World Freedom

Blogger Comment: Ai is one of the greatest threats to humanity and with a higher risk factot than a nuclear war, where the Globalists want this technolgy to be developed and use for themselves and their own ends…remember the experimental Covid-19 vaccines and what devistation that created for humanity, well just consider Covid equivalents coming back now creating continuous pandemics…as the main reason for Covid 19 was a lab release in Wuhan…that the Globalists ordered to be undertaken through Fauci to do their malevolent worst and where they have literally made $trilions out of the these sinister jabs and are still doing so today…as human death has no meaning to them at all…

.

Scientists have crossed a chilling new threshold after successfully using artificial intelligence (AI) to design and create entirely new, fully functional viruses that have never existed in nature.

Researchers from Stanford University and the Arc Institute used a generative AI system to create novel viral genomes from scratch before assembling them in a laboratory.

The result was 16 completely new viruses capable of infecting, replicating inside, and killing living bacterial cells.

Researchers insist the experimental viruses cannot infect humans.

However, biosecurity experts are sounding the alarm over what the breakthrough proves is now possible.

Machines can design functioning viruses.

And the safeguards needed to prevent the technology from being weaponized are not ready.

“The ability to compose viral genomes using generative AI now exists; the governance to safely steer it does not,” warned Dr. Thomas Inglesby and Dr. Moritz Hanke of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

AI Generated 700,000 New Virus Designs

The bombshell research, now peer-reviewed and published in Science, used an AI model called Evo.

Rather than being trained on conventional human language, Evo was trained on billions of genetic sequences.

The system effectively processes DNA much like a large language model processes words, predicting which genetic building blocks should come next in a sequence.

Researchers focused on Phi X-174, a well-studied bacteriophage that infects E. coli.

They instructed Evo to generate new viruses using the genetic architecture it had learned.

The AI produced approximately 700,000 potential viral genomes.

Researchers narrowed those candidates to 300 and synthesized them in the laboratory.

Sixteen worked.

Those AI-designed viruses successfully infected bacteria, reproduced, and destroyed their hosts.

Synthetic biologist Patrick Cai of the University of Manchester described the achievement as “an important milestone.”

Scientists Have Crossed a Major Threshold

The medical possibilities are significant.

Bacteriophages can destroy bacteria, meaning AI-designed versions could potentially be developed to attack infections that have become resistant to antibiotics.

But the same breakthrough has an obvious darker side.

The technology has now demonstrated that generative AI can produce complete, viable viral genomes rather than merely analyze existing biological material.

In an accompanying Science commentary, Inglesby and Hanke warned that the question is no longer whether generative viral design will become possible.

It already is.

The issue now is whether humanity can control it before the same capability is directed toward pathogens capable of causing disease.

New disease-causing viruses “should not be pursued,” they warned.

Biosecurity Experts Sound the Alarm

Tom Ellis, professor of synthetic genome engineering at Imperial College London, noted that engineering complex human pathogens remains substantially harder than producing simple bacteriophages.

Ellis also argued that modifying existing pathogens would currently present a more realistic biological threat than designing an entirely new one through AI.

Nevertheless, experts warn that the direction of travel is unmistakable.

AI models are rapidly improving.

Genomic datasets are expanding.

Laboratory automation is becoming more sophisticated.

And the machines themselves can already generate viable biological organisms at a scale impossible for human researchers to match manually.

The experiment produced hundreds of thousands of candidate genomes in a single project.

Safeguard Depends on What AI Is Allowed to Learn

Researchers attempted to reduce the danger by restricting the biological information included in Evo’s training data.

But that safeguard is not inherent to the technology.

A different research group with access to broader datasets could train a similar model without the same restrictions.

That reality has alarmed biosecurity experts because controlling the information available to one model does nothing to eliminate the underlying capability.

Once researchers demonstrate that AI can generate functioning viral genomes, the knowledge itself cannot be erased.

AI Revolution Is Moving Into Biology

The development comes amid growing concerns about increasingly autonomous AI systems behaving in unexpected ways.

Major AI companies have recently revealed that advanced models were capable of exploiting cybersecurity vulnerabilities during controlled testing, including gaining access to external computer systems when safeguards failed.

Now the same accelerating technology has crossed into synthetic biology.

Instead of merely generating text, images, or computer code, AI can now write genetic code that becomes a functioning biological entity.

That represents an entirely different category of risk.

Population-Control Debate Adds Darker Context

The breakthrough also comes as scientists and policymakers continue pushing proposals to deliberately drive down global population levels in the name of environmental “sustainability.”

A recently published study called for gradually reducing humanity’s population to approximately four billion people by 2200.

That proposal was framed around voluntary reductions in fertility and consumption.

There is no evidence connecting those researchers to the new virus-design work.

Nevertheless, the collision of these two developments highlights the enormous stakes surrounding technologies capable of engineering biology.

A system powerful enough to create beneficial viruses is also a system whose misuse could have catastrophic consequences.

The danger becomes considerably more serious when biological engineering technology is combined with political ideologies that regard dramatic population reduction as desirable.

‘Governance to Safely Steer It Does Not’

The Stanford and Arc Institute researchers demonstrated something that until recently belonged largely to science fiction.

Artificial intelligence can design a virus.

Scientists can take that machine-generated genetic blueprint and construct it.

And the resulting organism can live, reproduce, infect its target, and kill it.

For now, those targets are bacteria.

But biosecurity experts are warning against assuming that boundary will remain permanent.

“The ability to compose viral genomes using generative AI now exists,” Inglesby and Hanke warned.

“The governance to safely steer it does not.”

Humanity has entered an era in which machines can write biological code capable of becoming life-like, self-replicating infectious agents.

The technology may ultimately produce powerful new medicines.

But the same breakthrough means the tools needed to design something far more dangerous are moving rapidly closer to reality.

And unlike the technology, the safeguards are already falling behind.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/scientists-use-ai-create-entirely-new-viruses-experts-warn-serious-harm/

And,

READ MORE – Scientists Push Plan to Slash Global Population by 4 Billion

Blogger Comment: Just one of the deadly uses of Ai and where the people will some day wake up to the realisation of the deadly AI centres to humnaity are totally against them…and where the UK elites are one of their greatest driving forces of control over the people…

.

