The US Tech Giant Where Employees Wear Israeli Defense Force Uniforms To Work
Nate Bear, Apr 28, 2026, https://www.donotpanic.news/p/exclusive-the-us-tech-giant-where
The American tech giant behind the most popular tax filing software in the US allows employees to wear their IDF uniforms to work and also permits them to take months off the job to fight Israel’s wars.
Last month, Tom Yacobi, a data analyst at financial tech giant Intuit, whose products include the widely-used tax return program TurboTax, showed up to an all-hands company Zoom call in his full IDF uniform.
Yacobi works in TurboTax’s trust and safety team which handles the most sensitive personally identifiable information of TurboTax customers and users.
The whistleblower who provided me with this screenshot told me that since the beginning of the Gaza genocide, Israeli employees of California-based Intuit have, like Yacobi, been allowed to take as long as three or four months off work, often with minimal notice, to serve as reservists in the IDF.
“Intuit has shown no consideration for how these disruptions affect workflows and operations for employees in the US who have had to put processes on hold and postpone meetings to cater to Israeli employees’ army schedules,” PM (not their real initials) told me. “And of course, there has been no concern for the emotional and mental health impact on US employees who have been put in the awkward position of joining Zoom calls with active soldiers implicated in genocide and war crimes.”
Showing up to work in a military uniform, let alone the uniform of a military which has committed genocide and war crimes, and whose former head is an ICC-indicted war criminal, is not only unprofessional and unethical, but clearly an unabashed display of arrogance and impunity.
PM said one senior manager took three consecutive months off work from October to December 2023 to participate in the genocide of Gaza. PM says Israeli employees continue to take two-week stints off work for IDF reserve duty.
PM has never raised the issue with HR or management for fear of the consequences at such an openly pro-Israel and pro-genocide company.
“What discouraged me the most was the shocking depravity of hearing directly from chief information security officer, Atticus Tysen, that the company had selected the Israel office as a ‘strategic growth site’ during the peak of the Gaza genocide, in December 2023. This was announced at the same time as the company was down-sizing certain American and Canadian offices.”
According to PM, Intuit employees are regularly required to think about Israeli feelings. PM says that on numerous occasions since October 2023, Intuit management have posted on the company-wide Slack messaging app “about the need to show our Israeli colleagues extra kindness and grace because of their distressful circumstances.” Needless to say, Intuit management have never posted similar messages concerning the distress of those who may have been affected by the Israeli genocide of Gaza or Israel’s mass murder of civilians in Lebanon and Iran.
PM adds that “many” of Intuit’s Israeli employees have moved to the US on an L-1 visa in the last few years, with the process for approval much easier than for an H-1B visa. An L-1 visa allows multinationals to transfer employees from their overseas offices to their US offices, and is a straightforward pathway to permanent US residency.
Zionists serve in key leadership positions at Intuit.
Marianna Tessel, an executive vice-president and general manager, is an Israeli-American who served as a captain at Mamram, the computing centre and IT backbone of the Israeli military. In 2023 Tessel posted on LinkedIn about her visit to Intuit’s Israel-based R&D centre which is staffed almost exclusively by former Israeli intelligence officers.
In 2023 the Jerusalem Post reported that Intuit’s Israeli employees were going to lead on integrating generative AI into TurboTax software. Tessel said Intuit’s Israel office creates “some of our fintech software, and much of the AI.”
David Hahn, another executive vice-president and general manager at Intuit, is a friend and confidante of Jewish-Zionist venture capitalist Keith Rabois, who he met when both worked at LinkedIn. Rabois is married to Jacob Helberg, an undersecretary of state in the Trump administration and an influential, if little-known Zionist voice in the US government. Rabois is often referred to, alongside Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, as a member of the ‘Paypal Mafia’ for his role in launching Paypal.
Nuclear Fusion’s Funding Rush Comes With a Catch
By Leonard Hyman & William Tilles – Apr 27, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Fusions-Funding-Rush-Comes-With-a-Catch.html
- Fusion firms are turning to SPACs for funding, using faster, less restrictive public-market routes to raise the massive capital needed for commercialization.
- SPACs offer speed but come with heavy downsides, including significant equity dilution, weak investor protections, and high risk—often likened to “junk” equity.
- Investments remain highly speculative, as fusion companies are still pre-revenue R&D ventures with uncertain technological outcomes despite growing momentum.
As nuclear fusion technologies move towards commercialization, the industry will need hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars of new capital, either from public or private sources, in order to grow. Two nuclear fusion companies have chosen to access the public capital markets via special purpose acquisition corporations. (SPACs).which are often referred to as “blank check companies” because investors give money to a sponsor, typically an investment bank, to find a good business to invest in, without knowing in advance where the money will go.
Before going into specifics, we should explain how a SPAC works. It is an equity vehicle that affords the issuer both advantages and disadvantages over a conventional equity offering via an initial public offering (IPO). There are two principal advantages to SPACs from an issuer’s perspective. They can be offered more quickly than an IPO, and they also do not require pesky financial details like earnings forecasts and cash flow projections. SPACs are a financing vehicle for companies with big ideas, lots of potential, but zero revenues. There are two major downsides to this financial structure, though. First, the sponsor takes a big chunk of the equity as its fee, so there’s a lot of equity dilution right at the outset, like 30%+ dilution. The sponsors typically also receive warrants, which, when exercised, further increase the stock float and exacerbate dilution. And then there’s the phantom equity problem. SPAC investors can demand their money back from the sponsor, typically $10 per share if no investment has been made. However, the outstanding shares are not retired, and this also exacerbates a stock dilution problem.
As if to prove our point, one of the first nuclear fusion companies to form a SPAC, TAE Enterprises, formerly Tri Alpha Energy, did so in a 50-50 merger with the President’s Trump Media and Technology Group, the owner of Truth Social. The CEO of TAE, and Truth Social’s CEO, former congressman Devin Nunes, were to be co-heads of this new venture. Mr. Nunes has been fired. Nevertheless, TAE is a real technological competitor in the nuclear fusion race. Its newest reactor, called Copernicus, uniquely uses hydrogen-boron fuel (versus deuterium-tritium in more conventional systems). The advantage is a great diminution in radioactive waste, but the extreme temperatures needed, 1-5 billion degrees Celsius, pose ignition challenges. TAE previously raised over a billion dollars from Google, Chevron, and others and, like everyone else, expects to have a commercial reactor operating in the early 2030s. TAE’s field-reversed configuration of magnetic confinement loosely resembles a tokamak, but with a much simpler, cheaper architecture.
A second company, General Fusion, announced plans to go public via a SPAC shortly after TAE. Its sponsor, more conventionally, is a Dallas-based investment bank, and its SPAC is called the Spring Valley Acquisition Corporation III (that’s Roman numeral three). Deal number one, by the way, was the SMR company NuScale. That deal is expected to close some time around mid-year, and the company plans to be NASDAQ-listed under the stock ticker GFUZ. General Fusion describes its magnetized target fusion (MTF) technology as a more practical fusion alternative to both tokamak and laser-driven systems. The value of this transaction was expected to be about $1 billion at closing.
Lastly, we want to mention Zap Energy which is developing the so-called “sheared flow stabilized Z-pinch fusion technology” and is often cited as next in line to go public in some form. Zap has raised over $300 million dollars from Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Chevron, Mizuho, Soros Foundation, and others. Zap’s website describes the company as “building a seriously cheap, compact, scalable fusion energy technology with potentially the shortest path to commercially viable fusion and (using) orders of magnitude less capital than traditional approaches.” Zap’s website also teases the competitors with a large headline stating, “No Magnets Needed.
