Sunday, July 19, 2026

Could The Backlash Against Artificial Intelligence Turn Violent?


Could The Backlash Against Artificial Intelligence Turn Violent?
PNW STAFF

The warning signs are no longer hypothetical.

An alleged attempted firebombing of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's home. Death threats against executives at Anthropic. Online manifestos calling for the killing of AI leaders. Security teams escorting tech executives with armed protection. Threat-monitoring firms reporting a dramatic surge in violent rhetoric aimed at artificial intelligence companies and their massive data centers.

Just a few years ago, this would have sounded like science fiction.

Today, it is becoming reality.

Artificial intelligence is advancing at breathtaking speed, promising medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, economic growth, and productivity gains unlike anything seen since the Industrial Revolution. But for a growing number of people, AI represents something far different--a direct threat to their jobs, their communities, and perhaps even the future of human society.

That growing divide is creating one of the most significant cultural and political battles of the coming decade.


To dismiss AI critics as simply anti-technology would be a mistake.

Many of their concerns are legitimate.

Entire professions are already being transformed. Writers, programmers, graphic designers, customer-service representatives, legal researchers, translators, accountants, and even medical professionals are discovering that AI can now perform work that once required years of education and experience.

History tells us new technologies eventually create new industries and new opportunities.

It also tells us the transition can be painful.

When people believe their livelihoods are disappearing, they rarely celebrate progress. As Palantir CEO Alex Karp recently observed, tell someone their job is about to disappear, and "people go for the pitchfork."

The Data Center Wars

The conflict isn't only about jobs.

It is increasingly about the enormous infrastructure required to power artificial intelligence.

Modern AI data centers consume staggering amounts of electricity and water. Proposed facilities have sparked opposition from residents worried about strained water supplies, increased electricity demand, environmental impacts, loss of farmland, and neighborhoods transformed by sprawling industrial campuses.

Some communities are also pushing back against rising property values fueled by tech investment, fearing they'll be priced out of the very places they've called home for generations.

To AI companies, these facilities represent the foundation of tomorrow's economy.

To many residents, they represent billion-dollar corporations consuming local resources while ordinary people bear the costs.

Those competing visions are setting the stage for increasingly bitter political battles.


A New Technology Divide

Supporters see AI as humanity's next great leap forward.

They envision faster medical discoveries, safer transportation, personalized education, greater productivity, and economic growth that could improve billions of lives.

Critics see something else entirely.

They worry about mass unemployment, deepfake deception, surveillance, concentrated corporate power, autonomous weapons, and a future where humans become increasingly dependent on machines they neither understand nor control.

Neither side is entirely wrong.

AI is likely to produce extraordinary benefits while also creating extraordinary disruption.

The problem is that both are likely to happen at the same time.


Could The Conflict Escalate?

Most opposition to AI will remain peaceful.

But history reminds us that major technological revolutions rarely unfold without resistance.

Today it's death threats and Molotov cocktails.

Tomorrow it could be sabotaged data centers, blocked construction projects, damaged power infrastructure, or organized campaigns designed to halt AI expansion altogether. Around the world, infrastructure projects--from pipelines to power plants--have become flashpoints for years of protests and, in some cases, vandalism. There is little reason to assume AI facilities will be immune.

Imagine entire regions losing thousands of white-collar jobs over just a few years. Imagine AI companies simultaneously announcing record profits while building massive campuses that consume local land, water, and electricity.

The ingredients for a long-term political movement--and perhaps a far more confrontational one--are already visible.

Some have even begun asking a once-unthinkable question: could AI someday contribute to a form of civil conflict?


That should not be understood as a prediction. There is no evidence society is on the brink of armed conflict over artificial intelligence.

But technological revolutions have repeatedly intensified existing social and political divisions. If millions of people conclude that AI has permanently eliminated their careers while concentrating wealth and power into the hands of a few companies, resentment could grow into something far larger than today's isolated acts of violence.

Ironically, the conflict would never truly be humans versus robots.

It would be humans versus other humans, divided over what kind of civilization they want to build--and whether AI should define it.

The AI revolution is almost certainly coming.

