Alan Clements

A Father in Gaza. A Genocide Inquiry. NVIDIA’s AI Chips. Who Answers? A chief executive admits infidelity, and his private life becomes a public reckoning. His company’s processors appear in military systems, including a munition designed to kill, and the reckoning becomes harder to find. What an absurd moral arrangement: we can organize an inquiry into whom a man slept with while struggling to establish who profits from the machinery of mass killing. A UN commission has found genocide in Gaza. What did Jensen Huang know about the military uses of NVIDIA’s chips, what did his company earn, and what did he do when evidence of abuse became public? Those questions deserve an investigation at least as persistent as the scrutiny of his sex life. By Alan Clements · November 12, 2026 Muhib was nineteen. His brother Elyas was seventeen. On February 12, 2024, in the Al-Shaboura refugee camp in Rafah, their father, Osama Abu Jama, heard gunfire outside the family tent. He stepped out to see what was happening. People were running. The sound woke his sons. Within a minute, he told the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, a quadcopter overhead opened fire on the tent. Osama was wounded. Both boys were killed. His testimony preserves a detail I have been unable to get past. Among the last things he could tell us about his sons was something a parent sees a thousand times and scarcely thinks to remember. They woke up. Half a world away, five people who worked at NVIDIA helped The New York Times report on an alleged affair between Jensen Huang, the company’s chief executive, and an executive who reported to him. Five sources for one relationship. Think of the calls that went unanswered before someone agreed to speak. Think of the patience it takes to earn the confidence of a person whose livelihood may depend upon your discretion. That is a capacity I want the American press to keep—and bring, with equal appetite, to the business of killing. A newspaper can reconstruct the intimacies of a billionaire. What could that persistence discover about the machinery above a family’s tent? I have no evidence that the aircraft over his tent contained an NVIDIA chip. An Israeli arms manufacturer does, however, identify an NVIDIA processor in a drone it designed to kill. The distance between those two sentences is where a reporter’s work begins. It is also where a great deal of public interest seems to end. Huang acknowledged to employees that he had been unfaithful to his wife. He did not name his partner in that admission. The New York Times reported that American intelligence had identified a Chinese businesswoman with whom he had a close relationship as an intelligence asset. Beijing dismissed the allegation. NVIDIA’s board opened an investigation. In a separate story, the Times reported an affair with an NVIDIA executive who reported to him. Those are distinct accounts involving different women. The public knows less about the private circumstances of either relationship than a week of headlines might lead one to believe. As for the bare fact that a married man had sex outside his marriage, my response as a citizen is simple. So, fucking what? His wife has standing to answer that question very differently. An employee whose career depends upon the judgment of the man she reports to has interests a board must take seriously. A foreign intelligence service obtaining privileged access to a chief executive would be a substantial public matter. Journalism earns its keep by making these distinctions. The sheer fact of intercourse, however, confers no public entitlement to the sheets. Yet the sheets offer something the contracts do not: immediate moral fluency. Everybody knows how to have an opinion about adultery. Put a processor inside a weapon, move it through a reseller and a defense contractor, and suddenly the same public must acquire a graduate education in procurement before it is allowed to be appalled. Sex gives us a scandal we can understand over coffee. Mass killing comes with an explanation of why responsibility is complicated. The absurdity lies in what happens next. A sexual relationship becomes a question of judgment, access, power and accountability. The sale of technology used by military institutions becomes a question of distribution channels. We recognize the obligations of a man who has power over someone across a desk. Put a purchasing ministry and six thousand miles between his company and a person exposed to its products, and we begin to lose our vocabulary. At what point along that route does the obligation expire? And who had the authority to decide? The relationship disclosed in the accounts In its fiscal year ending in January 2026, NVIDIA recorded $19.677 billion in sales to direct customers headquartered in China and Hong Kong. In the following six months it recorded another $12.430 billion. More than $32 billion across those eighteen months. You can find the numbers in the company’s financial filings. They tell you where the customer was headquartered. They do not tell you where every processor went, which government could ultimately draw upon its computing power, or what proportion served the People’s Liberation Army. Here is the peculiarity of Washington’s alarm. A woman may have obtained access to a man whose company openly does tens of billions of dollars of business with customers headquartered in her country. Espionage is a serious allegation. Ordinary commerce offers no defense to it. Yet ordinary commerce presents questions of its own, and the Times turned up a remarkable one. Megaspeed, the Singapore-based company associated with the businesswoman, reportedly bought more than $4.8 billion in NVIDIA chips over two years. Who took delivery? Which customers bought access to the machines? One can ask both questions without learning another thing about anybody’s marriage. On November 11, Reuters supplied an example of what that journalism looks like. A Chinese university with deep military ties bought two NVIDIA H200 chips for 874,700 yuan through a domestic supplier. The purchasing department was the management school. Its cybersecurity school rented computing capacity under separate agreements. Good reporting leaves the management school in the sentence. It resists promoting a university purchase to a missile program for the sake of a better headline. It also makes it considerably harder for the company to say the destination of its products is beyond the reach of human curiosity. Reporters found the paperwork. Apply that curiosity at home. On May 1, the Pentagon publicly named NVIDIA among the companies with which it had reached agreements to deploy artificial intelligence on its classified networks. The public announcement gave no dollar figure for NVIDIA. At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a single American supercomputer called Sierra contained more than 17,000 NVIDIA processors. Its work included assessing the nuclear weapons stockpile. Seventeen thousand in one machine. You need no speculative theory of Silicon Valley’s proximity to military power. You can count the processors. Can I tell you the Pentagon puts billions of dollars a year into NVIDIA’s pocket? I cannot. Consider a modest purchase that illustrates why. The Air Force Research Laboratory bought two NVIDIA computing systems for $485,455. Look up the award by recipient and you will find Sterling Computers. A search for NVIDIA alone can miss it. Assign the entire sum to NVIDIA and you have made a different mistake. Multiply that problem across contractors, foreign resellers and computing time bought by the hour. A citizen can be taxed to pay for the machine and still be unable to discover how much the company whose name it bears earned from the sale. Here, apparently, is where our appetite for disclosure becomes exhausted. We can pursue the identity of a sexual partner through frightened sources and private denials. Following public money into military computing is harder, so the unanswered questions remain unanswered. Difficulty is a reason to fund the reporting. It is a grotesque reason to accept the silence. What a father can know Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer, identifies the onboard computer in its LANIUS loitering munition as the NVIDIA Jetson TX2. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor reported the use of small drones in Gaza, including aircraft it classified as LANIUS, in the same investigation that recorded Osama Abu Jama’s testimony. His account identifies a quadcopter. There is no serial number in that testimony, no recovered processor identifying the aircraft that killed his sons. I return to that missing piece because it is precisely where an honest indictment of our priorities begins. Why should a wounded father carry the burden of tracing an international supply chain before anyone asks its beneficiaries to account for it? In September 2025, the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel rejects that finding. South Africa’s case against Israel remains before the International Court of Justice. I use the word genocide here deliberately, and I name the body that made the finding. The word war alone leaves too much unsaid about what that commission examined and concluded. Read those matters beside each other. A chief executive has acknowledged infidelity. A UN commission has found genocide. An arms manufacturer names his company’s processor inside a killing machine. These facts do not establish his responsibility for that genocide. They establish the urgency of finding out what his company supplied, what it knew and what it could have done. The evidentiary gap calls for investigation. It does not make the bedroom the more consequential place to look. But put the letters AI in front of genocide and something curious happens to the grammar. The machine seems to acquire a will. The human being who authorized its use can slip out of the sentence altogether. Investigators have documented Israel’s use of intelligence systems called Lavender and The Gospel. The Israeli military says analysts independently assess intelligence before designating a military objective. I have found no public record identifying the processors on which those systems ran. What I want to know is who decided their output was reliable enough to act on, who could call a halt, and what happened when a family said the machine, or the people relying on it, had got it wrong. Journalism has already shown what such questions can accomplish. The Associated Press documented a three-year, $133 million Microsoft contract with Israel’s defense ministry. In September 2025, after reporting on the surveillance of Palestinians, Microsoft disabled specified cloud storage and AI services to one ministry unit. Its review found evidence supporting elements of the reporting. The company could examine its business records. It could identify subscriptions. It could withdraw a service. These are useful verbs for the next annual meeting of any technology company whose directors profess uncertainty about what, in practice, they can do. A chip possesses no special faculty for concealing its use. People make choices about what to record, what to disclose, whom to supply and what to do when credible evidence of abuse arrives. Hardware sold years ago can change hands beyond the maker’s knowledge. A current contract with a named customer presents a different degree of visibility and a different opportunity to act. A company can reasonably be asked to account for the information it had at the moment it still had a choice. That is a recognizable inquiry into human conduct. What did you know? Whom did you expose to harm? When could you have stopped? We ask versions of those questions about sexual betrayal without finding them impossibly abstract. A company’s commercial relationships deserve the same insistence, especially when the potential harm is measured in human lives. The countries inside the question Russia offers two pieces of evidence that belong beside each other. Bloomberg traced $300 million in Dell servers imported by two Russian trading companies in five months of 2024. Specifications identified NVIDIA H100 chips in 998 of the 1,111 servers. Separately, Ukrainian investigators identified NVIDIA hardware in a Russian Lancet loitering munition and reported finding it in an S-71 cruise missile. NVIDIA says it stopped direct sales to Russia in March 2022. Nothing in the server investigation establishes that those shipments supplied those weapons. Together the accounts establish an uncomfortable fact about the reach of an American commercial decision. Direct sales can end on a certain date. The life of the product continues on somebody else’s calendar. Iran comes into view through an Iranian-manufactured Shahed recovered in Ukraine, in which Ukrainian investigators identified an NVIDIA module. In France, reporting describes a classified defense supercomputer with more than a thousand GPUs, most of them NVIDIA’s. In Spain, an €18 million initial drone tender selected Skydio aircraft that carry NVIDIA hardware. Different countries, different purposes, different degrees of responsibility. The question travels because the technology does. Its answer has to be earned in each place. Burma is where that discipline costs me something personally. I have known people there for whom the sound of an aircraft overhead carries the whole history of what the state is capable of doing to a village. Mizzima reported a delivery of fifteen drones to Min Aung Hlaing’s military in April 2024. I have found no evidence identifying an NVIDIA processor in that delivery. I will leave the sentence there. After years of asking the world to believe Burmese witnesses, the last thing I would do is spend their credibility on a detail I cannot establish. What they deserve is somebody willing to go looking. An inquiry into mass killing must be exact because the accusation is grave. It must distinguish a manufacturer from a reseller, knowledge from ignorance, a preventable sale from hardware already beyond a company’s control. Such distinctions make an investigation credible. They should never become the paperwork behind which everyone disappears. I could call Huang the butcher of Silicon Valley. How convenient that would be for the official who authorized procurement, the minister who could release the records, the commander who selected the target, the director who approved the terms. All of them could read to the end of the piece secure in the knowledge that the butcher was somebody else. I would prefer to see Huang at a hearing with the contracts in front of him. Which military customers have you investigated? What did you learn? Has your company ever walked away from a sale it could legally have made because of what the evidence told you would happen to other human beings? And I would like the people asking those questions to arrive as thoroughly prepared as the reporters investigating his affairs. Bring the correspondence. Establish the dates. Identify who knew. Examine the power relationship. Follow the money. The skills already exist. What remains in question is the scale of suffering required to command their sustained attention. I have spent enough of my life in the company of Buddhist teachings to distrust the pleasure of catching another human being in disgrace. There is a small relief in discovering that a billionaire has made an ordinary mess of his life. For a moment we understand the whole story. We know whom to judge. We can even enjoy our own good judgment on the way to breakfast. There is something almost unbearable about that breakfast. We sit with a device in our hands, reading about a man’s sexual conduct, while elsewhere a father is trying to explain how his children died. The affair supplies the recognizable drama: desire, secrecy, betrayal. The father supplies names, ages and a tent. Somehow, it is the father whose story requires the more elaborate justification for our attention. Sex can wound. Coercion, exploitation and betrayal deserve serious scrutiny. But what a civilization reveals about itself when the possibility of mass murder has to compete with the revelation that a powerful man has been having sex. What an obscene disproportion between the intimacy we demand from his private life and the opacity we tolerate in the commercial arrangements that may expose strangers to death. Osama Abu Jama offers us no such satisfaction. He could give investigators the place, the gunfire, the order in which things happened. He could give them his sons’ names. Imagine asking him for more. Imagine explaining that before a board of directors can reasonably be troubled, he must identify the aircraft, establish who supplied its electronics and produce a chain of invoices reaching back from Rafah to the country of manufacture. Then imagine turning to the people who keep those invoices and asking, with the same persistence we bring to the private life of one married man, to see them. A married man’s admission of infidelity tells us nothing about his responsibility for a military supply chain. The records might. Open them. Establish what was sold, who received it, what warnings arrived and who decided to continue. If there is evidence of knowing assistance in unlawful killing, pursue it to the people responsible, however wealthy, celebrated or far from the bodies they may be. Muhib was nineteen. Elyas was seventeen. They woke up. Their father has given his account. We have heard the admission about sex. Now let us hear from the people with the records about the business of death. About the Author Alan Clements is an American author, human rights journalist, spoken-word artist, and former Buddhist monk. Ordained in Rangoon in 1979, he studied with Mahāsi Sayadaw and Sayadaw U Pandita. He later returned to Burma as a writer. In 1995, soon after Aung San Suu Kyi’s release from house arrest, he began the conversations that became The Voice of Hope. His reporting on Burma and its borderlands has followed the lives of people who have risked imprisonment, exile and death to bear witness to military rule. Clements founded World Dharma Publications and is the author of Politics of the Heart: Nonviolence in an Age of Atrocity — Psychedelic Activism to End War, a work of spoken-word theatre that brings his experience as a meditator and war correspondent onto the same stage. His forthcoming three-volume collection, Patriarchy, Authoritarianism and the Role of the Divine Feminine in Contemporary Society: Conversations with Visionary Women, grew out of three years of conversations with fifty-five women. Readers can find his books, essays, and performances at AlanClements.com.

Watch this compelling five-minute video with Layla El Khadri, the last of 55 visionary women I had the privilege of speaking with over three years for our forthcoming three-volume set, Patriarchy, Authoritarianism and the Role of the Divine Feminine in Contemporary Society: Conversations with Visionary Women. Wherever Layla goes, she carries two photographs of herself as a little girl. She places them on her altar. She wants the choices she makes as a woman to give that child reason to feel happy, proud, safe. And here, in these five minutes, she speaks to boys and girls and even to children yet to be born, encouraging them to discover what it might mean to embody the divine feminine in their own lives. I thought I was coming to the end of three years of conversations. Listening to Layla, I felt the whole project being born again, this time in the company of those who will inherit the world we’ve been speaking about. If her words move you, please share the video and stay close as we bring these three volumes into design and prepare to share them with the world. I think of the courage, the candor, the sheer boldness and care these 55 women brought to our conversations. And I think of the many women I would still love to sit down with. Perhaps there are more volumes to come. From my heart to yours, Alan Clements, along with my co-producer, Krystal Dyan THE THREE-VOLUME SET · FORTHCOMING JANUARY 27, 2027 Patriarchy, Authoritarianism and the Role of the Divine Feminine in Contemporary Society: Conversations with Visionary Women World Dharma Publications · Available through online booksellers worldwide To mark the release, Alan Clements and a number of the 55 women interviewed for this remarkable collection will come together for a multi-hour presentation, live and online. We invite you to join us from wherever you are in the world. We envision this global gathering as a sustained act of sacred activism. Please stay tuned across all our social media channels and visit WORLDDHARMA.COM. worlddharma.com Sign up for our newsletters and subscribe to our Substack, and we’ll keep you informed as we announce the speakers, the schedule, and how to join us. alanclements.substack.com/p/…?

The video will be posted later today.

Alan Clements Live from Bali Communion with the Feminine Daily Spontaneous Personal Talks My Dharma on the Tender Edge of Life Talk # 1: November 1, 2026 (32 minutes)

They Bombed the Monastery: Will the World Awaken? After the bombing of Mahasi Sayadaw’s home monastery in Burma’s Sagaing region, the world’s Buddhist, mindfulness, and insight meditation communities must join forces for Burma's freedom Published by Mizzima Myanmar News READ HERE: eng.mizzima.com/2026/10/31/4… A personal reflection by Alan Clements

ALAN CLEMENTS Live from Bali The World Dharma Edge of My Life Finding Liberation Through Living Live spontaneous talks Daily, 8–8:30 a.m. Bali time Facebook Live • IG • YouTube • X I’m honored to invite you into a daily space of reflection—the world Dharma edge of my life, finding liberation through living. These will be spontaneous talks about what’s dear to my heart: the edges I’m living with, the fantasies, the joys, the sorrows, the grief, and the vision. Simply me, reflecting on the edges of me and sharing what I’m discovering along the way. It’s been a long time since I’ve stepped into public view this way. While I’m here in Bali, I want to be more visible and use my voice more actively—to speak from where I am, with the questions I’m living, the uncertainties I’m navigating, and the possibilities that keep calling me forward. If this speaks to you, I hope you’ll tune in. I’d be honored to have you join me.