People often ask us whether SPACs are an appropriate investment vehicle for typical retail investors. The short answer is no. The long answer is also no, by the way. And that’s for a simple reason. These SPACs are not businesses in the conventional sense of the term. They are late stage research and development projects looking to establish a technological proof of design or a working prototype. They will consume vast amounts of capital for research with no associated revenues for years. And who knows which of these competing technologies will ultimately prevail in the energy marketplace and which will be discarded as ultimately impractical. In a way, the SPAC financial format, as we suggested earlier, is like a non-investment grade rating, but for equities, which should serve as a warning for potential investors. It’s a high cost, high risk financial structure, but perhaps one not inappropriate to the business of trying to capture the sun in a magnetic bottle as some have labeled the pursuit of nuclear fusion.
EU economic sanctions ramp up NATO war plan on Russia
Two-thirds of the EU loan – some €60 bn – is reportedly allocated for military aid. Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, said that the first tranche worth €45 bn will be transferred to Ukraine within weeks and that it would be used to increase the production of aerial combat drones
Strategic Culture Foundation, 24 April 2026, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2026/04/24/eu-economic-sanctions-ramp-up-nato-war-plan-on-russia/
The European Union announced its 20th round of economic sanctions against Russia this week. The bloc of 27 nations began imposing sanctions on Moscow when the conflict in Ukraine erupted in February 2022. Every six months, the EU has been extending these economic measures, which Brussels claims is support for Ukraine to “deter Russian aggression.”
The 20th round of sanctions unveiled this week attempts to go much further in inflicting damage on the Russian economy. It was flagged as the biggeset package yet and a “multi-layered targeting of key sectors” of the Russian economy, primarily its energy industry.
It is tempting to dismiss the EU sanctions policy as feeble and a form of insanity. The bloc keeps repeating an action expecting a different result each time, when the record shows that the action of sanctions is having little detrimental impact on Russia. If anything, it is the EU that has suffered an economic downturn as it unilaterally cut itself off from Russian oil and gas, the traditional source of affordable energy feedstock for European industries. Russia’s economy has not crashed as was anticipated when the sanctions were first imposed more than four years ago. In fact, the Russian Federation has maintained a robust economic performance as it finds alternative markets in Asia for its oil and gas products. The soaring price for a barrel of crude due to the reckless U.S.-Israeli aggression on Iran has given Russia a further boost.
However, it would be a mistake to simply brush off the EU sanctions as futile and self-defeating.
There is a more blatant and sinister aspect to the new round of sanctions. Brussels is nakedly showing its war agenda. The new measures aim to restrict all sectors of Russian energy production, including “exploration, extraction, refining and transportation.” The EU is endeavoring to tighten restrictions on “third countries” to prevent Russia from circumventing existing embargoes on shipping, port access and trade. Whether these new measures achieve their objective of “crippling the Russian economy” is debatable. But it is the belligerent intention – stated now with more determination – that is significant. The EU is brazenly laying out a plan to strangle Russia in conjunction with upping the military threat.
It is the accompanying developments that are ominous and which give full meaning to the economic measures.
This week the EU hailed that its €90 billion ($105 bn) loan to Ukraine had finally been approved. That financial aid was blocked by Hungary since December. But with the recent election loss for Viktor Orbán’s government, Budapest’s veto has been lifted under the new prime minister, Péter Magyar. EU leaders were ecstatic that the financial transfer to Ukraine can now go ahead.
Two-thirds of the EU loan – some €60 bn – is reportedly allocated for military aid. Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, said that the first tranche worth €45 bn will be transferred to Ukraine within weeks and that it would be used to increase the production of aerial combat drones. “Drones from Ukraine for Ukraine,” she said by way of trying to give the impression that the EU is not a party to the war.
An EU leaders’ two-day summit held in Cyprus on April 24-25 was reported with celebratory mood. Von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa, along with the EU’s Foreign Affairs Commissioner, Kaja Kallas, were cock-a-hoop at the “breakthrough” of releasing the largest single financial package to Ukraine so far in combination with the new economic sanctions aimed at drilling down on Russia’s economic core. Attending the summit in Cyprus was Ukraine’s nominal president, Vladimir Zelensky, who reportedly joined the EU leaders for dinner to discuss new developments.
It gets even more sinister. The Kiev regime has been stepping up deep air strikes on Russian energy and other industrial infrastructure. There is no doubt the regime is being assisted with NATO expertise in finding such wide-ranging targets in Russia’s vast territory. This week, for example, a drone strike hit an industrial facility in Novokuybyshevsk in the central Samara region, nearly 900 kilometers southeast of Moscow and nearly 2,000 kms from the warzone in Donbass.
Clearly, the EU’s economic strikes are designed to reinforce the damage that NATO is trying to inflict with drones and missiles on Russia’s industrial base. These are not separate initiatives but an integral war strategy.
In announcing the latest round of sanctions Kaja Kallas could hardly contain her Russophobic glee. “Today we have broken the deadlock. On top of the €90-billion loan for Ukraine, we have adopted the 20th sanctions package,” she said.
Deceptively, the sanctions were billed as “increasing pressure on Russia to stop its brutal war of aggression and engage in meaningful negotiations towards a just and last peace.”
That’s a cynical con – a con that is betrayed by the EU’s own stated objective of “crippling” the Russian economy. How can one have a “just and lasting peace” by crippling a country?
The real purpose of the funds that EU citizens will have to pay through decades of indebtedness is to escalate NATO’s war in Ukraine against Russia. The economic sanctions are war measures aimed at maximising the impact of military attacks.
Other developments this week raise the stakes to even more sinister levels.
French President Emmanuel Macron and Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk discussed joint nuclear weapons “scenarios” in a bilateral summit in Gdansk. The French leader wants to share his country’s nuclear weapons capabilities with other European countries. It is reported that French and Polish warplanes will begin joint exercises on flying nuclear weapons in the Baltic region. This is evidently meant as a threat to Russia. It amounts to Paris and Warsaw carrying out training exerises for nuclear strikes on Russia.
In yet another provocative development, it is reported that Britain is leading a NATO Joint Expeditionary Force to formulate a naval plan to blockade the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad located between Poland and Lithuania. Kaliningrad provides Russia with vital port access to the Baltic Sea.
The European NATO leaders are concerned that U.S. President Donald Trump has lost interest in the “Ukraine project” against Russia owing to his reckless war with Iran. That is why they are ramping up the war effort against Russia while telling barefaced lies about wanting to achieve “lasting peace.”
So far, the EU’s economic sanctions against Russia have been an abject failure. But the failure of economic measures is no longer the point. It is what they reveal about an intensifying NATO war plan against Russia.
Moscow has repeatedly called for a negotiated end to the conflict while the EU and NATO accuse Russian leader Vladimir Putin of “not wanting peace.”
People can make their own minds up about who the aggressors are. NATO is at war with Russia and is not interested in negotiations. Criminally, the NATO aggressors are creating a boiling frog situation for Russia. The European russophobic leaders seem to want war at any cost.
Norway says “nuclear renaissance” too expensive
April 23, 2026, https://beyondnuclear.org/norway-says-nuclear-renaissance-too-expensive/
Report illuminates new reactors can’t compete with the accelerating growth of renewable energy
The “Survey and assessment of the status of available nuclear reactor technologies and designs” published on March 16, 2026 as the final report on Norway’s energy policy was made public on April 8, 2026. It was prepared by the international team of energy consulting and architectural firms, the US-based Amentum and the Oslo, Norway-based Multiconsult Group, on government contract by the Norwegian Nuclear Commission. The Commission was established in June 2024 to evaluate the inclusion of nuclear power in the Scandianavian country’s energy policy. The consultants were tasked to review the current global status and trends of nuclear reactor technologies, including their readiness, flexibility, supply chains, and costs.
Norway has never sited, constructed or operated a commercial atomic power plant. But back in 2022, the M Vest Group Norway (M Vest Energy AS), a Norwegian oil and gas corporation, through its specialized subsidiary Norsk Kjernekraft, established partnerships with the nuclear divisions of the UK’s Rolls-Royce and the French startup Hexana and lobbied the Norwegian government to promote and advance the development of atomic power in Norway. Following the Commission’s examination of the consultants’ report, Reuters news service announced the Commission’s decision, “Norway should not work towards nuclear power generation now, commission finds.”