The real question is not whether the technology will change civilization--it will. The question is whether society adapts, regulates, and benefits from that change, or whether fear, anger, and economic upheaval fuel an escalating backlash against those building it.

Every great technological revolution has created both winners and losers.

Artificial intelligence may create them faster than any revolution before it.

If that happens, the battle over AI may no longer be fought primarily in corporate boardrooms or legislative chambers--but in neighborhoods, at construction sites, and perhaps even in the streets.


Mississippi Mayor Allegedly Tells Resident To “Consider Selling” Home Amid Noise Complaints About Plant Powering Nearby Data Centers

Mississippi Mayor Allegedly Tells Resident To “Consider Selling” Home Amid Noise Complaints About Plant Powering Nearby Data Centers

Residents of a Mississippi town are voicing fierce opposition to a plant that powers data centers operated by Elon Musk’s xAI, alleging that “near-constant” noise is causing harmful physical and psychological health effects.

One Southaven resident said the plant is so loud that it keeps her and her family awake at night.

She said a full night’s sleep is rare.

Multiple residents who live near the plant have filed a lawsuit against xAI.

A separate lawsuit filed by the NAACP and others alleges the Southaven plant emits “significant amounts of harmful pollutants from its gas turbines.”One resident, Jason Haley, made noise complaints about the plant to Musselwhite and shared the email exchange with CBS News.

Haley said he reached out to Musselwhite and urged him to drive through the neighborhood “and take a listen to the constant high pitch noises.”

“I am aware of the noise and working on a solution with xAI officials,” Musselwhite responded, according to CBS News.

“It is a problem,” he said in another email.

However, Haley reached back out to Musselwhite.

“Anyone else I can reach out to?” Haley asked Musselwhite.

“It’s almost 4 am and I can hear it from my bed. The high pitch and roaring combined is full force at this time. My ears are ringing. I can’t live in this. How was this ever approved?” Haley wrote, according to the outlet.

CBS News shared further:

When he emailed Musselwhite about the noise again in December, his message came with a disclosure: “I am not a republican or democrat, I don’t care that this is Elon’s project. I didn’t know whose it was when I started complaining about the noise that started in August.”

Musselwhite responded a few days later.

“As I mentioned to you in the public meeting, you seem to be a reasonable person,” he said. “I will give you some unsolicited advice from an older man, be careful with whom you associate so you don’t damage your credibility.”

By January, xAI was expanding its footprint with a third data center in Southaven, MACROHARDDR. As residents like Haley continued pushing back online and in city meetings, Musselwhite had a new message.

Southaven, he said in a Facebook post, was “under attack by all who choose to oppose Elon Musk because of his high-profile political stances.” He warned residents to “beware of the smokescreen of radical politics.”

In his emails to Haley, Musselwhite continued to acknowledge the noise as a problem.

“The noise issue is one of my highest priorities and I have been in detailed discussions with xAI and many independent professionals to resolve this,” he wrote in March.

But in the same email, he offered Haley more advice: “I know they want houses for employees, so you may want to consider selling your home.”

More...


US Strikes Take Out 116 Telecoms Towers In Southern Iran


US Strikes Take Out 116 Telecoms Towers In Southern Iran
 TYLER DURDEN


Communications and even the supply of drinking water has been severely impacted in some places of southern Iran, amid continuing US airstrikes on civic and national infrastructure, amid the seventh consecutive day of war.

"Hormozgan’s chief of communications and information technology says the US's overnight attacks disrupted telecommunications in Bandar Abbas and Hajiabad, in the northern part of the province," Al Jazeera reports

Authorities there have tallied at least 116 telecommunication towers which were taken out of service due to the US onslaught. This has resulted in outages and disruptions of fixed-line, mobile, and internet services, per Tasnim news agency.

This suggests the US is returning to a strategy which seeks to create destabilization within, targeting the ability of the public to communicate and access information, returning the situation to the early weeks of the war, which saw Tehran authorities themselves curb internet and some telecoms access for the citizenry.

It might also be that the US simply perceives infrastructure like telecommunications towers as utilized chiefly by the government and military, in a dual-use way, and so is ready to punish entire swathes of the country in order to cripple this ability.

It could be Washington still maintains the fantasy of fomenting a mass uprising against government leadership by imposing as much daily hardship and disruption, and economic pain as possible. Of course, the biggest squeeze is the blockade of Iranian ports and disallowing the country's ability to sell oil.

The Wall Street Journal this week observed that it will continue to be ordinary Iranians feeling the immense strain:

Iran’s economy is already buckling under the combined weight of years of sanctions and soaring inflation. The conflict has intensified those pressures by damaging factories, disrupting trade and payments, shutting down internet access and further weakening the currency.

Consumer prices in June were up 88.6% from a year earlier, according to official statistics. Just in the first few days of July, the price of a tray of eggs in Tehran shot up by 40%, to the equivalent of $3.30, according to Iran’s Fars news agency, which is close to the paramilitary Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

It seems the US wants to create the conditions of a return to the January economic protests, which resulted in thousands of deaths, which involved protesters and rioters clashing with police and security services, the latter which suffered deaths too as clearly some of the anti-government elements were armed.

According to more of the Iranian economy's spiral via the WSJ report:

Iran’s gross domestic product is expected to shrink by 5.4% this year, according to forecasts by the International Monetary Fund prepared before the recent uptick in fighting. 

According to Kahalzadeh’s calculations, only the top 3% of Iranian households are able to afford the full food basket recommended by Iranian health officials. Many families are buying basic groceries like rice, meat and pasta on credit via a government program. Others are eliminating meat from meals and purchasing staples one at a time as their wages lose value.


Meanwhile the war on infrastructure is only growing more aggressive and somewhat unprecedented. Power is one thing, but going after the population's water supply?...

"Iranian authorities also said the supply of drinking water to several villages in the south had been cut off, accusing the US of striking power facilities and desalination plant pumps in the village of Bonji, according to Tasnim," Al Jazeera writes.


Already Iranians nationwide have been urged to conserve electricity - for example by switching off air conditioners during peak hours, amid an ongoing severe strain on the power grid. Things look to get a lot worse for Iranians, and the outlook for broader war, before they get better.


US to send dozens of aerial refueling tankers to Israel


Israel prepares for possible escalation with Iran in coming days


Tensions between Iran and the US are rising rapidly, and Israel's political and military leadership is preparing for a possible escalation that could draw the country into the confrontation as early as this week.

Against the backdrop of the growing tensions, dozens of US military refueling aircraft have landed in Israel in recent days and deployed to Israeli Air Force bases in the country's south.

The report comes amid an escalation in US attacks on Iranian targets in recent days in response to Iranian strikes on ships in the Strait of Hormuz, which violated a memorandum of understanding signed by Washington and Tehran.

The presence of US refueling tankers at Ben Gurion International Airport has caused tensions in Israel in recent days. Transportation Minister Miri Regev ordered 13 US tankers parked at the airport to be relocated to prevent disruptions to civilian flights carrying Israeli passengers.

The decision was intended to limit the number of tankers allowed to remain at the airport to 20, enabling civilian flights to operate normally during the peak August travel season.

Senior officials at US Central Command objected to the decision, arguing that it undermined the US military's operational requirements in a war in which Israel has a clear strategic interest.

Trump said earlier this week that unless Iran announced that it was reopening the Strait of Hormuz and returning to negotiations, the United States would attack bridges and power plants in the country. As part pf these attacks, a communications tower that formed part of Iran's surveillance network over the Gulf of Oman was struck overnight.


The 'Climate Lockdown' Origin Story





If you look up “climate lockdown” with Google – or some off-brand Google substitute that pretends to independence until it actually matters – you will be greeted with an AI summary that begins:

A “climate lockdown” is a widespread conspiracy theory alleging that governments and global elites plan to use climate change as a pretext to impose COVID-style restrictions, strictly control populations, and permanently limit personal freedoms.

It’s a lie.

The AI goes on to say “first appeared on social media in early 2020, shortly after COVID-19 lockdowns were initiated”. That’s a lie too.

The term originated in a report written by an economist who worked for the World Heath Organization, the report to which the below article (originally published June 2021) was a response.

Although pitched as “avoiding a climate lockdown”, the report could more accurately be described as “floating the idea of a climate lockdown”. The idea was rejected. And rejected hard. Millions of “conspiracy theorists” came together to smother it in its cradle, and it worked. It was smothered.

These days “climate lockdowns” are only written about as a phantom of the diseased anti-vaxxer, covid-sceptic, climate denier mind.

Pieces like this one, from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government “misinfo review”:

The climate lockdown conspiracy

Or this, from the European Digital Media Observatory:

How “Climate lockdowns” conspiracy theories target authorities undertaking climate action

These are lies. Absolute, weapons-grade post-hoc coping mechanisms.

Make no mistake, if OffG hadn’t published this article, and dozens of other outlets hadn’t published their own, and millions of people hadn’t informed themselves and made themselves heard, not only would climate lockdowns definitely be a thing, we’d probably be in the middle of one right now.

If and when the powers-that-be decide to move on from their pandemic narrative, lockdowns won’t be going anywhere. Instead, it looks like they’ll be rebranded as “climate lockdowns”, and either enforced or simply held threateningly over the public’s head.

At least, according to an article written by an employee of the WHO, and published by a mega-coporate think-tank.

Let’s dive right in.

THE REPORT’S AUTHOR AND BACKERS

The report, titled “Avoiding a climate lockdown”, was written byMariana Mazzucato, a professor of economics at University College London, and head of something called the Council on the Economics of Health for All, a division of the World Health Organization.

It was first published in October 2020 by Project Syndicate, a non-profit media organization that is (predictably) funded through grants from the Open society Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and many, many others.


After that, it was picked up and republished by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), which describes itself as “a global, CEO-led organization of over 200 leading businesses working together to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world.”.

The WBCSD’s membership is essentially every major company in the world, including Chevron, BP, Bayer, Walmart, Google and Microsoft. Over 200 members totalling well over 8 TRILLION dollars in annual revenue.

In short: an economist who works for the WHO has written a report concerning “climate lockdowns”, which has been published by both a Gates+Soros backed NGO AND a group representing almost every bank, oil company and tech giant on the planet.

Whatever it says, it clearly has the approval of the people who run the world.

The text of the report itself is actually quite craftily constructed. It doesn’t outright argue for climate lockdowns, but instead discusses ways “we” can prevent them.

As CV spread […] governments introduced lockdowns in order to prevent a public-health emergency from spinning out of control. In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again – this time to tackle a climate emergency […] To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.

This cleverly creates a veneer of arguing against them, whilst actually pushing the a priori assumptions that any so-called “climate lockdowns” would a) be necessary and b) be effective. Neither of which has ever been established.

Another thing the report assumes is some kind of causal link between the environment and the “pandemic”:

I wrote an article, back in April, exploring the media’s persistent attempts to link the CV “pandemic” with climate change. Everybody from the Guardian to the Harvard School of Public Healthis taking the same position – “The root cause of pandemics [is] the destruction of nature”:

The razing of forests and hunting of wildlife is increasingly bringing animals and the microbes they harbour into contact with people and livestock.

There is never any scientific evidence cited to support this position. Rather, it is a fact-free scare-line used to try and force a mental connection in the public, between visceral self-preservation (fear of disease) and concern for the environment. It is as transparent as it is weak.

So, what exactly is a “climate lockdown”? And what would it entail?

The author is pretty clear:

Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling.

There you have it. A “climate lockdown” means no more red meat, the government setting limits on how and when people use their private vehicles and further (unspecified) “extreme energy-saving measures”. It would likely include previously suggested bans on air travel, too.

As for forcing fossil fuel companies to stop drilling, that is drenched in the sort of ignorance of practicality that only exists in the academic world. Supposing we can switch to entirely rely on renewables for energy, we still wouldn’t be able to stop drilling for fossil fuels.


Oil isn’t just used as fuel, it’s also needed to lubricate engines and manufacture chemicals and plastics. Plastics used in the manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels, for example.

Coal isn’t just needed for power stations, but also to make steel. Steel which is vital to pretty much everything humans do in the modern world.