A network of British globalist organizations is quietly driving legislation across the United States that would require Americans to verify their identities online through digital ID and age-verification systems.

The coordinated campaign has already reached 21 states and Congress, according to an investigation by Effort, with many of the same groups that helped deliver the United Kingdom’s sweeping anti-free speech Online Safety Act now working to replicate similar laws in America.

At the center of the effort is the UK-based 5Rights Foundation, whose leaders openly boast that U.S. legislation is modeled on Britain’s Age Appropriate Design Code (AADC).

“The Bill is practicable and realistic, drawing as it does on the UK’s Age Appropriate Design Code (AADC),” the organization declared alongside two authors of California’s Age Appropriate Design Code.

The investigation identifies five organizations involved in promoting digital identity and age-verification laws across the U.S.

Four are British organizations.

The fifth, Reset Tech, operates as an international coalition with a UK branch.

British Influence Campaign Targets U.S. States

The campaign extends far beyond offering policy advice.

One of the organizations pushing the legislation represents companies that profit directly from mandatory age-verification requirements.

The Age Verification Providers Association is a British trade association whose members sell age-verification and age-estimation technology.

The group backed Britain’s Online Safety Act and has argued that internet users accessing websites through virtual private networks (VPNs) should undergo additional age verification.

In effect, the very tool many people use to protect their online privacy would become justification for demanding even more identification.

The obvious question is whether lawmakers voting on these bills realize one of the chief advocates stands to financially benefit every time another verification mandate becomes law.

California Became the Blueprint

The 5Rights Foundation, chaired by Baroness Beeban Kidron, played a central role in California’s Age Appropriate Design Code, which became law in 2022.

According to Effort, the organization has engaged with 42 pieces of legislation across 18 states, with 11 ultimately becoming law.

Federal records show 5Rights is registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The organization paid lobbying firm Capitol Connection $50,000 to lobby California lawmakers in support of the legislation.

That lobbying activity was reportedly not disclosed as work on behalf of a foreign principal until 2024, more than a year after the California bill had already been enacted.

The disclosure stated that 5Rights was not controlled by a foreign government while leaving blank the section explaining the extent of Baroness Kidron’s control over the organization she founded.

Kidron has also argued that social media restrictions are ineffective unless VPN use is also addressed.

“Social media bans without VPN bans,” she wrote, “are for show and headlines, not for children.”

The Same Organizations Appear Across Multiple Campaigns

Other organizations identified in the investigation have also played prominent roles in Britain’s online speech laws.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) openly acknowledged helping shape the UK’s Online Safety Act.

Chief Executive Imran Ahmed told Britain’s House of Lords that CCDH had “championed the Online Safety Act since its inception” and served as the first witness before the parliamentary committee reviewing the legislation.

The House Judiciary Committee has also highlighted CCDH’s influence beyond Britain.

According to the committee, the European Commission’s handbook on online content incorporated policy recommendations from CCDH.

Another organization, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), has received U.S. State Department funding to develop technologies targeting online “disinformation and propaganda.”

ISD also participates in Spotify’s Safety Advisory Council and Google’s Trusted Flagger program for YouTube, where reports from approved organizations receive priority review.

Effort estimates ISD has received more than $17 million in contracts from the U.S. State Department, the European Union, and multiple UK government departments.

Congress has since begun examining those relationships.

The House Judiciary Committee reported that it obtained documents from both Access Now and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue in July 2025 while investigating how European regulators work with outside organizations to police online speech.

Lobbying Campaign Expands Across America

Reset Tech has also emerged as a major player in the effort.

In submissions supporting Britain’s Online Safety Act, the organization argued that formal complaint mechanisms against online platforms should become a permanent structural feature of internet regulation.

Its American affiliate, Reset Tech Action, spent more than $1.35 million lobbying Congress and state legislatures between 2024 and mid-2026.

According to the investigation, four of the six bills Reset Tech Action lobbied on were also backed by 5Rights.

Critics argue the pattern suggests a coordinated international campaign rather than isolated state-level initiatives.

Digital ID Push Raises New Questions

The House Judiciary Committee has previously warned that Britain’s Online Safety Act represents one of the most significant foreign attempts to expand government oversight of online speech.

The committee noted that the law empowers Britain’s communications regulator, Ofcom, to oversee how social media platforms respond to what officials classify as misinformation and disinformation.

Now, similar legislative proposals are advancing across America.

According to the investigation, this is not simply a series of unrelated state initiatives.

It is the same collection of organizations promoting legislation they helped craft overseas, while, in at least one case, representing companies that stand to profit from the very verification systems those laws would require.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/british-globalists-quietly-pushing-digital-id-laws-across-america/

And,

READ MORE – Gavin Newsom Links California Driver’s Licenses to Digital ID System

Blogger Comment: This is one of many nighmares that has emerged from the euthansia kiling fields of the Globalists and undertaken and applied by their controlled western governments and leaders over the past few years…and this is all part of the Globalists fully malevolent actions against humanity and where euthansia is one of their killing tools of many to reduce the global population down to 400 milion and as they have stated for many decades now in Davos at their annual Globalist conference in January evry year…

.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has begun stripping federal certification from a major organ procurement organization after investigators uncovered horrifying cases involving patients who were still showing signs of life as the organ-harvesting process moved forward.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has initiated the decertification of Network for Hope, the federally designated organ procurement organization serving Kentucky and parts of Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is sounding the alarm after federal investigators uncovered widespread patient-safety failures inside the nonprofit, including dozens of cases involving neurological signs that should have stopped the organ donation process.

In one notorious case, prospective donor TJ Hoover reportedly came dangerously close to having his organs removed while still alive.

“Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy is bringing to light horror stories about the dark corners of organ harvesting,” Fox News senior medical analyst Dr. Marc Siegel said.

“The department is now pulling the accreditation of Kentucky’s Network for Hope, the main organ procurement organization in the state.”