Interestingly enough, Norway currently gets 89.9% of the nation’s electrical power from thousands of hydroelectric facilities sited across the country with wind power running a meager and distant second (8.6%). Still, Norway is well on the way to generating 100% of its electrical power from renewable energy. Even though Norway is currently producing an electricity surplus, the nuclear industry found its way into pressuring the Norwegian government to get with a Scandinavian “nuclear renaissance” to accommodate the projected AI/data center revolution with its own fleet of light water Small Modular Reactors (SMR) and Advanced Modular Reactors (AMR). While the report’s commissioned focus is on Norway, it shines a bright light on the much ballyhooed but still not-ready-for-prime-time nuclear power technologies now pushed worldwide.
Norway’s report confirms that the new promises of nuclear power provide little more than a “spike in promotional materials and many bold claims around technology, cost and schedule over the past 3-4 years, combined with hype associated with the energy demands created by Artificial Intelligence.”
The Norway survey astutely finds, “Given the nuclear sector’s claims that modularisation will deliver factory-build quality and increase the speed of construction, thereby reducing finance costs, it is not surprising that these technology families are attractive, but the arguments are not yet proven.”
Despite the absence of any final construction cost figures given a handful of western SMR or AMR construction projects have only just started, the Norwegian analyses expect first-of-a-kind SMR designs to be significantly more expensive than the few completed large gigawatt nuclear reactor on a per-kilowatt basis. That said, the first-of-a-kind Vogtle units 3 and 4 finished in Georgia were first estimated at a cost of completion for $14 billion were finally finished and commissioned at an estimated $35 billion.
The Norway-commissioned analyses also predict higher fixed operation and maintenance costs on a per-kilowatt basis for SMRs compared to large Generation 3 reactors at Georgia’s Vogtle 3 and 4 units. Additionally, the Commission report predicts that yearly nuclear fuel costs for SMRs could be as much as 82% higher than those for large gigawatt reactors due to “lower plant density and shorter burnup cycles.”
Other predicted first-of-a-kind SMRs costs that will be “Probably Higher” than the large gigawatt reactors will include: Nuclear Waste (post ten years operation); Long Term Nuclear Waste Disposal; Spent Fuel (post ten years operation), and; Decommissioning.
The report’s combined findings on all these uncontrolled costs appear to be the most impactful analyses that dissuaded Norway from opening Pandora’s nuclear energy box at this time.
We all should all be dissuaded, given the demonstration that renewable energy is significantly more affordable, faster and more reliable to deploy from a broad range of resources (photovoltaic solar cells, on and offshore wind, hydro and tidal power, etc). We can now couple that with economically deliverable utility-grade energy storage over a widening range of systems. Why are we being given the bums’ rush into a nuclear future with its unpredictably high financial risks, unreliable and increasing significant construction cost overruns, recurring project cancellations and abandonment with sunk costs, uninsurable severe nuclear accident risks, and ultimately the unresolved biological isolation of nuclear waste that offers only environmental liability without a watt of benefit to future generations?
Debt, Delays, Dependencies -Why Public Banks Should Not Support Nuclear Power
Prof. Claudia Kemfert; Merete Looft; Ute Koczy; Vladimir Slivyak; Prof. Steve Thomas; Dr. Alexander Wimmers; Prof. M. V. Ramana; Dr. Paul Dorfman
Report, 2026
Herausgeber: Urgewald; Ecodefense, 25 April 26, https://www.urgewald.org/en/debt-delays-dependencies-nuclear
The world does not need new nuclear power. Yet institutions like the World Bank, the ADB and other development banks are stubbornly marching towards an economic disaster that creates toxic waste and exacerbates the climate crisis by redirecting scarce resources away from technologies that have long proven themselves cheaper, faster, cleaner and more effective.
There are many solid arguments against this waste of taxpayer money. This report serves as a compilation of science-based theses against the renaissance of nuclear power. In five thematic articles, four renowned scientists and an expert on Russian nuclear policy provide key facts and figures on the topic.
Urgewald and Ecodefense – Debt, Delays, Dependencies (April 2026) (7.51 MB)
The Impact of the Middle East Crisis on Women and Girls
CAIRO, Egypt, Apr 23 2026 (IPS) – Six weeks into the 2026 Middle East military escalation, UNFPA Arab States Regional Office warns that its impact on 161 million women and girls living in conflict-affected areas across the region remain largely invisible in conflict analysis, humanitarian response, and funding priorities.
A new Call to Action, Regional Analysis of the Socio-Economic Impact of the 2026 Middle East Conflict on Women and Girls published by UNFPA, the UN sexual and reproductive health agency, highlights that current response mechanisms remain overwhelmingly gender-blind, treating gender-based violence (GBV) and maternal health as secondary concerns rather than life-saving priorities.
“The omission is not merely analytical – it is structural,” the report states. Without sex-disaggregated data and gender perspectives, the international community is conducting incomplete risk assessments, misaligning interventions, and missing critical opportunities for stabilization and peace.
The conflict is projected to cost regional economies $120–194 billion – equivalent to 3.7 to 6 percent of collective GDP. Four million additional people are estimated to be pushed into poverty and 3.64 million jobs may be lost. Women – overrepresented in informal employment – face disproportionate livelihood collapse while shouldering increased unpaid care work.
Supply chain shocks through the Strait of Hormuz threaten to delay lifesaving humanitarian supplies by up to six months. Across Gaza, Lebanon, Sudan, and Yemen, more than 260 health facilities and 14 mobile medical units have already shut down. Food insecurity is intensifying, with documented patterns showing women and girls eat last and least.
The report also highlights a surge in GBV risks driven by hyper-displacement, while sanctions and financial “de-risking” are crippling the ability of women-led organizations to deliver essential services. These organizations—often the first responders in crises—are being cut off from the very funding streams meant to sustain them
UNFPA is calling on national governments, UN agencies, donors, and civil society to:
Integrate gender systematically into all conflict analysis and response frameworks
Protect and fund GBV and sexual and reproductive health services as core, lifesaving interventions.
Finance and empower local women-led organizations, removing barriers to their access and participation.
Ensure women’s leadership in recovery, peacebuilding, and decision-making processes.
“Making women and girls visible is not optional,” the report concludes. “It is fundamental to effective humanitarian action, sustainable recovery, and lasting peace.”
UNFPA is the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency.
IPS UN Bureau
Protest Targets Capital One to Demand Bank Ends Loans to Israeli Weapons Company
Activists are urging the bank to not extend additional credit to Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer.
By Joseph Mogul , Truthout, April 23, 2026
On the morning of April 21, a dozen community members with the anti-imperialist campaign Demilitarize Brooklyn Navy Yard (DBNY) entered the Capital One corporate offices in Midtown, Manhattan, unfurling two banners that read: “Capital One Pays For Genocide” and “Eject Elbit Systems.” The group quickly installed a “soft blockade” with the banners, partially obstructing two hallways to bring attention to workers. One protester walked across the building lobby, showering the floor in faux cash stained with red paint.
A New York City Police Department (NYPD) officer and two private security guards stationed inside grabbed the banner, shoving protesters and reporters toward the exit. Before forcing DBNY outside — where the protest continued — an NYPD officer shouted at this author: “No freedom of press on private property!”
This action comes days before the expiration of a $545 million loan from a consortium of six banks — including $90 million from Capital One — to Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer. As part of a global week of action called by the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement to “intensify the BDS campaign against Elbit,” organizers planned actions in New York City, Boston, and the Washington, D.C. area targeting Capital One under the moniker “Eject Elbit.”
“This week, Capital One’s $90 million loan to Elbit Systems is set to either renew or expire, and we came out in multiple cities to let them know that we’re not giving up,” said one Eject Elbit organizer in D.C. who chose to remain anonymous for security reasons. “They’ve heard from us for months, and they will continue to hear until they drop this violent funding.”
