War did not make the agenda. Presumably, the irony was noted and filed.
When the shooting starts, so does the scoreboard
The moment active conflict begins, the numbers stop being merely alarming and start becoming geological. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has generated an estimated 311million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent — comparable to the combined annual emissions of Belgium, New Zealand, Austria and Portugal. Not accumulated over decades — since February 2022.
The first 15 months of the war in Gaza produced more than 33 million tonnes. And these calculations do not fully capture the elegant brutality of modern warfare’s climate toolkit.
Russia’s strikes on Ukrainian electrical infrastructure have released sulfur hexafluoride – a greenhouse gas 24,000 times more potent than CO₂ – from high-voltage switching equipment. Civilian aircraft rerouting around the conflict zone has added an estimated 20 million extra tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. The planet did not get a vote on any of these design choices.
A 2025 Nature Communications study made the structural logic plain: rising global military spending is directly incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5–2°C. Military industries emit nearly twice the CO₂ per unit of economic output as civilian sectors. Every percentage-point increase in the share of military spending pushes emissions meaningfully upward — and expands fossil fuel-dependent industries that then lobby against the green transition.
The military-industrial complex is not merely burning the planet. It is funding the political opposition to anyone attempting to put out the fire.
The slow damage that outlasts the war
Then there is the legacy: the slow, generation-spanning damage that persists long after the press conferences and the peace agreements. In Gaza, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has documented the loss of 97% of tree crops, 95% of shrubland and 82% of annual crops since 2023. Food production at scale is not possible. The aquifer supplying most of Gaza’s water is likely contaminated by collapsed sewage infrastructure.
Cases of acute watery diarrhoea have increased 36-fold. Acute jaundice syndrome has increased 384-fold. Sixty-one million tonnes of debris laced with unexploded ordnance, asbestos and chemical munition residue now blanket the territory.
In Ukraine, environmental damage from soil contamination, heavy metal ordnance residue, landmines and destroyed ecosystems is estimated at over $50 billion. Scientists describe it plainly as a toxic legacy for generations.
Every modern war is also a chemical event, a water event, an atmospheric event — consequences that accumulate in soil and groundwater long after the last ceasefire is signed and the reconstruction contracts are issued to the same companies that manufactured the weapons.
The accountability black hole
Here is the part that should end careers, but does not. A 2025 analysis by the Conflict and Environment Observatory found that military emissions reporting is not merely inadequate; it is actively getting worse.
The top three military spenders, the United States, China and Russia, are either failing to submit data to international bodies or providing figures so incomplete as to be decorative. The solution, apparently, to the largest measurement gap in climate policy is to measure less.
Military emissions were explicitly exempted from international climate accounting frameworks at Kyoto. Countries lobbied for that exemption. It has never been corrected. When the world’s most destructive industry gets to operate outside the ledger, the ledger is not an accounting document. It is a performance.
So here we are. Spending nearly $3 trillion a year on systems that are structurally incompatible with our own survival. Exempting those systems from the accountability frameworks we built specifically to address our survival. Doing so at the fastest rate of increase since the Cold War.
The defence industry calls this deterrence. Climate scientists call it a fuse.
Notably, the planet has not exempted us from the consequences.
Time for US to deescalate confrontation with China over Taiwan.
On October 25, 1971, the UN ended the 2 China policy, voting to expel Taiwan, claiming to be the Republic of China, and replacing it with the mainland Peoples Republic of China. Just a year later Nixon’s thaw with mainland China cemented US recognition of the mainland One China policy and de-emphasized supporting the Chiang government on Taiwan.
China’s relationship with Taiwan is essentially none of our business. Yet we continue to risk war 8,000 miles from the Homeland on China’s doorstep by provoking confrontation with China with massive arming of Taiwan’s military.
Current US government and media narrative erases the last 6,000 years of China, Taiwan history to create a new cause célèbre for US military adventurism, America’s No 1 business industry. Without historical context, the US electorate remains clueless of reckless US policy deemed necessary to US national security interests: defending freedom over authoritarianism on the other side of the world.
A review of the long, tortured China, Taiwan history refutes that narrative. Chinese from Southwest China settled Taiwan over 6000 years ago. Beginning in 1624, the Dutch and Spanish moved in to exploit Taiwan’s resources, as Europeans were want to do worldwide. But the Chinese kicked them out by 1683, ruling Taiwan for 212 years till Japan gobbled up Taiwan after in the Sino-Japanese War in 1895.