Aung San Suu Kyi and the courage to lead beyond domination DVB: Democratic Voice of Burma October 26, 2026 Alan Clements english.dvb.no/aung-san-suu-…

Myanmar’s dictator -Min Aung Hlaing - threatens to “eliminate” journalists: Open Dialogue with the Myanmar Media and Journalists Is Far Preferable to Their “Elimination” An intimate appeal to conscience, to the Dhamma, and to the courage to end the war on your own people Dear friends, There’s been an alarming public announcement by the regime in Burma. The regime’s newspaper, Kyemon, has called for the “elimination of any destructive element inside or outside the country.” Alongside this threat, the regime is attempting to enlist Interpol in its pursuit of five independent media outlets—The Irrawaddy, Mizzima, DVB, Myanmar Now, and Khit Thit—and the journalists and contributing writers who supply their news, seeking their detention, the confiscation of their passports, and, if necessary, their deportation to Myanmar. As an author, journalist and contributing writer supplying these independent media outlets with essays, articles and commentary, I am among those directly affected by this malicious threat. The regime is seeking to turn international police cooperation into an instrument of political repression—to draw Interpol into complicity in its campaign against independent journalism. Its requests do not establish that Interpol has agreed to participate. The intimidation reaches beyond the organizations themselves to the people who sustain their journalism—the reporters, editors, and contributing writers supplying news, investigations, articles, and commentary, including those of us writing from exile or abroad. We are caring human beings exposing a dictatorship’s violence. The language of “elimination” casts a chilling shadow over our work and our lives. Min Aung Hlaing: Open Dialogue with the Myanmar Media and Journalists Is Far Preferable to Their “Elimination” Read my response here on my Substack alanclements.substack.com/p/…? Or Mizzima Myanmar News website and please share. eng.mizzima.com/2026/10/16/3…? The more widely we illuminate this urgent threat of “elimination” against independent media outlets and the journalists who supply their news, the greater our chance of prevailing. God bless this battle of conscience over domination, love over oppression, and dialogue over death. From my heart to yours. Thank you for caring and thank you for being in my life. Alan Clements Ubud, Bali READ ALAN'S PUBLISHED LETTER TO HIM ON HIS SUBSTACK alanclements.substack.com/p/…?

Min Aung Hlaing: Open Dialogue with the Myanmar Media and Journalists Is Far Preferable to Their “Elimination” by Alan Clements Read more : eng.mizzima.com/2026/10/16/3…

THE COURAGE TO BECOME FREE Patriarchy, Childhood Trauma, Psychedelic Healing, Forgiveness, and the Radical Transformation of a Human Life Alan Clements in Conversation with Treya Klassen Watch the video on YouTube youtu.be/xhfEztoEn8g?si=H9WT…

WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW THE FREEDOM OF THE HEART: Science, Wildness, Multi-Eyed Seeing, and the Courage to Belong Alan Clements in Conversation with Natalie Schmitt Every so often, I enter a conversation thinking I am going to interview someone, only to discover that something more mysterious has begun to happen. The questions loosen, biography recedes, accomplishment becomes secondary, and two people begin listening from somewhere beneath the prepared language. My conversation with Natalie Schmitt became that kind of encounter. Natalie is a conservation geneticist, scientist, inventor, adventurer, and lifelong student of the natural world. Her work has taken her from humpback whales and snow leopards to caribou in northern Canada, remote islands of Myanmar, the Southern Ocean near Antarctica, and collaborations with Indigenous and traditional communities. Yet what moved me most was not the extraordinary geography of her life, but what all those years of looking so closely at life have done to her heart. We found ourselves exploring the limits of science, Indigenous knowledge, conservation, violence, ecology, consciousness, trauma, intimacy, compassion, and what Natalie calls “multi-eyed seeing”—the humility of recognizing that no single way of knowing is sufficient to comprehend the astonishing complexity of being alive. Beneath it all was a question increasingly important to me: can we remain rigorous without becoming imprisoned by what we know, spiritually open without escaping reality, and vulnerable enough to love without surrendering our discernment or freedom? This unedited exchange is a small taste of our forthcoming book, Conversations with Visionary Women, a labor of love that Krystal Dyan and I have been creating together. Natalie’s is one of 26 long-form conversations already gathered, with another 15 remarkable women awaiting confirmation in the coming days. We are now moving toward completing, designing, and publishing the book sometime in November. I am deeply grateful to Natalie for her intelligence, vulnerability, curiosity, and generosity. I hope you will watch this glimpse into The Freedom of the Heart not in search of final answers, but with enough curiosity, tenderness, skepticism, and wonder to allow the questions themselves to open something unexpected. From my heart to yours, Alan Clements