According to a Bloomberg financial markets database, the $545 million loan was signed on May 21, 2021, and is set to mature on April 24, 2026. The BDS Global Week of Action overlaps with a pivotal moment of escalation — pressuring Capital One to not extend additional credit to Elbit Systems.
Elbit Systems is one of most complicit actors in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, supplying the Israeli military with weapons such as MPR 500 bombs, which are specifically designed for “densely populated urban warfare.” Elbit also developed border surveillance systems crucial to the maintenance of Israeli apartheid, and repressive immigration enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border, where the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) awarded Elbit with $23.9 million to install surveillance towers in 2023.
In addition to organizing against two companies operating on city-owned property at the Brooklyn Navy Yard — Easy Aerial and Crye Precision, both with ties to the Israeli military and DHS — DBNY joined the national Eject Elbit campaign last fall.
“Easy Aerial supplies Elbit Systems; they’re collaborators,” said Iman Bowman, a DBNY spokesperson, referencing contracts to retrofit Elbit Systems ground vehicles with Easy Aerial autonomous drones.
DBNY recently celebrated its first victory after successfully pressuring the Brooklyn Navy Yard not to renew Easy Aerial’s lease in February. Now the campaign continues fighting local nodes of the global weapons supply chain to Israel, including Elbit’s financiers…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://truthout.org/articles/protest-targets-capital-one-to-demand-bank-ends-loans-to-israeli-weapons-company/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=01f7de4f88-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_04_23_09_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-01f7de4f88-650192793
Hormuz Dateline
What Iran Actually Understands
Iran does not need to win a naval war in the classical sense. It only needs to make transit uncertain, costly, and politically radioactive. Mines, drones, missiles, fast boats, electronic piracy, and the psychology of fear are enough to turn a chokepoint into a garotte. That is the essence of asymmetry: a state under pressure parlays geography into power. Tehran does not need to dominate the sea. It needs only to make everyone else remember that the sea is not theirs.
The US-Israeli axis has long acted as if the region were a board and its opponents pieces. Hormuz shreds that assumption with the patience of geography.
14 April 2026 David Tyler AIM Extra, https://theaimn.net/hormuz-dateline/
The war now has the smell of salt, oil, and old empires trying to defy the tide.
Thirty-three kilometres. That is the width of the Strait of Hormuz at its narrowest navigable point: two shipping lanes, each two miles wide, one in, one out, with a median strip of Iranian territorial water between them. Through those lanes passes approximately 21 million barrels of oil every single day. That is one barrel in every five consumed anywhere on earth. Add the liquefied natural gas, and you have roughly 20 percent of all the LNG traded on global markets squeezing through a corridor you could drive across in less than half an hour. A fifth of the world’s energy supply running through a gap that geography, not American naval doctrine, placed there.This is not a side theatre. This is the throat of the world economy, and in this war it has become the place where the old American order goes from swagger to strain. What was once sold as a system of irresistible reach; US power, Gulf oil, the dollar, the naval umbrella, the client-state arrangement, now looks clapped-out, ruinously costly, and exposed as it is caught, hoist by its own petard, dependent on a choke point that cannot be bullied out of geography.
No aircraft carrier in the world can widen the Strait of Hormuz by a single metre.
The Arithmetic of Vulnerability
The numbers matter because official language exists precisely to hide that fact.
When the Iran-Iraq war threatened these waters in the 1980s, oil prices doubled within months. When Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping began in late 2023, global shipping insurance rates for Gulf-adjacent routes increased by up to 600 percent within weeks. Lloyd’s of London has now quietly tripled war risk premiums for vessels transiting the Gulf. That is not a diplomatic assessment or a Pentagon briefing. That is the financial system’s hard-nosed verdict on what is actually happening, stripped of all the official language about deterrence and security and the rules-based order.
While Trump posts to Truth Social about erasing civilisations and US admirals post to Facebook about historic firsts, the insurance market is pricing the reality that the propaganda is designed to conceal.
Australia has a particular stake in this arithmetic that the Albanese government would prefer its citizens not examine too carefully. Australia sends approximately 80 percent of its LNG exports through or near the Gulf corridor. When Hormuz is threatened, Woodside’s share price moves. The war that Albanese insists Australia is not involved in is directly affecting the income of Australian energy companies and, through them, the superannuation balances of ordinary Australians. Pine Gap processes targeting data for the strikes. Australian-made F-35 components are in the payload. And Hormuz is where the bill arrives.
What Iran Actually Understands
Iran does not need to win a naval war in the classical sense. It only needs to make transit uncertain, costly, and politically radioactive. Mines, drones, missiles, fast boats, electronic piracy, and the psychology of fear are enough to turn a chokepoint into a garotte. That is the essence of asymmetry: a state under pressure parlays geography into power. Tehran does not need to dominate the sea. It needs only to make everyone else remember that the sea is not theirs.
This is a strategic fact Washington cannot deny. Or lie about. The US-Israeli axis has long acted as if the region were a board and its opponents pieces. Hormuz shreds that assumption with the patience of geography. Israel can strike, assassinate, bomb, and escalate, but it cannot turn the Gulf into a risk-free zone. The US can threaten, sanction, and deploy, but it cannot guarantee the one thing the market demands most: confidence. That is the precise point at which imperial force runs into imperial limits. Empires can break things. Claim to rule the world. But it’s not so easy to rebuild trust once the world has called your bluff.
The ruling classes of all three powers; American, Israeli, Iranian are happy to gamble with systems they do not themselves live inside. They talk deterrence but they mean coercion. They may say security but they mean control. They may invoke peace but they build the conditions for the next war. It is the coastal fishermen, the dockworkers, “sea-gulls”, the tanker crews, and the families living with the knowledge that a misfire, a mine, or a drone can change the day in an instant who live inside the system these men are gambling with. That distinction matters. It is, in fact, the only distinction that matters.
The Petrodollar’s Exposed Seam
The petrodollar order was always more fragile than its keepers cared to admit. It rests on a Faustian bargain: Gulf oil will flow, the US will police the sea lanes, the dollar will stay as the world’s reserve currency, and regional rulers will play along so long as the deal suited them. Hormuz is where that bargain begins to fray.
The petrodollar system requires that oil be priced and settled in US dollars. That settlement runs through SWIFT, the global payments network, from which Iran has been excluded as an act of economic warfare. That exclusion has produced a direct, rational, and accelerating response: China, Russia, India, and an expanding coalition of the economically non-aligned are developing alternative settlement systems specifically designed to route around the dollar’s dominance.
This is not ideological posturing. It is financial self-defence against a system that has been openly weaponised. Hormuz is where that process becomes visible to everyone simultaneously.
The dollar’s centrality has depended on the belief that US power could secure the energy arteries while underwriting the financial order that prices global risk. But every threat to Hormuz chips at that belief. Every disruption reminds the world that this system is not floating on neutrality. It is anchored in force. And once force has to be constantly displayed, the myth of effortless supremacy begins to crack along every seam.
This is also why Hormuz looks, feels and even sounds like the end of an era. Not a stagey, Hollywood end of empire, but something slower and more repugnant: the fish rotting from the head, the end of imperial pretension publicly betrayed by the geography it claimed to master. The old style assumed that military reach could substitute for political legitimacy, that sanctions could replace diplomacy, that client regimes could be managed indefinitely, and that publics could be disciplined through spectacle and fear. Hormuz answers all of that with one simple fact: you can command the skies and the seas and still be strategically cornered. You can own the ocean narrative and still depend on a narrow strait you do not fully control.
The Scene Itself
Picture the actual scene, because power loves to use abstraction uses to hide from accountability.