For the next 50 years Japan used Taiwan (Formosa at the time) as a land based aircraft carrier for their pan Asian adventurism. But at the Cairo Conference in 1943, the Allies declared a major war aim was full return of Formosa to China. This occurred by a UN mandate upon Japan’s surrender in 1945.
With Japan defeated in China, Mao’s communists resumed their civil war to overturn the corrupt, unpopular nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek. In 1949, Mao prevailed. Chiang fled with about 2 million of his die hard supporters to Formosa, setting up their own version of the Republic of China renamed Taiwan.
The US looked at the 538 million Chinese living under communism on the mainland, the 2 million on Taiwan living under Chiang’s authoritarianism, and said ‘Nope, we’ll recognize Chiang on tiny Taiwan as the legitimate Chinese government till he can kick out the dreaded commies.’ They even gave Chiang the military assistance to prevent any unification with China which was inevitable without that support. Is it any wonder the people and government of China would embark on eventual reunification, whether taking years, decades, even a century?
On October 25, 1971, the UN ended the 2 China policy, voting to expel Taiwan, claiming to be the Republic of China, and replacing it with the mainland Peoples Republic of China. Just a year later Nixon’s thaw with mainland China cemented US recognition of the mainland One China policy and de-emphasized supporting the Chiang government on Taiwan.
Without abandoning Taiwan completely, the US embarked on 5 decades of ‘strategic ambiguity’ which kept tensions with China over Taiwan’s status on the back burner of US China diplomacy. That changed when President Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ in his second term moved pro Taiwan policy to the front burner. His successors Trump, Biden and Trump again have so turned up the heat, that war with China over its long term plan for eventual absorption of Taiwan into Chinese sovereignty, remains a possibility.
From Strategic Ambiguity we’ve degenerated into reckless trips to Taiwan by US officials and congresspersons and proposed legislation giving the President a blank check to intervene militarily with China should they embark on any, albeit unlikely, military move at reunification. The US keeps advancing multibillion dollar weapons tranches that do nothing for Taiwan’s defense; indeed, provoke Chinese military maneuvers near Taiwan, raising the possibility of US China confrontation.
At his recent summit with Chinese President Xi, Trump got schooled by Xi who told Trump that if Trump doesn’t pull back from arming Taiwan it could lead to “clashes and conflicts” between the two superpowers. Trump might be getting the message. He had his Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao tell Congress that the US was “doing a pause” on a $14 billion Taiwan weapons package to ensure the US has enough weapons to finish off the Iranian regime in so far failed Operation Epic Fury. Facing the biggest military failure in US history, Trump would be wise to put belligerence with China over Taiwan back on the back burner.
Ignoring the 6,000 year long interwoven China, Taiwan history prevents sensible, peace promoting US diplomacy. America made the wrong decision on the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and has chosen to govern in ignorance for the past 77 years. On this issue, ignorance is not bliss. It may mean war.
How do you justify a war?

27 May 2026 , Michael Taylor, AIM Extra, https://theaimn.net/how-do-you-justify-a-war/
There comes a point when the language of war stops matching the reality of it:
- Bombed apartment blocks become “targets”
- Dead children become “collateral damage”
- Starving civilians become “human shields”
And anyone who questions the destruction is accused of supporting terrorism. Or, as in extreme cases, of being antisemitic.
Watching Gaza burn, Lebanon bombed, and Iran drawn deeper into conflict, I find myself asking a simple question: How much is enough?
I understand the fear Israel felt after the October 7 attacks. I understand the anger. I understand the desire for justice.
What I no longer understand is the growing acceptance of endless civilian deaths as though morality itself now depends on which side is doing the killing.
At the time of the first bombings of Iran I wrote thaṯ:
“Every night, the news flickers across my screen, a parade of tragedies reduced to numbers and soundbites. Gaza burns, its streets choked with rubble and grief, thousands dead under Israeli bombs. Iran mourns too, its people buried beneath the chaos of escalating strikes. Yet the world’s voice is strangely muted, a whisper where a scream should be. But when Iran’s missiles streak toward Israel, claiming far fewer lives, the headlines roar with horror, and leaders amplify their outrage. I sit in my quiet room… trying to unravel this knot of hypocrisy. Why do some deaths ripple across the globe while others sink like stones in a silent pond?”
Perhaps the most disturbing part of all this is that the violence no longer appears temporary. What began as retaliation now feels like permanent war.
Gaza destroyed. Lebanon bombed. Iran attacked. Assassinations, airstrikes, threats of escalation; each one defended as necessary, each one promising security, while the region grows more unstable by the day.