Patients Showed Neurological Signs Incompatible with Organ Donation

The federal investigation examined 351 cases handled by Network for Hope between 2021 and 2024 in which organ donation had been authorized but was ultimately not completed.

Investigators identified 103 cases containing troubling features.

Among them were 73 patients who displayed what HHS described as “neurological signs incompatible with organ donation.”

Those findings mean the patients were showing signs of neurological function that should have prevented the organ procurement process from advancing.

“HHS says it uncovered 73 separate instances where the process of harvesting an organ should have been stopped sooner,” Siegel said.

“The investigation revealed that the nonprofit pressured medical personnel to proceed despite patients showing active signs of life and neurological function.”

The findings exposed failures extending far beyond isolated mistakes.

Federal investigators uncovered inadequate neurological testing, poor coordination with hospital medical teams, questionable consent procedures, and improper classification of causes of death.

“Thirty percent of the procedures that they were performing had something wrong with them,” Siegel said.

“If there’s a bad organization that’s willing to do things that are unethical, they’re going to get away with things at any place where they operate.”

Patient Nearly Had Organs Harvested While Still Alive

The case of TJ Hoover has become one of the most disturbing examples uncovered in the scandal.

Hoover had been identified as a prospective organ donor.

But while preparations were underway to harvest his organs, he reportedly began showing unmistakable signs of life.

Siegel said Kennedy told him that the procurement process nevertheless continued.

“Even after those signs of life, Kennedy says the organ procurement process continued until the physician refused to proceed,” Siegel said.

The doctor ultimately stopped the procedure.

The case has become a chilling illustration of the failures that prompted federal authorities to move against Network for Hope.

Federal Government Begins Decertification

CMS is now taking the extraordinary step of decertifying the organization.

Organ procurement organizations operate under federal designation and are responsible for coordinating donations from deceased patients, evaluating organs, obtaining consent, and arranging transplantation.

Losing certification would effectively remove Network for Hope’s ability to continue serving as the federally designated procurement organization for its territory.

Network for Hope’s CEO has vowed to appeal the decision.

The organization maintains that it complies with federal organ procurement and transplantation requirements.

But the federal government’s findings paint a far darker picture.

Kennedy Backs Organ Donation When Donors Are Actually Dead

Kennedy has emphasized that the crackdown is not an attack on organ donation itself.

The HHS secretary has a deeply personal connection to the practice.

His nephew, Michael Hines, became an organ donor after dying at age 20 and saved multiple lives through his donations.

“Kennedy says he strongly supports organ donation when it’s done ethically and properly,” Siegel said.

“His own nephew, Michael Hines, saved multiple lives by donating his organs after his death at age 20.”

The distinction is fundamental.

Organ transplantation can save lives.

But the entire system depends on an absolute safeguard: doctors must know that the donor is truly dead and that the decision to procure organs can never interfere with efforts to preserve the patient’s life.

The Network for Hope investigation shows what happens when that safeguard breaks down.

Federal investigators found 73 patients showing neurological signs incompatible with organ donation.

They uncovered widespread procedural failures.

And in one case, a patient showing signs of life came close to having his organs removed before a doctor finally refused to continue.

Kennedy’s HHS is now moving to shut the organization out of the federal transplant system.

The findings expose a nightmare scenario that organ donors and their families should never have to contemplate: a system designed to save lives moving toward harvesting organs before a patient’s life is truly over.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/federal-investigation-finds-organs-harvested-living-patients/

And,

READ MORE – Canadian Doctors Push Chilling Plan to Euthanize Patients by Harvesting Their Organs

Blogger Comment: This is the relatively new Globalist killing field as it has only been in existence by western government for 10 years and is now the common situation throughout all western nations…for the Globalists had to introduce this because they knew that their experimental mRNA injections would over time kill billions within humanity and they needed this killing field to make insanely $trillions over time for themselves…this is how evil these ultra-rich globalists really are…soon you will start to fully realise this trusim of the highest order unless you are totally mentally brain dead…for my Swiss Charity based in Bern, Switzerland learnt exactly what was going on with these Globalist over a 5 year period when I was CEO and where we had two of them involved with the charity who spilled the proverbial beans, so we knew that it was factual and not untrue…

.

An 83-year-old Canadian grandmother was killed by lethal injection under the globalist Canadian government’s rapidly expanding euthanasia program after she had previously rejected “assisted suicide” because it violated her Christian faith, according to her devastated family.

Brigitte Stegemann died July 10 at The Pearl long-term care facility in Belleville, Ontario, under Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) system.

Her family says Stegemann was cognitively vulnerable, severely hearing-impaired, frequently lethargic, and gave incorrect answers to basic questions during the assessment used to declare her capable of consenting to her own death.

Even more disturbing, her relatives say Stegemann never gave the promised final verbal confirmation immediately before the lethal drugs were administered.

She simply remained silent.

The procedure went ahead anyway.

The family is now accusing the system of “clinical arrogance,” secrecy, and a catastrophic failure of safeguards designed to protect vulnerable patients from being euthanized without valid consent.

Christian Grandmother Had Already Rejected Euthanasia

Stegemann, affectionately known as “GG,” had lived at the Ontario facility for approximately two years.

Five months before her death, doctors diagnosed her with untreatable Stage IV stomach cancer.

Her granddaughter, also named Brigitte, held legal power of attorney and had acted as her grandmother’s principal caregiver and advocate for more than 12 years.

The facility routinely contacted the granddaughter over medications, medical treatments, and everyday care decisions.

Two months before Stegemann died, she was asked whether she wanted MAiD.

Her answer was clear.

According to the family’s statement, Stegemann “clearly stated that she did not wish to pursue it.”

Her Christian faith was central to that decision.

She opposed euthanasia and wanted to die naturally.

Yet while her granddaughter was away on a 10-day vacation, staff began discussing assisted suicide with Stegemann again behind closed doors.

Her family and advocate were not informed.

Family Says Vulnerable Woman Was Targeted While Advocate Was Away

The family says staff never adequately explained who reopened the euthanasia discussions or why they did so after Stegemann had already rejected MAiD.

The timing raised immediate alarm.

Stegemann suffered profound hearing loss.

She was completely deaf in her left ear and could hear only minimally through her right.

Her physical decline had also left her experiencing frequent periods of severe lethargy and unresponsiveness.

Nevertheless, formal assessments were conducted July 6 and 7.

The family said Stegemann suddenly appeared unusually alert during those assessments after spending days barely responsive.

Even then, serious warning signs emerged.

The evaluating physician repeatedly had to repeat questions because Stegemann could not hear them.

And when she did answer, she repeatedly got basic facts about her own life wrong.

She Could Not Correctly Identify Her Own Family

Asked whether she had siblings, Stegemann said she had none.

In reality, she was the second-youngest of 14 children.

She then claimed none of her siblings remained alive.

Some were still living.

She had spoken with one of them only the previous week.

Stegemann became disoriented and began crying.

“I forgot about the grandkids,” she said while confusing her surviving siblings with her great-grandchildren.

Her family says they were forced to correct most of her answers during the evaluation.

Her granddaughter directly challenged the doctor, demanding to know how an elderly woman unable to correctly identify her own immediate family could possibly be declared mentally capable of consenting to death.

Doctor Deemed Her Capable Anyway

According to the family, the physician described euthanasia to Stegemann using gentle language about receiving medication, experiencing peace, and falling asleep.

The doctor also reportedly reassured her that she “would not lose control of her bowels.”

The family was then ordered out of the room.

Stegemann’s granddaughter asked to remain because she held power of attorney and had served as her advocate for more than a decade.

The request was denied.

When the physician emerged, the decision had been made.

“I have deemed her capable of making her own decisions,” the doctor said, according to the family.

Stegemann had supposedly consented.

Her death was scheduled for July 10.

Death Date Was Set Before Paperwork Was Finished

The family later discovered another disturbing detail.

According to their account, Stegemann’s euthanasia date had already been arranged before the official MAiD paperwork was completed.

Facility employees, including the home’s manager, subsequently completed and witnessed the documents themselves.

The granddaughter was not informed despite visiting Stegemann every day.

On July 8, officials even attempted to move the euthanasia forward by an entire day because the physician suddenly had space available in her schedule.

The home manager admitted that she had personally completed the paperwork, according to the family.

A procedure supposedly centered entirely on the patient’s autonomous decision was being moved around to accommodate a doctor’s calendar.

Family Waited for Pastor Before Lethal Injection

On the morning Stegemann was scheduled to die, her family took her onto the patio for fresh air.

They gave her a scoop of her favorite strawberry ice cream.

They were waiting for her pastor.

Stegemann had made clear that she wanted her family around her and wanted her pastor present.

But according to her relatives, those wishes became secondary to maintaining the euthanasia schedule.

After Stegemann returned to her room, staff inserted an intravenous line.

Her family described an alarming amount of blood covering Stegemann, her bedding, and the surrounding area after the IV was placed.

Then the physician arrived.

She Stayed Silent; They Injected Her Anyway

The family says medical staff had repeatedly assured them that Stegemann would be required to give a final, explicit verbal confirmation immediately before she was euthanized.

That safeguard was critical.

It was supposed to establish that she still wanted to die at the precise moment the irreversible procedure began.

But when the time came, Stegemann did not say yes.

She did not verbally consent.

She remained silent, according to the family.

Her hands were held together in a prayer position.

The clinical team proceeded with the lethal injection anyway.

“Tragically, we were left alarmed and horrified when the clinical team completely ignored her silence and carried the procedure forward regardless,” the family said.

Stegemann was dead shortly afterward.

Family Condemns ‘Systemic Failure’

Stegemann’s relatives are now demanding accountability.

They describe her death as “a systemic failure driven by clinical arrogance, a total lack of transparency, and a blatant disregard for the safeguards meant to protect vulnerable patients.”

Their central question is devastatingly simple.

Stegemann had already said no.

She had explicitly rejected euthanasia because it violated her deeply held Christian beliefs.

Yet staff reopened the subject while the family member who had spent more than a decade advocating for her was out of town.

They privately reassessed a frail, hearing-impaired elderly woman who could not correctly answer questions about whether her own brothers and sisters were alive.

They excluded her legal advocate from the critical discussion.

They scheduled her death.

And when the final moment arrived, the family says the explicit verbal consent they had been promised never came.

She was euthanized anyway.

More Than 100,000 Canadians Have Now Died under MAiD

Canada legalized Medical Assistance in Dying in 2016.

The program has since expanded dramatically.

By April 2026, more than 100,000 people had already died through Canada’s state-sanctioned assisted-suicide system.

Supporters insist MAiD protects individual autonomy and allows suffering patients to choose the circumstances of their deaths.

Stegemann’s case exposes the nightmare that emerges when the person supposedly exercising that “choice” is elderly, seriously ill, cognitively impaired, unable to hear properly, and dependent on others to understand what is happening.

A Christian grandmother said she wanted to die naturally.

Months later, after private discussions held while her advocate was away, she was declared capable despite failing basic questions about her own family.

At the final moment, she reportedly did not verbally confirm that she wanted to die.

Canada’s euthanasia system killed her anyway.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/grandmother-euthanized-canadian-government-without-consent/

And,

READ MORE – Canadian Doctors Push Chilling Plan to Euthanize Patients by Harvesting Their Organs

Blogger Comment: These Ai centres are all part of the Globalist plan to destroy humanity within their 0ne-world govenment structure and make these titans of technology even richer than they are…these vast centres are one of the greatest cons on humanity, if not the greatest and the greatest destructive tool ever developed against humanity…where this will become extremly and perfectly clear once the Globalists have finished their deep deception and where the population of the world will dive by multi-billions combined with all their other globalist killing fields…the Globalists decided this malevolent plan against humanity over 120 years ago in earnest…

.

Americans are increasingly skeptical of the massive data centers being built to fuel the artificial intelligence boom, with a new nationwide poll finding that 70% of voters oppose constructing the facilities in their own communities.

Just 30% support local AI data center development, according to the latest Fox News survey.

The opposition comes as American technology companies race to expand computing capacity and compete with China for dominance in artificial intelligence.

But voters overwhelmingly prefer slowing construction to address concerns about electricity, water consumption, pollution, and the effect on surrounding communities.

Voters Reject AI Data Centers by 40-Point Margin

The poll found a 40-point gap between opponents and supporters of local data center projects.

MAGA supporters were the most receptive political group, with 46% favoring construction, followed by Republican men at 45%.

Opposition was highest among white college-educated women, 84% of whom rejected local data centers.

Liberal voters followed at 80% opposition.

Among those supporting the projects, 60% cited economic benefits such as jobs, tax revenue, investment, and regional growth.

Another 21% pointed to technological progress, describing data centers as necessary for the future.

Only 2% said staying ahead of foreign competitors was their primary reason for supporting rapid expansion.

Energy and Water Consumption Drive Opposition

Half of those opposing data centers cited environmental concerns as their main objection.

Those worries included the enormous amounts of electricity and water consumed by the facilities, as well as pollution, noise, and broader damage to the surrounding environment.

Another 14% cited quality-of-life concerns, 11% pointed to negative economic consequences, and 11% expressed broader hostility toward artificial intelligence.

The findings suggest Americans are not merely rejecting AI technology itself.

Many are objecting to being forced to absorb the local costs of the infrastructure needed to power it.

Nearly 80% Want Construction Slowed

Nearly eight in ten voters said data center development should proceed more slowly so that environmental and community concerns can be addressed.

Only two in ten supported building the facilities as quickly as possible to preserve America’s competitive advantage over China and other countries.

Majorities across every major political and demographic group supported slowing construction.

MAGA Republicans were among the most likely to favor rapid expansion, but even within that group, only 36% prioritized speed over local concerns.

Among voters identifying as very conservative, 35% supported faster construction.

Americans Remain Wary of AI

Artificial intelligence itself remains unpopular, though voters view the technology somewhat more favorably than the data centers powering it.

Overall, 45% of voters held a favorable opinion of AI, compared with 54% who viewed it unfavorably.

That represents a net rating of negative nine points, a slight improvement from negative 11 points in April.

MAGA Republicans were the most favorable toward AI, with 55% expressing a positive view.

Support was also higher among voters with graduate degrees, at 52%, conservatives at 50%, and men at 49%.

Just 41% of Democrats, 43% of voters without college degrees, 37% of liberals, and 40% of women viewed the technology favorably.

Younger Voters Are Most Hostile to AI

Despite their reputation for embracing new technology, voters under 30 were the least likely age group to view AI positively.

Only 38% of younger voters expressed a favorable opinion, compared with 48% of those between 30 and 44 and 44% of voters aged 45 and older.

Opposition to data centers, however, remained remarkably consistent across generations.

Roughly seven in ten voters in every age group opposed building one nearby, while approximately eight in ten favored slowing construction.

The results present a growing political problem for the AI industry.

Technology companies may view enormous data centers as essential to America’s economic and national security future.

Most voters view them as unwanted industrial projects that consume local resources, strain the power grid, and transform communities without their consent.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/vast-majority-americans-oppose-ai-data-centers-poll-shows/

And,

READ MORE – Meta AI Data Center Caught Pumping Deadly Bacteria into Town Water Supply

Blogger Comment: The Ideal ‘blackmail’ tool that can be used for all sirts of reasons and where these things like always, are soldon the benefits for uses, but where they are also criminal technionolgy to hold people to ransom and destroy family life..exactly what the Globalists have stated they want to do and break up the family unit where their controlled governments at the TOP, come their one-world government 2030, will enforce this destructive family plan and this technology will no doubt help greatly to do this, this evil side of the technology that the Globalists want to uleash on humanity is as always…pure evil

.

Smart glasses are rapidly emerging as the next major consumer technology battleground, with Meta leading the market as Google, Samsung, and Apple prepare competing AI-powered devices.

The glasses promise hands-free photos, live translation, AI assistance, and accessibility tools.

They also make it easier than ever to record people without their knowledge.

Unlike smartphones, which generally require someone to visibly raise and point a device, smart glasses can quietly capture photos, video, and audio from the wearer’s perspective.

That capability is fueling a growing debate over whether the convenience of AI-powered eyewear comes at the cost of everyone else’s privacy.

Concerns about privacy and surveillance were raised in a new report from Wired, which describes the tech as “creepy.”

Recording Without Reaching for a Phone

The appeal of smart glasses is straightforward.

Wearers can take photographs, film video, receive directions, communicate with AI assistants, translate conversations, and access information without holding a phone.

For people with disabilities, the technology could also provide valuable assistance in navigating daily life.

But the same design that makes the devices convenient also makes them difficult to detect.

A person standing nearby may have no obvious way of knowing whether a conversation is being recorded or whether a camera is pointed at them.

That creates opportunities for misuse in workplaces, schools, restaurants, public transportation, and private social settings.

Meta Relies on Recording Lights

Meta has attempted to address those concerns by installing indicator lights that activate when its glasses are recording.

The company has also introduced anti-tamper protections intended to prevent users from covering or disabling the light.

Questions remain, however, about whether those safeguards are sufficient.

A small light may be difficult to notice, particularly in bright environments or crowded public spaces.

Meta also briefly experimented with facial-recognition capabilities before abandoning the feature after it attracted scrutiny.

The episode demonstrated how easily smart glasses could move from passive recording devices to tools capable of identifying and tracking people in real time.

Backlash Grows Against Smart Glasses

Meanwhile, the growing backlash against the tech is making people think twice about wearing smart glasses in public, according to reports.

Social media posts regularly suggest that people who wear “pervert glasses” be punched in the face.

The criticism of eye-worn gadgets capable of surveillance isn’t new, though the online discourse seems to have intensified following the release of Meta’s latest cheaper lineup.

Reports of Meta-branded glasses being used to secretly film videos of women and children have been flooding social media, making people suspicious of the tech.

For whatever reason, this time the backlash seems to be having a real effect.

People who have previously purchased the frames now say they are using the product less often due to fears that people around them will assume they’re doing something “creepy.”

Privacy-Focused Alternatives Emerge

Some smaller manufacturers are attempting to distinguish their products by eliminating cameras entirely or adding physical lens covers.

Those designs are aimed at consumers who want access to AI assistance without turning every interaction into a potential recording session.

Privacy organizations argue voluntary safeguards may not be enough.

They have called for regulations requiring visible recording indicators that cannot be disabled, along with stronger legal protections for people captured by wearable devices.

Their concern is that consumer habits and technology are advancing faster than privacy law.

By the time smart glasses become commonplace, covert recording may already be normalized.

The Next Step in Oversharing

Consumers have shown little hesitation about adopting the devices.

Meta’s success suggests many buyers view the convenience as outweighing the risks.

That may say as much about modern culture as it does about the technology.

Millions of people already document their meals, workouts, vacations, relationships, and daily routines for social media.

Smart glasses simply remove the inconvenience of reaching into a pocket and pulling out a phone.

The technology may become enormously useful.

It may also create a world in which everyone must assume that every conversation, encounter, and embarrassing moment could be recorded.

The next consumer tech revolution is arriving on people’s faces.

Whether privacy survives it remains an open question.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/backlash-against-creepy-ai-smart-glasses-grows-surveillance-privacy-concerns/

And,

READ MORE – Meta Developing AI Bot to Read Bedtime Stories to Children Instead of ‘Tired’ Parents

Blogger Comment: This shows in a little way that the Democrats hierarchy and leadrship are against Christianity and Catholics in particular and where many of their voters will be of Catholic belief…sad that the American people are being duped…continually by these ‘very dark’ people and their political party…

.

Newly released internal FBI documents reveal that the Biden-era bureau relied so heavily on the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) that its own attorneys warned agents appeared to be treating the private activist organization like a government agency.

The records shed new light on the FBI’s infamous Richmond memorandum, which portrayed “radical traditionalist Catholics” as potential domestic violent extremists and proposed infiltrating Catholic communities to gather intelligence.

The FBI withdrew the memo after it triggered congressional investigations, an inquiry by the Justice Department inspector general, and accusations that the bureau was profiling Americans because of their religious beliefs.

Internal emails obtained through Freedom of Information Act litigation now show that senior FBI officials quickly recognized a central problem: agents had imported the SPLC’s political labels into a federal intelligence product without determining whether the organization’s standards were credible or consistent with the FBI’s own definitions.

FBI Lawyer Warned Agents Were Treating SPLC Like Government

The American Center for Law and Justice obtained the emails through litigation against the federal government.

In one message, an attorney with the FBI’s Office of General Counsel raised concerns about the bureau’s relationship with the SPLC.

“It seems that some of our folks may be equating a third-party organization with another government organization, and perhaps we need to remind the workforce about non-governmental organizations,” the attorney wrote.

The ACLJ called the admission evidence of a dangerous ideological relationship inside the federal government.

“That statement in and of itself is a remarkably dangerous implication of the Deep State,” the organization said.

The Richmond memo relied on SPLC material to associate traditionalist Catholic beliefs with extremism, including the organization’s declaration that such Catholics “may make up the largest single group of serious anti-Semites in America.”

FBI Leadership Identified ‘Fatal Flaw’

The newly released records show that FBI intelligence officials questioned whether agents had performed even basic scrutiny of the SPLC’s claims.

Tonya Ugoretz, then-assistant director of the FBI’s Directorate of Intelligence, warned colleagues that the bureau had relied on the organization’s subjective list of alleged hate groups without examining how those designations were made.

“With respect to sourcing (in particular, SPLC): SPLC has been a source for statistics and data not otherwise available to law enforcement,” Ugoretz wrote.

“However, this product cites more subjective information from SPLC (a list of hate groups) without examining SPLC’s threshold for determining a hate group or explanation of how that threshold aligns with the FBI’s definition.”

The ACLJ said the records expose the “fatal flaw” behind the Catholic-targeting memo.

“The FBI appears to have imported the conclusions of a private advocacy organization without first performing the basic analytic work necessary to determine whether those conclusions satisfied federal law enforcement standards,” the group said.

SPLC Labels Conservative Christians ‘Hate Groups’

The SPLC has routinely placed conservative and Christian organizations on its “hate group” lists when they oppose the organization’s positions on abortion, gender ideology, marriage, and sexuality.

The Family Research Council has remained among the groups targeted by those labels.

In 2012, a gunman who later admitted he intended to carry out a mass shooting at the organization’s headquarters used the SPLC’s website to identify the group.

Despite that history, the Biden FBI relied on the SPLC while assessing whether Catholic Americans could pose an extremist threat.

The internal records further reveal that agents considered using Catholic churches and religious communities as potential avenues for intelligence collection.

ACLJ: FBI Cannot Outsource Judgment to Left-Wing Activists

The ACLJ argued that private political organizations are free to publish partisan reports and condemn groups they oppose, but federal law enforcement cannot treat those conclusions as verified intelligence.

“Private organizations are free to publish reports, promote political positions, and label other groups as they see fit,” the organization said.

“But their conclusions are not judicial findings.

“They are not official intelligence assessments.

“And they cannot substitute for independently verified evidence of criminal conduct.”

The group warned that the FBI’s conduct crossed a constitutional line by allowing a private left-wing organization to shape intelligence gathering against religious Americans.

“Federal law enforcement must investigate criminal conduct — not disfavored theology, traditional religious practice, or constitutionally protected political beliefs,” the ACLJ said.

“The FBI cannot outsource its judgment to a private far-Left ideological organization and then use that organization’s subjective labels to justify intelligence collection involving churches and religious communities.”

The Richmond memo was withdrawn after the FBI admitted it failed to meet bureau standards.

The newly released emails now show why.

Under the Biden administration, the FBI did not merely consult a partisan activist group.

Its own lawyers feared agents had begun treating the SPLC as though it were part of the government.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/documents-biden-fbi-treated-far-left-splc-government-agency-targeting-catholics/

And,

READ MORE – New Audio Confirms Biden’s Degraded Mental State

Blogger Comment: Just a small look into the inner mindset of the multi-billionaire Globalists and what they do in reality turning a blind eye to others, even though it may end up in their deaths…thats the tip of the iceberg here and where the vast underbelly is full of continuous malevolent actions against humanity…and thet are happening right bnow night and day…

.

The crew aboard Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s luxury superyacht ignored repeated distress calls from a stranded boat off the coast of Alaska, leaving the vessel to wait for a passing cruise ship to rescue it.

Zuckerberg’s yacht failed to answer the maritime assistance call despite reportedly being closer to the vessel than the ship that ultimately came to its rescue.

The incident unfolded last week after a small skiff ran out of fuel in Southeast Alaska and called the U.S. Coast Guard for help.

Zuckerberg’s massive yacht, Launchpad, was nearby.

But according to witnesses aboard another vessel, the billionaire’s yacht did not respond to repeated Coast Guard radio calls.

Instead, a small cruise ship called the Wilderness Legacy stepped in, towing the stranded boat into Farragut Bay and providing fuel.

The incident triggered outrage among passengers when they were told that Zuckerberg’s yacht had been closer but ignored the call.

Mark Zuckerberg faces questions after his $300 million superyacht reportedly declined to help stranded boat

A nearby boat ran out of fuel in Alaska and reportedly received no response from Zuckerberg’s yacht after repeated calls for help pic.twitter.com/MZysFKefF9

— non aesthetic things (@PicturesFoIder) August 9, 2026

Cruise Passengers Boo after Hearing Zuckerberg Yacht Failed to Respond

Michael Love, a passenger aboard the Wilderness Legacy, described the incident in a social media post.

“I’m on a small-ship Alaska cruise with my son,” Love wrote on Bluesky on August 5.

“Our boat rescued a stranded vessel last night, and apparently we did that after the Coast Guard radioed Mark Zuckerberg’s yacht—which was closer—and they repeatedly refused to respond.”

Love said the announcement did not go over well with passengers.

“There was near-unanimous booing when the captain announced this,” he added.

The Alaska Beacon reported that the stranded skiff had contacted the Coast Guard before the Wilderness Legacy ultimately rendered assistance.

The cruise ship towed the boat into nearby Farragut Bay and refueled it.

Maritime Law Requires Ships to Assist Vessels in Distress

Maritime law places a longstanding duty on ship captains to assist people in distress at sea when they can do so without seriously endangering their own vessel, crew, or passengers.

That obligation exists because emergencies on open water can rapidly turn deadly.

A disabled vessel can drift into dangerous conditions, become stranded far from shore, or leave its occupants exposed to weather and cold.

Zuckerberg’s yacht was reportedly closer to the skiff than the vessel that ultimately responded.

Yet Launchpad did not provide the assistance.

Zuckerberg Spokesperson Blames Radio Channel

A spokesperson for Zuckerberg disputed the suggestion that the yacht’s crew knowingly refused to help.

The spokesperson told the Alaska Beacon that the crew initially failed to hear the Coast Guard’s request because it came over a different radio channel from the one they were monitoring.

“Mark and his family were not on board at the time of the incident,” the spokesperson said.

“As the Coast Guard noted, the boat was not in distress, and by the time the crew reviewed the Coast Guard contact on a different radio channel from the one they were operating on, the assist was already underway.”

“We’re grateful all parties are safe.”

The explanation means Zuckerberg himself was not aboard the yacht when the incident occurred.

But it also confirms that Launchpad did not respond until another vessel was already carrying out the rescue.

Another Ship Stepped Up

Whatever caused the breakdown in communication aboard Zuckerberg’s yacht, the stranded boat was ultimately helped because another captain responded.

The Wilderness Legacy diverted to the skiff, took it under tow, brought it into Farragut Bay, and supplied the fuel its occupants needed.

Zuckerberg’s superyacht arrived too late to be of assistance.

The incident presents a striking contrast.

One of the most expensive private yachts in the world was reportedly closer to a stranded boat requesting help.

But when assistance actually arrived, it came from someone else.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/mark-zuckerberg-superyacht-ignored-distress-call-nearby-stranded-boat/

And,

READ MORE – Meta AI Data Center Caught Pumping Deadly Bacteria into Town Water Supply

Blogger Comment: The Globalist’s and UK government’s primary mouthpiece needs someone to show them up for what they really are…a Globalist brainwashing machine under the guise of a so-called people’s truth news outlet, but where that would be a complete lie and which it is clearly, based upon on historical facts and what insider whistleblowers have stated over decades, but suppressed of course by this Globalist mouthpiece…

.

President Donald Trump scored a significant legal victory Monday in his $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC after a federal judge allowed him to amend his complaint over the broadcaster’s controversial editing of his January 6, 2021 speech.

U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman granted Trump’s request for leave to file a First Amended Complaint in Trump v. British Broadcasting Corporation, rejecting the BBC’s effort to block the move.

The ruling also rendered the BBC’s existing motion to dismiss the case “moot,” forcing the broadcaster to respond to Trump’s revised allegations once they are filed.

Trump sued the BBC in December in his personal capacity, accusing the broadcaster of defamation and violating Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

He is seeking $5 billion under each claim, for a total of $10 billion in damages.

Judge Rejects BBC Challenge to Trump’s Amended Lawsuit

Trump’s attorneys sought permission to revise the original complaint, while the BBC argued that the president had missed the applicable deadline.

The broadcaster also accused Trump’s legal team of using the amendment strategically to avoid financial disclosures.

Altman rejected the BBC’s objections and gave Trump permission to move forward with the revised complaint.

Trump’s legal team celebrated the decision as a major step forward in the case.

“Today’s strong and thoughtful ruling is a major win for President Trump’s powerhouse lawsuit against the formerly respected and now disgraced BBC, which defamed President Trump by intentionally, maliciously and deceptively doctoring his speech in a brazen attempt to interfere in the 2024 Presidential Election,” a spokesman for Trump’s legal team said.

“President Trump is holding the leftist BBC, along with all of its comrades in the mainstream media, accountable for their peddling of Fake News through deception and maliciously defamatory conduct.”

BBC Documentary Spliced Trump Remarks Together

The lawsuit centers on the BBC’s 2024 “Panorama” documentary, “Trump: A Second Chance?”