Tankers move slow and dark under a white-hot sky. Naval escorts shadow them like anxious bodyguards. Insurance underwriters in distant offices recalculate exposure in real time. Traders watching screens flicker red. Refineries in South Korea, Japan, and India scramble to secure alternative supply. And in the waters themselves, and on the shores, and in the cities behind those shores, the people who have no choice but to live in the world that distant men are gambling with.That is Hormuz. Not a metaphor first, but a machine for making the abstract painfully concrete. It is thirty-three kilometres of water through which the pretensions of three nuclear-adjacent powers, and the complicities of a dozen client states including our own, are being tested against the oldest and most indifferent judge available: physical reality.
The old imperial language can still speak loudly, but it cannot hide the fact that the world runs through exposed conduits. It can still threaten, but it cannot guarantee outcome. It can still destroy, but it cannot stabilise what it has broken. That is the end-of-era feeling: not the end of power, but the end of the illusion that power can be made clean, automatic, and permanent.
The Narrowness of the Waterway, the Narrowness of Official Thinking
Hormuz is where the lie breaks down. It is where the empire finds the edge of its own reach. It is where the petrodollar shows its dependence, where military supremacy meets strategic vulnerability, and where thirty-three kilometres of salt water becomes a lesson in the catastrophic narrowness of the thinking that brought three powers to this point.
The old order still speaks in the voice of inevitability. Hormuz answers with a counter-argument that has been making the same point since the first trading dhow passed through it: no empire, no doctrine, no naval task force gets to abolish geography.
The market knows it. The insurance actuaries know it. The tanker captains threading those two-mile lanes know it. The fishermen on the Iranian shore know it.
The men ordering the strikes are the last to learn it. They always are.
This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES
All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars: Iran and the Bankers’ Endgame
As for Iran, it is not only the largest and strongest of the Islamic countries but operates the world’s only fully interest-free (riba-free) banking regime. This stands in direct contrast to the conventional Western model, which relies on interest as its primary revenue mechanism. “Money making money out of itself” underpins the global derivatives complex, which is built on rehypothecated, collateralized debt-at-interest.
April 10, 2026 Ellen Brown ScheerPost
“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” —Prof. Caroll Quigley, Georgetown University, Tragedy and Hope (1966)
In February 2026, the United States and Israel launched surprise airstrikes on Iran. The officially proffered reasons — preventing Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon and forestalling its aggression — have not held up under scrutiny. As James Corbett documented in recent Corbett Report episodes, the nuclear pretext appears to be recycled propaganda, and the scale and timing of the strikes raise deeper questions about motive.
The thesis that “All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars” was popularized by Michael Rivero in a 2013 documentary by that name. His accompanying article begins with a quote from Aristotle (384-322 BCE):
The most hated sort [of moneymaking], and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural use of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest.
Rivero then traces how private banking interests have financed and profited from conflicts on both sides for centuries — from the founding of the Bank of England in 1694 to fund William III’s wars to modern regime-change wars.
Full-Spectrum Financial Dominance
Other commentators point to the report of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (September 2000), which called for “full-spectrum” U.S. military forces to achieve global preeminence. It postulated the need for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor” to accelerate the military transformation the authors envisioned.
This was followed by a 2007 Democracy Now interview in which Gen. Wesley Clark revealed that weeks after 9/11, he had been shown a classified Pentagon memo outlining plans to “take out seven countries in five years”: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran. The first six have since been destabilized or regime-changed. Iran, considered the ultimate prize for Middle East dominance and oil control, remains the last one standing.
Why those seven, and why was Iran the ultimate prize? Greg Palast’s 2013 article titled “Larry Summers and the Secret ‘End-Game’ Memo” supplied the missing financial logic. In 1999, the world was opened to unregulated derivatives trading, so that sovereign bonds, oil flows, shipping routes, and war-risk policies could all be collateralized, rehypothecated (pledged multiple times over), and gambled upon. The lynchpin was the 1997 WTO Financial Services Agreement (the Fifth Protocol to GATS), which became operational in 1999.
None of the seven targeted countries joined the WTO, and they were also not members of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That left them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland. Other countries that were later identified as “rogue states” were also not members of the BIS, including North Korea, Cuba, and Afghanistan.
As for Iran, it is not only the largest and strongest of the Islamic countries but operates the world’s only fully interest-free (riba-free) banking regime. This stands in direct contrast to the conventional Western model, which relies on interest as its primary revenue mechanism. “Money making money out of itself” underpins the global derivatives complex, which is built on rehypothecated, collateralized debt-at-interest.
The last piece in the financial control grid was detailed in David Rogers Webb’s 2024 book The Great Taking. The Everything Bubble, including what some commentators estimate to be more than a quadrillion dollars in derivative bets, is just waiting for a pin. When it bursts, it will trigger large institutional bankruptcies; and under the legal machinery Webb documents, the derivative players will take all.
The 2026 Hormuz insurance crisis triggered by Lloyd’s of London could be that pin. More on all that below.
The City of London and Lloyd’s Weaponize Chaos
For more than three centuries, the City of London – the “Square Mile” that is London’s financial center — has financed both sides of wars and sold insurance against the destruction that would follow. Lloyd’s of London is the insurance pillar of the City’s financial control grid. It is not actually an insurance company but is a corporate body that “operates as a partially-mutualized marketplace within which multiple financial backers, grouped in syndicates, come together to pool and spread risk.” …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Iran’s system was designed to eliminate usury and align finance with real economic activity and risk-sharing rather than speculative debt. It has long been viewed as structurally incompatible with the interest-based, collateral-heavy architecture of City of London and Wall Street finance — an architecture that requires perpetual debt servicing and easily rehypothecated assets to feed the derivatives machine.
By rejecting interest at the national level, Iran has thus insulated itself and its financial partners from the control grid that has made the global “Great Taking” possible……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
But the immediate need in the current context is to settle the conflict with Iran, and settle it fast, before another black-swan shock ignites the derivatives daisy chain and activates the final Great Taking on a global scale. https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/10/all-wars-are-bankers-wars-iran-and-the-bankers-endgame/
Ellen Brown is an American author, attorney, and activist known for her work on financial reform and public banking. She is the founder of the Public Banking Institute and the author of books like Web of Debt and The Public Bank Solution, advocating for publicly owned banking systems.
Could a New Nuclear Reactor Double or Triple Electricity Rates in New Brunswick?
The implication of these experiences and proposals is that a new 1,000-MW reactor for New Brunswick could carry a price tag of $15 to $26 billion. Estimates of the costs of electricity needed to cover the capital costs of new nuclear plants, if they’re financed through electricity rates, range from the mid-20¢ to more than 40¢ per kilowatt-hour—nearly double to even triple current consumer electricity costs in New Brunswick. Such increases would undermine energy affordability, economic competitiveness, and any plans for decarbonization through electrification.
April 9, 2026, Mark Winfield and Susan O’Donnell, https://www.theenergymix.com/could-a-new-nuclear-reactor-double-or-triple-electricity-rates-in-new-brunswick/
At the end of last month, the NB Power Review Panel report recommended considering building a new large nuclear reactor at the Point Lepreau site in New Brunswick. That recommendation raises a series of questions, not least whether the province can afford a new reactor, how it would be paid for, and its impact on electricity rates and the province’s overall financial position.
It is important to grasp the scale of such a project and its potential economic impacts. Based on recent experience in other jurisdictions, a new large reactor of the types likely to be considered for Lepreau could cost between $15 and $26 billion. That would be a far higher capital expenditure than the original Point Lepreau reactor, which itself came in at more than $5 billion in 2026 dollars.
If the cost of a new reactor were passed on directly to NB Power customers through electricity rates, those rates could double or even triple.
Already, the costs of the original construction and later refurbishment of New Brunswick’s existing reactor at Lepreau make up $3.6 billion of the utility’s current crippling debt, the NB Power Review noted. That debt, plus the fact that the reactor has been operating below capacity since the refurbishment, is costing ratepayers dearly.
But despite New Brunswick’s costly nuclear experience, a new reactor has been in the cards since 2023, when NB Power and the provincial government published plans calling for 600 megawatts (MW) of new nuclear power by 2035 at the Point Lepreau site on the Bay of Fundy.