At some point the world must ask whether this is still self-defence, or whether the Netanyahu government has become trapped in a cycle where military force is no longer a last resort but the first instinct.
A nation traumatised by terror has every right to defend itself. But defence without restraint can slowly transform into something else entirely.
History is filled with governments that believed overwhelming force would finally bring peace. More often, it deepened hatred, radicalised future generations, and left entire regions scarred for decades.
The tragedy is that every new bomb seems to push peace further away:
Civilians bury their children.
Entire cities learn to live with trauma.
Anger hardens across borders.
And leaders, notably Netanyahu and Trump – especially Trump – continue speaking the language of so-called security while ordinary people inherit the consequences of endless war.
This is disturbing. Not simply the bombs or the missiles, but how quickly human suffering becomes normalised when it is politically convenient.
Somewhere beneath the rubble are children who will never grow old, parents who will never return home, and entire generations learning that the world values some lives more than others.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy is not that this “justified” war brutalises people, but the silence that eventually surrounds it.
History has taught us that.
Israel has a master plan to relocate thousands of Palestinian Bedouins to a giant ghetto
The “Shami neighborhood project” will ethnically cleanse the Bedouin population of Jerusalem’s eastern wilderness as part of Israel’s plan to take total control over the strategic “Greater Jerusalem” corridor, which would split the West Bank in two.
By Shatha Hammad May 21, 2026, https://mondoweiss.net/2026/05/israel-has-a-master-plan-to-relocate-thousands-of-palestinian-bedouins-to-a-giant-prison/
Salem al-Jahalin,73, also known as Abu Nayef, circles his home in the Jabal al-Baba Bedouin community outside the town of al-Aizariya, east of Jerusalem. His eyes scan the surrounding terrain as far as he can see, bracing for any incursion by the Israeli army. This is the fourth time the military has threatened to demolish his home, delivering, once again, a notice informing him that his land had been claimed by one of the largest settlement blocs in the West Bank: “Your home is built on the lands of Ma’ale Adumim.”……………
Salem’s situation is similar to that of every Palestinian Bedouin living in the Jerusalem wilderness — locally known as the badiya of Jerusalem, a vast expanse of semi-arid plains and rolling hills that Bedouin communities have called home for generations. These communities now stand as the last barrier against the E1 settlement project, a long-halted colonization plan that aims to seize a strategic tract of land at the node separating the northern West Bank from the south, and which also encompasses the area Israel calls “Greater Jerusalem.”
Jabal al-Baba is one of 46 Bedouin communities scattered across the badiya, stretching across the steppe to the Dead Sea. Together they form a large Palestinian population bloc east of the city, alongside the four Palestinian towns of Abu Dis, al-Aizariya, Za’im, and al-Sawahra. Although an exact estimate of the total number of people in these 46 communities is unavailable today, in 2017 the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) put the number at 8,174.
Trump’s Retaliatory Withdrawal: America Punishes Europe for Refusing to Join Its War with Iran
Adrian Korczyński, May 24, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/05/24/trumps-retaliatory-withdrawal-america-punishes-europe-for-refusing-to-join-its-war-with-iran/
In the first days of May 2026, the Pentagon announced the withdrawal of approximately 5,000 American troops from Germany over the next six to twelve months — with explicit threats of further cuts directed at Italy and Spain.
President Donald Trump stated the reason with characteristic bluntness: these countries had failed to provide meaningful support during the joint U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.
This is not a strategic recalibration. It is a punitive act by a declining hegemon that launched a dangerous conflict, triggered a global energy shock, and is now lashing out at Europe for refusing to bleed alongside it.
U.S.-Israeli War Triggers Energy Shock
The conflict with Iran, launched jointly by the United States and Israel, has severely disrupted global oil supplies, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz. Crude oil prices have surged, driving up the cost of gasoline, diesel, and all forms of transportation fuel. Logistics costs have skyrocketed, inflation is accelerating, and entire industries dependent on cheap transport and energy are slowing down. The ripple effects are hitting every sector of the European economy.
Europe — far more dependent on imported hydrocarbons than the United States — has been hit hardest by this self-inflicted crisis. Yet when Washington and Tel Aviv demanded active European participation in their war, most European capitals offered only minimal or symbolic help.
Trump’s response was simple and crude: you didn’t help us enough, so we’re pulling our troops out.
This is the classic behaviour of a fading empire: drag others into your reckless adventures, force them to bear the economic consequences, and then punish them when they refuse to pay the full price in blood and treasure.
