The Nuclear-Powered AI Revolution

 

Act Now or Get Left Behind

The AI energy war has already begun, and nuclear power is the new battlefield. The question is not whether AI will be powered by nuclear—but who will own and control that power. If we don’t act now, we risk a future where the world’s most powerful technology is fueled by energy controlled by a few trillion-dollar corporations.

Governments, investors, and innovators must wake up and act now—or risk losing control of the next era of human advancement.

Time is running out.

A Problem We Can’t Ignore

Artificial intelligence is on the brink of reshaping every industry, from medicine to finance to national security. But there’s a problem no one is talking about loudly enough: AI is hungry. Very hungry. The demand for electricity to power AI systems is soaring, and our current energy infrastructure is nowhere near prepared to handle it.

Tech giants like Meta, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft have realized this, and they’re not waiting around for governments or utilities to catch up. Instead, they’re making massive bets on nuclear energy to power their AI-driven future. This isn’t just about keeping data centers running—it’s about securing a strategic advantage in the next industrial revolution.

Big Tech’s Nuclear Land Grab: What’s Happening?

1. Amazon: Bought a data center next to a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania and tried to grab an additional 180 MW of power. Regulators shut it down, but they’ll be back.

2. Microsoft: Struck a deal with Constellation Energy to restart a shuttered nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island. Yes, that Three Mile Island—the site of America’s worst nuclear disaster.

3. Google & Amazon: Both announced investments in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)—next-gen nuclear tech that’s smaller, safer, and scalable.

4. Meta: Just put out a request for proposals to secure up to 4 gigawatts of nuclear power.

Why Nuclear?

• 24/7 Reliable Power: Unlike solar and wind, nuclear is a constant energy source—critical for AI’s high-compute demands.

• Carbon-Free: AI companies need to stay “green” while still consuming massive amounts of power.

• Scalability: Next-gen TRISO-fueled SMRs promise to shrink costs, improve safety, and deploy faster.

• Energy Independence: Owning or securing nuclear supply means freedom from volatile energy markets.

The Hidden Risk: Big Tech Controlling the Future of Energy

The move to nuclear is necessary—but who controls it matters. Right now, the world’s biggest tech companies are buying up nuclear energy before the rest of the market even wakes up. Here’s why that’s dangerous:

1. AI-Driven Energy Monopolies: If Big Tech owns the reactors, they own the power—and they decide who gets access.

2. National Security Risks: AI is already influencing global conflicts. What happens when nuclear-powered AI is in the hands of private companies?

3. Public Utility vs. Private Profit: Should AI-driven energy be treated like a public infrastructure project, or will it become another profit machine for trillion-dollar corporations?

4. Regulatory Catch-Up: Governments are miles behind on energy regulation. By the time policies are set, Big Tech could already own the market.

What Needs to Happen—Now

This isn’t just a conversation for energy experts—it’s a call to action for policymakers, investors, and the public to get ahead of the curve.

1. National AI Energy Strategy

Governments must step in immediately to ensure AI’s energy needs are met without allowing corporate monopolization.

• Public-private partnerships should be formed to ensure fair access to nuclear power.

• Funding for SMR development must be expanded beyond private tech investments.

2. Open Access to AI-Powered Nuclear Energy

• Nuclear energy for AI must not be hoarded by a few dominant players.

• Policymakers should mandate competitive access to nuclear-powered AI infrastructure.

3. Decentralized AI Power Grids

• Instead of letting Big Tech dominate, a decentralized network of nuclear-powered AI hubs should be developed.

• Regional AI energy hubs could prevent the concentration of control in Silicon Valley.

4. Acceleration of Next-Gen Nuclear Investment

• Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) must be fast-tracked—waiting five years is too long.

• Public funding & tax incentives should go toward nuclear innovation beyond Big Tech’s investments.

Strategic US Military and National Security Concerns

The USA and the free world must maintain its strategic strongholds if it wishes to remain free. This situation is about much more than just territorial negotiations; it's about safeguarding global stability against authoritarian influence. Here’s what I and others believe needs to be done on the Chagos Islands Deal:

·  This is a major geopolitical blunder by the UK.