The original plan was to build two small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). After spending almost $130 million in public funds for SMR activities, New Brunswick found it couldn’t attract the private investment the designs needed to move forward.
The NB Power Review Panel strongly advised against SMRs, echoing a statement by Energy Minister René Legacy six months ago. He rejected the notion of building first-of-a-kind SMRs because of the technological and economic risks associated with their incomplete and unproven designs.
Instead, the review panel recommended that the province consider “initiating the planning assessment phase for an additional large scale, proven technology nuclear plant to be sited alongside the Point Lepreau facility.”
The last new full-scale nuclear reactor project in Canada, the Darlington nuclear power plant east of Toronto, was completed more than 30 years ago. The enormous cost overruns on that project contributed significantly to the effective bankruptcy of the province’s utility, Ontario Hydro, leading to its eventual break-up.
As the memories of these previous experiences with large nuclear construction projects have faded, new projects are now being proposed in Ontario and Alberta. These projects, and experiences with the handful of new-build nuclear projects initiated in Europe and the United States in the last two decades, give us some indication of the reactor options, and their potential costs, for New Brunswick.
At the end of last month, the NB Power Review Panel report recommended considering building a new large nuclear reactor at the Point Lepreau site in New Brunswick. That recommendation raises a series of questions, not least whether the province can afford a new reactor, how it would be paid for, and its impact on electricity rates and the province’s overall financial position.
It is important to grasp the scale of such a project and its potential economic impacts. Based on recent experience in other jurisdictions, a new large reactor of the types likely to be considered for Lepreau could cost between $15 and $26 billion. That would be a far higher capital expenditure than the original Point Lepreau reactor, which itself came in at more than $5 billion in 2026 dollars.
If the cost of a new reactor were passed on directly to NB Power customers through electricity rates, those rates could double or even triple.
Already, the costs of the original construction and later refurbishment of New Brunswick’s existing reactor at Lepreau make up $3.6 billion of the utility’s current crippling debt, the NB Power Review noted. That debt, plus the fact that the reactor has been operating below capacity since the refurbishment, is costing ratepayers dearly.
But despite New Brunswick’s costly nuclear experience, a new reactor has been in the cards since 2023, when NB Power and the provincial government published plans calling for 600 megawatts (MW) of new nuclear power by 2035 at the Point Lepreau site on the Bay of Fundy.
The original plan was to build two small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). After spending almost $130 million in public funds for SMR activities, New Brunswick found it couldn’t attract the private investment the designs needed to move forward.
The NB Power Review Panel strongly advised against SMRs, echoing a statement by Energy Minister René Legacy six months ago. He rejected the notion of building first-of-a-kind SMRs because of the technological and economic risks associated with their incomplete and unproven designs.
Instead, the review panel recommended that the province consider “initiating the planning assessment phase for an additional large scale, proven technology nuclear plant to be sited alongside the Point Lepreau facility.”
The last new full-scale nuclear reactor project in Canada, the Darlington nuclear power plant east of Toronto, was completed more than 30 years ago. The enormous cost overruns on that project contributed significantly to the effective bankruptcy of the province’s utility, Ontario Hydro, leading to its eventual break-up.
As the memories of these previous experiences with large nuclear construction projects have faded, new projects are now being proposed in Ontario and Alberta. These projects, and experiences with the handful of new-build nuclear projects initiated in Europe and the United States in the last two decades, give us some indication of the reactor options, and their potential costs, for New Brunswick.
In Ontario and Alberta, two reactor designs, the CANDU MONARK and the Westinghouse Electric AP1000, have been considered for the expansion of the Bruce Nuclear power plant on Lake Huron, a proposed 10,000-MW Ontario Power Generation plant at Wesleyville on Lake Ontario, and the proposed 4,800-MW Peace River Nuclear Project in Alberta.
The 1,000-MW CANDU MONARK, intended as a successor to the existing CANDU reactors in Ontario and New Brunswick, is owned by Montreal-based multinational AtkinsRéalis (formerly known as SNC Lavalin). Although it’s being aggressively promoted to potential international customers, the MONARK design remains incomplete. The situation has already led the Alberta project’s proponents to switch their proposal to favour the AP1000 design by Westinghouse Electric.
Westinghouse is a U.S.-based company owned by two Canadian firms: infrastructure developer Brookfield Renewable Partners; and uranium miner Cameco Corporation.
Cost information is available on the AP1000 reactor, as two units were completed in 2024 at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. The total estimated cost of those two 1,100-MW reactors was US$36 billion, or about $26 billion per reactor in 2026 Canadian dollars. The plant has been described as “the most expensive power plant ever built on Earth.” When it went into service, Vogtle resulted in a nearly 24% increase in Georgia Power’s electricity rates, the largest jump in the utility’s history.
AtkinsRéalis is currently pitching the CANDU MONARK to Poland, with a reported estimated cost of $45 to $50 billion for a three-reactor plant, or about $15 billion per unit. The company has also proposed an “Enhanced CANDU 6” design, an updated version of the existing plant at Point Lepreau.
The implication of these experiences and proposals is that a new 1,000-MW reactor for New Brunswick could carry a price tag of $15 to $26 billion. Estimates of the costs of electricity needed to cover the capital costs of new nuclear plants, if they’re financed through electricity rates, range from the mid-20¢ to more than 40¢ per kilowatt-hour—nearly double to even triple current consumer electricity costs in New Brunswick. Such increases would undermine energy affordability, economic competitiveness, and any plans for decarbonization through electrification.
The province could also try to finance the costs through its general tax base. That is the approach that Ontario seems to be taking, at an estimated cost to the provincial treasury of $7 to $8.5 billion per year. Electricity subsidies now account for more than half of Ontario’s deficit, exceeding annual capital expenditures on education and health care by wide margins.
In New Brunswick, the annual costs of that approach, even spread over the decade or more of construction, could exceed the province’s current, record $1.39 billion deficit, and match or exceed its entire annual capital spending plans in all other areas. Adding the cost to New Brunswick Power’s current $6-billion debt would further cripple the utility and likely put it on a path to the kind of de facto bankruptcy that befell Ontario Hydro.
In addition to the financial risks for New Brunswick, a single large reactor project would repeat and magnify a key problem associated with the original Lepreau project—putting an even higher portion of the province’s electricity supply eggs in a single, very expensive and high-risk basket.
The delivery of the NB Power Review Panel report gives New Brunswick an opportunity to reflect on its future electricity pathways. Those directions need to emphasize affordability, decarbonization and sustainability, reliability, and the capacity to adapt to changing economic, technological, and geopolitical circumstances. A single large nuclear project is unlikely to meet those criteria.
Mark Winfield is a professor at the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change at York University in Toronto, and co-chair of the faculty’s Sustainable Energy Initiative. Susan O’Donnell is adjunct research professor and lead researcher on the CEDAR project in Sustainability and Environmental Studies at St. Thomas University.
Audit cites DOE oversight failures on NuScle nuclear project
E&E News 1st April 2026
The Department of Energy mismanaged a landmark nuclear project to construct the country’s first small modular reactor, according to an audit by DOE’s Office of Inspector General released Tuesday.
The Carbon Free Power Project was a partnership between the federal government, NuScale Power and a coalition of Utah utilities that included $1.36 billion in DOE cost-share financial assistance. The government grant would help fund construction of the company’s first units at the Idaho National Laboratory.
The project that launched in 2015 was ultimately canceled in 2023 after NuScale and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems mutually agreed to terminate development of the plant. Cost estimates for the first-of-a-kind advanced reactors had climbed, giving the utilities that had agreed to purchase the power cold feet. NuScale’s stock price had collapsed. The canceled project left the U.S. government out $183 million………………………………..(Subscribers only) https://www.eenews.net/articles/ig-cites-doe-oversight-failures-on-nuscale-nuclear-project/
Trillions Hidden, Humanity Starving: The Super-Rich vs. the Rest of Us
April 6, 2026, Josh Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/06/trillions-hidden-humanity-starving-the-super-rich-vs-the-rest-of-us/
Ten years after the world first glimpsed the Panama Papers, the shadow empire of the super-rich is no less formidable. New analysis from Oxfam reveals a staggering truth: the untaxed wealth hidden offshore by the richest 0.1 percent now exceeds the combined wealth of the poorest 4.1 billion people on Earth. That’s not a statistic—it’s a moral indictment.
Oxfam estimates that $3.55 trillion in untaxed wealth was stashed in tax havens and unreported accounts in 2024 alone—more than the GDP of France and over twice the combined GDP of the world’s 44 least developed countries. Within this minuscule elite, the top 0.01 percent controls roughly $1.77 trillion of that hoard. Meanwhile, ordinary people continue to shoulder the burden: underfunded schools, crumbling hospitals, and fraying social safety nets are the collateral damage of a system engineered to let the wealthiest operate above the law.
Within this microscopic elite, the top 0.01 percent controls roughly $1.77 trillion. Meanwhile, billions of people are left with underfunded schools, crumbling hospitals, and social safety nets that barely function. The system isn’t “broken” — it’s working exactly as it was designed to work, just not for the vast majority of us.
The consequences are brutally clear. Public services starved of funding. Ordinary people shouldering the cost of inequality. A global economy rigged to reward the few and punish the many. Trillions of dollars that could fund hospitals, schools, clean water, and climate solutions are instead parked in secret accounts, out of reach and untaxed.
“This isn’t clever accounting; it’s power and impunity,” says Christian Hallum, Oxfam International’s Tax Lead. “The consequences are as predictable as they are devastating: ordinary people pay for the privileges of a tiny few.”
Progress has been made. The Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI), launched in 2016-2017, has nudged down the share of untaxed offshore wealth to about 3.2 percent of global GDP. But the gains are uneven. Many countries in the Global South—the nations that need tax revenue the most—remain excluded from the system.
- Two Bold Proposals to Tax Wealth Across the Land
Oxfam calls for bold, global action: taxing extreme wealth, strengthening financial transparency, and ensuring the richest 1 percent pay their fair share—especially multimillionaires and billionaires. A UN-led Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, approved in 2024 and under negotiation through 2027, could be a turning point—but only if nations have the courage to confront entrenched power.
The Panama Papers were meant to be a wake-up call. A decade later, the alarm still blares—but the world seems content to hit snooze while trillions slip offshore, untaxed and untouchable. Meanwhile, billions of people scrape by.
Inequality isn’t an abstract concept—it’s a crisis of fairness and morality. And as long as the super-rich are allowed to hide fortunes beyond reach, the rest of us will pay the price.
The Myth that Won’t Die: “War is Good for the Economy”
the problem with the obsession with unemployment. Employment by itself should not matter, but employment on what?. If people are exchanging their work for money but not producing goods valued by others, that amounts to wasted resources, money, and labor.
Carlos Boix, 4 April 2026, https://mises.org/mises-wire/myth-wont-die-war-good-economy
War is the ultimate government intervention. It is the excuse for all kinds of evils to be imposed on the governed. From confiscation through taxes and inflation to restriction of freedom of speech and the redirection and even nationalization of whole industries, nothing increases state power such as war.
As the state is predatory and produces nothing of use, it is the ultimate impoverishing situation. From an ideological point of view, it is even worse, mixing love for one’s culture and homeland with the state itself. It reduces individual’s resistance to loss of liberty and creates in their minds the myth of the protecting government.
There is also another insidious idea that a lot of people hold: That is that war has economic and other benefits, not to certain individuals or groups, but to the community at large. It is worth examining these supposed benefits to show that no, war does not benefit the community, it is just death and destruction.
Economic Stimulus
As with all government stimulus, this is just a redirection of resources. Instead of adapting to current resources, what a war stimulus does is to increase money and credit at unprecedented levels to pay for exorbitant government spending. This just means that real resources are taken from the community in the form of inflation and taxes and spent away on things the community does not want.
It is similar to getting all your savings and any credit you can get and spending it. For a while it appears that you are more affluent, until those resources are spent. Fiscal stimulus causes the same waste of savings and capital which, for a while, look to have stimulated the economy. But this is just spending. Soon there are not enough resources left and reality asserts itself. Once enough resources have been wasted, there are not enough to sustain the party, no matter how much money the government prints. If it continues to print, they create a hyperinflation period. If they stop, we get a recession.
The way the stimulus is done is also important. As it is done through banking credit, the temporal analysis of entrepreneurs is completely altered. A decrease in interest rates makes it look as if there are more resources saved. The problem is that the way entrepreneurs experience this is generally with an increase in demand. Those who do not respond—seeing it as unsustainable—will struggle to meet demand and will lose clients to other businesses and will still be hit hard in the downturn. Hence, most entrepreneurs will have to ride the wave and try to adapt when the crash comes.
This situation does not increase resources or make the community better off, it will waste resources and impede sustainable improvement. Overall, the community will be poorer afterwards. The idea that this kind of stimulus is positive is completely misguided.
Full Employment
When we visited Berlin, we were told the story of Communist Berlin, in which a person was paid to make a note every day of the clocks in Alexanderplatz. This is the problem with the obsession with unemployment. Employment by itself should not matter, but employment on what. If people are exchanging their work for money but not producing goods valued by others, that amounts to wasted resources, money, and labor.
This is the problem with public employment. Instead of a positive, it is a waste of resources. The government necessarily takes resources from the productive sphere—real resources that people demand—and redirects them to uses that people do not demand, such as filling forms, making military uniforms, or making munitions.
So yes, the government could tax or inflate enough to employ everyone in an economy, but that employment would take resources from the community, not add to them. They would just be wasting potential. This kind of use of employment just makes everyone poorer. This is what war full employment looks like.
At the beginning it gives the impression of full employment, but when the war finishes, the subsequent spike in unemployment is not because the government is not spending, but because the community has been depleted of resources.
Technological Advances
The idea that war fosters innovation and advances of technology is contrary to reality. It comes from those eager to justify war and see positive inventions against an imaginary counterfactual in which these innovations did not happen. Very few compare wartime to peacetime innovations. Those who do have shown that, at best, the rate of innovations is altered but changes little overall, and, at worst, there is a decline in inventiveness.
But here is the catch. This innovation is misallocated. Instead of innovations to better serve the customers, innovation during wartime serves the government and is intended to improve weapons and destructive power. Weapons and destructive power do not improve the quality of life of the people.
By redirecting research mainly to military use, there is a huge opportunity cost that few take into account. If we take the null effect on overall innovation and the focus on military innovation during wartime, we can safely say that wartime produces a reduction in technological advances and improvement of production effectiveness.
Social and Political Change
A typical example of beneficial social change is the entry of women in the workforce, wrongly attributed to the wartime economy during WWII. I say wrongly attributed because if we study labor market changes in countries that did not participate in WWII, such as Spain, we can see the same trend of female participation in the labor market. This is just another private social trend that people attribute to government intervention. The reality is that these social changes were already happening and defenders of war attribute them to government and to war itself.
Another counterfactual is the comparison with other wars. Why did WWII change the social status of women but the Franco-Prussian war of the 1870’s did not? Or even earlier wars?
Political change is sometimes presented as a benefit of war. How this is even argued is a mystery, but the idea is that war can topple an oppressive regime and create something better. Recent events show the contrary. Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all examples of wars that have either not caused a regime change or caused a chronic unstable civil war that has made the situation worse for the population.
In those countries in which regimes were, say “benign,” wars created an ideological shift towards more state power, the acceptance of more state intervention, and less individual freedom. Some people consider this a positive but, to me, all these are negative effects. Politically, war only benefits the government.
Conclusion
War has no positive effects. Mises wrote, “What distinguishes man from animals is the insight into the advantages that can be derived from cooperation under the division of labor.” And, “The market economy involves peaceful cooperation. It bursts asunder when the citizens turn into warriors and, instead of exchanging commodities and services, fight one another.”
This new war between the governments of Israel, the US, and Iran will be just like all other wars, negative in all its aspects.
Trump’s $1.5 Trillion Pentagon Budget Will Make US Weaker
Passing this proposed budget would be a recipe for endless war, while undermining the nation’s ability to address the truly pressing problems at home that demand our urgent attention.
William Hartung, Apr 03, 2026, Common Dreams, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/1-5-trillion-pentagon-budget
It has been reported that the Pentagon on Friday will release a proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027 of almost $1.5 trillion, with approximately $1.15 trillion in discretionary spending contained in the department’s regular annual budget and an additional $350 billion dependent on Congress including it in a separate budget reconciliation bill.
Whatever vehicles the administration chooses to promote this huge increase, it will be doubling down on a failed budgetary and national security strategy. If passed as requested, $1.5 trillion in Pentagon spending—in a single year–will make America weaker by underwriting a misguided strategy, funding outmoded weapons programs, and crowding out other essential public investments.
The current war in the Middle East is a case study in the ineffectiveness of an overreliance on military force in seeking to make America or the world a safer place. In his first term, President Trump abandoned a multilateral agreement that was effectively blocking Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. Six years later, in his second term, the president initially justified his disastrous intervention against Iran as being motivated by fears of that very same program.
Diplomacy worked. Reckless resort to force does not, as evidenced by the devastating human, budgetary, and global economic consequences of the current Middle East war. Passing a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget would be a recipe for endless war.
Meanwhile, other, non-military investments needed to protect the lives and livelihoods of Americans are being sharply reduced. By one account, the first week of the war on Iran cost $11.6 billion. That’s more than the Trump administration proposed for the annual budgets of the Centers for Disease Control and the Environmental Protection Agency combined for this year. Yet addressing the climate crisis and the need to prevent future outbreaks of disease are essential to the safety and security of Americans.
The administration has also reduced our available tools of influence on the foreign policy front by decimating the Agency for International Development, laying off trained diplomats at the State Department, and withdrawing from major international agreements. This leaves force and the threat of force as virtually the last tools standing for promoting U.S. security interests.
The Pentagon doesn’t need more spending, it needs more spending discipline. Spending billions of dollars on a Golden Dome system that can never achieve the President’s dream of a leak proof missile defense system is sheer waste, as is continuing to lavish funds on overpriced, underperforming combat aircraft like the F-35, or multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers that are vulnerable to modern high speed missiles.
The truth is, there are not enough factories, or skilled workers, or materials to effectively spend such a huge increase. It will be a recipe for waste, fraud and abuse.
Cenovus pulled the plug on its much-ballyhooed ‘multi-year’ study of ‘small modular reactors’ in 2024 after a year.
So-called SMRs – which some say should stand for Spending Money Recklessly – aren’t ready for prime time, and probably never will be.
by David Climenhaga, March 28, 2026, https://albertapolitics.ca/2026/03/cenovus-pulled-the-plug-on-its-much-ballyhooed-multi-year-study-of-small-modular-reactors-in-2024-after-a-year/
Despite getting a much-ballyhooed $7-million in start-up costs from the Alberta Government in 2023, a year later Cenovus Energy Inc. pulled the plug on its study of the potential for so-called small modular reactors to generate power to wring oil from Alberta’s oilsands.
To the company’s credit, it only spent $555,000 of the public’s money on the project before losing interest.
The termination of the study was done so quietly, no one seems to have noticed. At least, there appear to have been no news reports about the project’s cancellation.
As recently as last year, though, new references could still be found to the tale told in the Sept. 19, 2023, press release published by Emissions Reduction Alberta (ERA), the Alberta Government office set up in 2009 to fund “Alberta-based technologies that lower emissions and costs for industries.”
That press release enthusiastically announced that the province would provide $7 million through ERA “for Cenovus Energy to conduct a preliminary, multi-year study on whether small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) can be safely, technically, and economically deployed in Alberta’s oil sands operations. Funding will be provided through the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) fund.”
The release quoted then Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz, who announced the funding at the at the World Petroleum Congress in Calgary, rhapsodizing, “a few years ago, the idea of expanding nuclear energy use was on the back burner – that is no longer the case.
“In Alberta, small modular nuclear reactors have the potential to supply heat and power to the oil sands, simultaneously reducing emissions and supporting Alberta’s energy future,” Ms. Schulz’s canned quote continued. “This funding is the foundation for that promising future. I want to thank Cenovus Energy and Emissions Reduction Alberta for their leadership in this work.”
“We are optimistic about the opportunities ahead and will continue working with industry to explore and enable small modular reactor development in this province,” said Energy Minister Brian Jean, playing second fiddle as he so often did when Ms. Schulz was involved, in the same release.
A CBC News report at the time quoted Ms. Schulz saying, “this is just another example of how industry dollars are being reinvested back into industry to support innovation in emissions reduction.” The CBC story also noted that that the study was “actually a four-year series of studies being lumped into one” with a total estimated cost of $26.7 million.
It would appear, however, that Cenovus quickly reconsidered that kind of spending on that particular topic. Presumably sometime in early 2025, ERA updated a statement on its website revealing that Cenovus had ended the SMR FEED Study ahead of schedule. (FEED stands for “Front End Engineering Design.”)
The undated statement, presumably unchanged from whenever it was first published, devotes 665 words to describing the project and its potential benefits. A line at the top summarizing the project’s status lists it without further comment as “terminated” and indicates that only $555,000 of the promised $7 million from the province was spent.
That page in turn provides a link to Cenovus’s SMR FEED Study Final Outcomes Report, which was published on New Year’s Eve 2024.
A report last week assessing the success of Canada’s 2018 strategic plan to develop SMRs across the country published by researchers Susan O’Donnell and M.V. Ramana for the CEDAR Project (Contesting Energy Discourses through Action Research) cited the Cenovus Final Outcomes Report.
Cenovus’s assessment of the potential for SMRs in Alberta’s oilsands was not enthusiastic.
“Cenovus decided in 2024 (during the execution of phase 1 work) not to continue with the Program beyond the end of 2024,” the company’s report says under the heading Lessons Learned.
“The phase 1 evaluation of nuclear from a business perspective showed SMRs are not economic or commercially feasible at present or in the near future,” the section continued. “The capital costs are high, the timelines are long and uncertain, and technology and supply chains lack maturity. While there is a potential application for industrial heat needs, significant progress in these areas is required, which may not happen for several years.”
Under the heading economic evaluation, the report reaches the conclusion that while it may be technically possible to use SMRs to provide steam for the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage oilsands recovery technique, “they are not viable under current market conditions.”
Quite possibly cutting to the fundamental basis of the company’s decision, that section continues: “While existing government support programs are beneficial, they do not provide sufficient financial and risk management support to appropriately improve SMR feasibility.”
In other words, if the government isn’t going to pay for it, we can forget about it.
As for SMRs, despite the relentless effort by Alberta’s United Conservative Party Government to generate enthusiasm for their potential in the Athabasca oilsands, they’re not ready for prime time and quite possibly never will be.
Remember, as has been said here before, SMRs may be nuclear reactors, but they’re not small and they’re not really modular. They are multi-billion-dollar megaprojects, just not mega enough to justify their cost. The initials could stand for “Spending Money Recklessly,” Dr. O’Donnell and Dr. Ramana wrote last Monday.
Like other carbon reduction schemes pushed by the UCP Government, such as its failed hydrogen-powered truck fantasy and high-risk carbon capture and underground storage schemes that are now stirring up opposition in northern Alberta, they serve mainly as a way to to greenwash high-carbon oilsands activities.
-
Archives
- May 2026 (62)
- 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)
- June 2025 (348)
-
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
nuclear-news 