Europe’s Angry Backlash
The announcement triggered sharp reactions across the continent. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who had publicly stated that the United States was being “humiliated” by Iranian leadership and lacked any coherent exit strategy, tried to downplay any direct link between his remarks and the troop withdrawal — but the timing was unmistakable. Washington had made its point.
In Spain, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez faced renewed pressure after refusing to allow U.S. military planes to use Spanish bases for Iran-related operations. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, long cultivated as one of Trump’s closest European allies, also found herself in the crosshairs. Trump singled both countries out by name, saying he would “probably” reduce troop presence there too.
What makes the decision particularly revealing is that even within the United States, Republican lawmakers expressed alarm. The withdrawal has not been universally welcomed in Washington — which tells you everything about how impulsive and transactional this decision actually is.
The message from the White House was unmistakable: loyalty is no longer a relationship. It is a service to be paid for on demand.
Poland’s Eager Servility
While much of Europe reacted with concern or restrained anger, Polish President Karol Nawrocki once again demonstrated the depth of his country’s strategic dependence. Instead of reading Trump’s withdrawal as a warning signal about the nature of American commitments, he immediately volunteered to absorb the displaced forces.
“If President Donald Trump decides to reduce the American military presence in Germany, then we in Poland are ready to receive American soldiers. We have the necessary infrastructure,” Nawrocki declared.
This is not strategic wisdom. This is the behaviour of a client state. While Germany, Italy, and Spain push back — imperfectly, inconsistently, but at least instinctively — Warsaw rushes to fill the gap left by countries that finally said no.
Poland is not strengthening its security. It is deepening its exposure — on behalf of a partner that has just demonstrated it will withdraw forces the moment European governments exercise independent judgment.
The Unravelling of American Hegemony in Europe
Even after this withdrawal, more than 30,000 American troops will remain stationed in Germany alone. The point is not that American power has collapsed overnight. It is that the terms of that power are changing — openly, transactionally, and with diminishing pretence of shared values or mutual obligation.
What we are witnessing is the visible erosion of the post-1945 European security model. An arrangement that was never genuinely about partnership — only about power, dependence, and the management of European compliance.
The withdrawals are only the beginning. The real question is how long it will take for European elites to acknowledge that the old order was never built on solidarity. It was built on hierarchy, and hierarchy that no longer finds Europe sufficiently useful is beginning to look elsewhere.
The age of automatic American commitment to European security is ending. Not with a dramatic rupture but with punitive withdrawals, transactional threats, and the slow realisation that decades of unconditional loyalty purchased nothing permanent.
Bucharest appears to have understood. Rome and Madrid are beginning to understand. Berlin understood reluctantly — and Warsaw still volunteers for more.
It’s the genocide, stupid

You’ll recall that Harris never distanced herself from Biden on this question. In her first interview after becoming the nominee, she maintained the party line on Israel, reciting the usual claptrap about the country’s right to “defend itself.” Asked point-blank whether her foreign policy would differ from Biden’s at all, she said it would remain the same. That is to say, the United States would continue to send weapons to Israel while the country carried out a genocide.
The DNC finally released its long-awaited autopsy of Kamala Harris’s failed presidential campaign, and it doesn’t mention Gaza. The Democratic leadership’s refusal to acknowledge the party’s shift on Israel could spell another defeat in 2028.
By Michael Arria May 22, 2026, https://mondoweiss.net/2026/05/its-the-genocide-stupid/
On Thursday, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) finally released its long-awaited autopsy of Kamala Harris’s failed presidential campaign.
The rollout was highly on-brand for the Democratic establishment. The 192-page document seems slapped together, is full of typos, and was released only because CNN obtained a copy. In an accompanying note, DNC Chair Ken Martin said the report didn’t meet his standards, but that it was being released “because people need to be able to trust the Democratic Party and trust our word.”
In fact, the report has further eroded that trust by omitting some big, obvious reasons why Harris lost. Concerns about Biden’s age and his inexplicable decision to run for reelection are barely mentioned, and there’s virtually no analysis of the Democratic policies that might have helped propel Trump to another victory.
If one were compiling such a list, support for the Gaza genocide would presumably be near the top, but the issue is not mentioned once in the massive report.
You’ll recall that Harris never distanced herself from Biden on this question. In her first interview after becoming the nominee, she maintained the party line on Israel, reciting the usual claptrap about the country’s right to “defend itself.” Asked point-blank whether her foreign policy would differ from Biden’s at all, she said it would remain the same. That is to say, the United States would continue to send weapons to Israel while the country carried out a genocide.