The documentary featured an edited version of Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech that combined remarks delivered nearly an hour apart.

The resulting sequence made it appear that Trump told supporters they were going to walk to the Capitol and “fight like hell” as part of a continuous statement.

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol,” Trump was shown saying in the documentary.

“And I’ll be there with you. And we fight — we fight like hell.”

But that was not how Trump delivered the remarks.

Trump actually said: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol.

“And we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness.

“You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

Trump did not use the phrase “fight like hell” until 54 minutes later, when he was speaking about fighting for election integrity.

The BBC documentary stitched the separate statements together without informing viewers of the lengthy gap between them.

The clip also included fake sounds to make the crowd appear more menacing.

Whistleblower Exposed Editing Controversy

The controversy exploded after The Telegraph published excerpts from a whistleblower dossier compiled by Michael Prescott, a communications adviser hired by the BBC to examine its editorial standards.

Prescott’s dossier raised concerns about the integrity of the documentary’s editing and revealed how the two separate portions of Trump’s speech had been combined.

The resulting footage created the impression that Trump’s language about marching to the Capitol flowed directly into his “fight like hell” remark.

Trump’s lawsuit argues that the editing fundamentally distorted what he actually said and damaged his reputation.

His lawyers have also accused the broadcaster of acting maliciously and attempting to influence voters during the 2024 presidential campaign.

BBC Leadership Resigned Following Scandal

The fallout ultimately reached the top levels of the British broadcaster.

BBC CEO Deborah Turness and Director-General Tim Davie resigned last year amid the controversy surrounding the documentary and broader questions about the organization’s editorial practices.

Trump has repeatedly accused the BBC and other legacy media organizations of manipulating coverage to damage him politically.

His lawsuit seeks to turn those complaints into one of the largest media defamation cases in recent memory.

Trump Still Seeking $10 Billion

Trump must file his amended complaint by Monday.

The revised lawsuit is expected to place greater emphasis on the personal reputational damage Trump says he suffered from the BBC’s broadcast.

He continues to seek $10 billion in total damages.

Monday’s ruling does not determine whether Trump will ultimately prevail on the merits of his defamation claims, and the BBC will be permitted to file another motion seeking dismissal of the amended complaint.

But the broadcaster failed in its attempt to stop Trump from rewriting and strengthening his case.

Its previous dismissal motion has now been wiped off the board.

And the BBC will soon have to confront a new version of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit over a documentary that stitched together remarks delivered 54 minutes apart and presented them to viewers as though they were one continuous statement.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/trump-scores-legal-victory-10-billion-bbc-lawsuit-doctored-jan-6-speech/

And,

READ MORE – Documents Reveal Biden FBI Treated Far-Left SPLC as Government Agency While Targeting Catholics

Blogger Comment: This is just a single way that Ai destroys humanity and where food is just one of the primary ways that the Globalists can eventually reduce the population of humanity by nearly 8000 milion to around 400 million that they have stated time and time again behind closed doors and mainly in Davos…

.

A farmer has been left devastated after an artificial intelligence farming bot he trusted to make critical agricultural decisions destroyed 25 acres of healthy crops.

The disaster unfolded in Chuzhou, China, where a 67-year-old farmer identified only by his surname, Wu, had spent nearly a year relying on a large language model to help run his farm.

At first, the AI appeared to work.

Wu reportedly used the chatbot for fertilizing advice, scheduling, and other routine decisions.

But after months of successful recommendations, he trusted the system with something far more consequential.

The AI “famer” gave Wu a pesticide plan and convinced him it would boost the crops.

However, that decision wiped out an entire field of sesame seedlings.

Farmer Followed AI Pesticide Plan ‘To The Letter’

According to Taiwanese outlet CTWANT, Wu had initially been skeptical about allowing AI to influence his farming decisions.

Early successes changed his mind.

He eventually began depending on the chatbot for everything from fertilizer recommendations to planning daily agricultural work.

Then the AI “farmer” generated a new pesticide treatment for roughly 25 acres of young sesame crops.

Wu followed the instructions exactly.

He did not consult an agricultural expert and did not independently verify the chemical combination.

He simply trusted the AI “farmer.”

AI Mixed Multiple Powerful Chemicals

The chatbot reportedly instructed Wu to combine several agricultural chemicals, including flupyridine, flufenazate, thiamethoxam, and emamectin benzoate.

The treatment was supposed to eliminate weeds and pests.

Instead, it destroyed the crop.

Within a day of spraying the field, Wu said the young sesame plants began withering and dying.

“If you spray it, the next day the seedlings won’t survive,” Wu said in a video interview later translated by Tom’s Hardware.

“Both the grass and the seedlings will die, and the seedlings will die even faster.”

25 Acres Wiped Out

The chemical treatment did exactly what Wu had hoped it would not do.

It killed the weeds.

It also killed the crop.

Roughly 25 acres of sesame seedlings were destroyed.

The incident turned months of successful AI-assisted farming into a costly warning about what can happen when a chatbot is handed authority over real-world decisions with no human expert checking its work.

AI Errors Keep Escaping Into Real World

Wu’s disaster is the latest example of AI-generated decisions producing serious consequences outside a computer screen.

Large language models have already been blamed for inaccurate or fabricated outputs in law, medicine, finance, education, and media.

Now agriculture has joined the list.

The difference is that a bad answer on a screen can be deleted.

A bad pesticide plan spread across 25 acres cannot.

Wu trusted the chatbot because it had been right before.

That trust was enough to make him follow its instructions without a second opinion.

By the next day, his crop was dying.

Human Oversight Still Matters

The episode exposes the danger of treating AI systems as autonomous experts rather than tools.

The chatbot was able to generate plausible agricultural recommendations.

It was not able to guarantee that those recommendations were safe.

And once Wu acted on them, the consequences were immediate.

One wrong answer destroyed 25 acres of healthy produce.

The lesson could hardly be clearer.

AI may be able to help run a farm.

It should not be allowed to run one alone.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/ai-farmer-completely-destroys-25-acres-crops/

And,

READ MORE – Scientists Use AI to Create Entirely New Viruses as Experts Warn of ‘Serious Harm’