• By ceding sovereignty to Mauritius—a country with increasing ties to China—Britain risks handing Beijing an indirect foothold in the Indian Ocean.
• If the UK truly wanted to correct historical injustices, it should have ensured that the Chagossians themselves, not Mauritius, were granted sovereignty.

·  The deal is not in America’s or the West’s best interest.

• The base on Diego Garcia is one of the most strategically important US military assets—losing any control over its future weakens Western military power.
• China's influence in Africa and the Indian Ocean is rapidly expanding. If this deal moves forward, we could see China-backed infrastructure or even a military presence in the Chagos Islands within a few years.

·  The UK is showing weakness, and Trump’s administration must step in.

• Biden’s approval of the deal was shortsighted. If Trump lets it stand, he risks allowing another Chinese-aligned state to dictate terms over a vital Western military base.
• This is a test of the US-UK "Special Relationship"—Trump must make it clear that weakness in geopolitics has consequences.

Suggestions for the Free World to Remain Free

1. Trump should put the deal on hold indefinitely.
• This must be re-evaluated with a national security-first approach.
• The UK should not be allowed to negotiate military strategy without full American alignment.
2. The Chagossians should be given a say, not Mauritius.
• Britain evicted them, so the proper solution is to allow Chagossians to return and hold a referendum on sovereignty.
• If they wish to remain under UK protection while allowing the US base to continue, this should be pursued.
3. The US should secure a new long-term lease directly with the UK.
• The lease should be extended for another 99 years to prevent future diplomatic maneuvering.
• US forces should remain in control of Diego Garcia permanently, ensuring that no external government can interfere.
4. A broader Western Indo-Pacific strategy must be established.
• China is expanding its presence through debt-trap diplomacy and port acquisitions. The US, UK, and allies must counter this with a coordinated security and economic response.
• A military presence in Diego Garcia is not enough—the West should invest in stronger naval coordination across the Indian Ocean.

Conclusion: 

This is a Battle for Freedom, and the West Cannot Afford to Lose

If the West allows a slow but steady surrender of strategic locations, we risk waking up to a world where China has gained control over vital military and trade routes. The free world must act proactively, not reactively.

Trump has a golden opportunity to reverse a dangerous mistake made under Biden. The question is—will he take it?

 

The Liberal Party of Canada: A Party for Elites, Not for Democracy

The Liberal Party of Canada has taken another significant step toward ensuring that only the wealthiest and most well-connected individuals can aspire to leadership. By setting an exorbitant $350,000 entrance fee for candidates vying to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the party has reinforced the idea that democracy within its ranks is based not on merit, vision, or grassroots support, but rather on financial clout.

A High Price for Leadership

The leadership contest requires candidates to pay the entrance fee in two installments. The first $125,000 was due on Friday, with the remaining amount to be paid by February 17. This high financial barrier effectively excludes individuals without significant personal wealth or access to elite fundraising networks.

Several high-profile candidates, such as former Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor Mark Carney and former Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, had no issue paying their deposits. However, those attempting to run a campaign based on grassroots support, like Karina Gould, struggled to meet the deadline.

Gould, a former cabinet minister, publicly criticized the fundraising threshold, arguing that it ensures only a select few can participate in the leadership race. Despite this, she announced on social media that she met the requirement after a "record-breaking" fundraising day. This raises the question: should a leadership contest be about a candidate’s ability to govern and connect with citizens, or about their ability to extract vast sums of money from donors?

Elitism Disguised as Democracy

By setting such a high entry fee, the Liberal Party has created a system where only those with deep pockets or strong ties to financial and corporate elites can seriously contend. This is not democracy—it is a pay-to-play system that discourages genuine leadership and diverse perspectives.

The Liberals have long positioned themselves as the party of inclusivity and opportunity. However, their leadership race tells a different story. The financial barrier ensures that only candidates with established ties to the wealthiest circles can afford to compete, leaving behind any grassroots contenders who may have the support of everyday Canadians but lack the means to buy their way into the race.

The Influence of Money in Politics

This issue is not unique to Canada. Billionaires, corporations, and special interest groups pour vast sums of money into political campaigns worldwide, often with strings attached. This concerning trend means that democracy is significantly influenced by money in various countries, including those in the G7.

The disproportionate influence of wealthy donors, special interest groups, and unions undermines the principles of democratic equality and representation. This phenomenon is known as the "oligarchization" of democracy, where a small elite wields disproportionate power and influence over the political process.

Democratic societies need to address this issue through campaign finance reform, increased transparency, and measures to promote equitable representation without further delay. The potential for undue influence is vast. Donors can:

1. Shape policy agendas
2. Secure favourable legislation
3. Gain access to exclusive events and meetings
4. Enjoy preferential treatment

A Club for the Wealthy

The high financial threshold is a symptom of a broader issue within the Liberal Party: it has become a club for the political and financial elite. This system rewards those who have already climbed the ladder of power and wealth while shutting out fresh voices and working-class perspectives.

Former MP Frank Baylis, a businessman from Quebec, had no problem submitting his payment, as did former MP Ruby Dhalla. Meanwhile, those attempting to run on a platform of grassroots engagement were left scrambling to meet the fundraising requirements.

This system is not designed to foster a healthy democratic process; it is designed to ensure continuity for the party’s elites. The winner will likely be someone who already has deep connections within the Liberal establishment, not necessarily the best candidate for the job.

The Future of the Liberal Party

With the new leader set to be named on March 9, it is clear that the Liberal Party’s direction will remain firmly in the hands of the well-connected few. With this trend, the party risks alienating the very voters it claims to represent. Canadians deserve a political system where leadership is determined by merit and ideas, not by wealth and privilege.

This leadership race is a stark reminder that the Liberal Party of Canada has become a closed circle for elites, ensuring that true democratic competition is nothing more than an illusion. If democracy is truly about giving all qualified individuals a fair chance to lead, then the party’s current process is a glaring contradiction to that principle.

 

When a Political Party Hides the Books: What Are They Afraid Of?

In any functioning democracy, transparency is the cornerstone of trust. 

When a political party, like the Democratic Party in the US, refuses to open its financial records to the public, especially regarding taxpayer money, it begs a critical question: What are they trying to hide?

1. The Anatomy of a Cover-Up

Political parties exist to serve the public, yet many operate in the shadows, shielding their financial dealings from scrutiny. The reasons behind this secrecy often fall into one of several disturbing categories:

• Misallocation of Funds: Money earmarked for public services may instead be funnelled into pet projects, partisan initiatives, or even used to reward loyalists.

• Corruption & Kickbacks: Without oversight, party officials can engage in backroom deals, awarding contracts to cronies rather than the most qualified or cost-effective bidders.

• Election Rigging & Voter Manipulation: Dark money often fuels unethical campaign practices, from targeted misinformation campaigns to outright voter suppression tactics.

• Personal Enrichment: History has repeatedly shown that when public finances are not open to scrutiny, some politicians and bureaucrats inevitably find ways to enrich themselves at the expense of the people.

2. Excuses vs. Reality

When pressed for transparency, political parties often resort to tired excuses:

• "National Security Concerns" – While some secrecy is necessary for intelligence matters, financial transparency does not jeopardize national security. This claim is often a smokescreen.

• "Political Witch Hunt" – When caught in financial scandals, parties frequently blame their opponents rather than addressing the issue.

• "Complexity of the Records" – A government that can track citizen’s tax records should have no issue presenting clear financial reports.

• "Confidentiality of Donors" – While individual donor privacy is important, taxpayers have every legal and constitutional right to know how their money is spent.

3. The Global Pattern of Secrecy and Fraud

History provides endless examples of how political secrecy breeds corruption:

• Argentina’s Kirchner-era financial scandals saw massive fraud hidden behind opaque government books.

• South Africa’s ANC government faced widespread accusations of looting state resources, all under the guise of "protecting party interests."

• The European Parliament's secret expenses scandal exposed how even democratic institutions can resist accountability when it threatens the status quo.

4. Why Transparency Matters More Than Ever

Public trust in government is at an all-time low. Citizens are growing increasingly frustrated with the lack of accountability. In an era where every penny counts, we deserve to know where our money is going.

If a political party refuses to open the books, they are either incompetent, corrupt, or both. The solution? Demand real-time public disclosure of spending, independent audits, and severe penalties for those who misuse public funds.

The Final Question

If the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, truly has nothing to hide, then why not prove it?

Secrecy in financial matters is not about protection—it’s about control. And those who resist transparency are always the ones benefiting from the shadows.