A couple of months later, she reiterated her position on The View, telling the hosts that she couldn’t think of anything she would do differently. Although later in the interview she said that, unlike Biden, she would put Republicans in her cabinet.
Throughout the Harris campaign, Palestine advocates called on the former Senator to shift her position and take a firm stance against Israel’s actions.
“By taking a strong stand against Netanyahu’s authoritarian policies, the Biden-Harris administration can unify the Democratic Party and regain the trust of key voter bases, including young people, Arabs, and Muslims,” read an open letter to Harris from the Not Another Bomb coalition to Harris at the time. “This decisive action will reinforce the administration’s commitment to democracy and human rights, contrasting sharply with the far-right extremism embodied by Trump and his supporters. It sends a clear message that the Democratic Party stands for peace, justice, and the protection of all people, thereby strengthening the coalition needed to secure victory in the 2024 elections and beyond.”
She wouldn’t budge.
At the Democratic National Convention that August, the Uncommitted Movement pushed for a Palestinian speaker to be included. “The difficulty in approving even a single Palestinian American speaker among the dozens of speakers on the convention stage sends a troubling message to our anti-war voters, suggesting they aren’t truly included in this party,” explained a statement from the organization’s founders.
The request was denied.
It’s inaccurate to say the campaign simply ignored these issues. On the contrary, they leaned in from the opposite direction, embracing hawkish former House member Liz Cheney and sending Rep. Ritchie Torres to Michigan, the state with the highest percentage of Arab Americans, to tell voters that Harris would stand with Israel.
There’s a certain kind of centrist pundit who likes to wax sarcastic about the 2024 election and point out that Trump is also an ardent supporter of Israel. The inference is that people concerned about Gaza accomplished nothing by voting against Harris.
However, this brand of snark often presupposes that people fed up with the genocide actually voted. Yes, some people backed Trump because they irrationally believed that the guy currently bombing Iran was antiwar, but the actual number of people that foolish is presumably negligible. Much hay is also made over the Green Party, but Jill Stein got fewer than 900,000 votes and thus had no discernible impact on the ultimate result.
One of the biggest stories of the 2024 race is how many people stayed home.
“The most telling fact in this race is the drop in voter turnout,” wrote Mitchell Plitnick days after the election, pointing out that Harris netted millions less votes than Biden did in 2020.
“Theories will emerge, but the cause of Harris’ disastrous failure will forever be debated,” he wrote. “Still, there are good reasons to believe the Middle East in general and Gaza in particular played a significant role.”
“Nobody is going to get excited about the ‘politics of joy’ and ‘endless brat summer’ when they’re watching a kid raising his hands while he’s being burned to death attached to an IV,” political consultant Peter Feld told me at the time. “It pretty much puts an end to any of the vibes that they were trying to run on.”
“I don’t think you can explain this election without explaining the non-voters, and I think some of the post-election polling that’s come out and attempts to explain it by talking to voters is going to miss this story,” he continued. “If you haven’t spoken to non-voters, you haven’t explained the election.”
Among those who actually voted, the numbers indicate that many 2020 Biden voters jumped ship from the Democratic Party. A January 2025 YouGov survey found that among 2020 Biden voters who didn’t vote for Harris in 2024, Gaza was cited as the top reason they chose another candidate.
If you need further proof that Gaza hurt Harris at the polls, just look at what’s happened since November 2024. Israel critics are prevailing in Democratic primaries, and groups like AIPAC have become entirely toxic, and support for Israel has plummeted to historic lows amid the war on Iran. A recent NBC News poll found that just 32% of U.S. voters view Israel positively, which is down from 47% in 2023.
It’s difficult to overstate the incompetence of the DNC, but leaving this kind of stuff out of the “autopsy” report certainly feels like much more than oversight. Officials formerly connected to Biden and Harris are openly admitting as much.
“What’s important is what’s missing, what they’re not releasing,” Harris’s former communications director, Ashley Etienne, told Politico. “It feels like what the DNC is doing is cherry-picking the parts of it that it wants to actually release, that [are] less problematic for the party going forward.”
It’s an oversimplification to say Gaza is what cost the Democrats the election. There are multiple factors in every presidential race, and many of them have nothing to do with foreign policy. However, ignoring the genocide’s obvious impact on voters is malpractice and suggests that Democratic leadership could be poised to repeat the same mistakes in 2028.
-
Archives
- June 2026 (27)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS





