reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, is described as saying that building the biggest AI data centers in the United States will require “trillions of dollars” of capital, and that governments cannot build them alone due to lack of resources and growing deficits. The transcript claims these data centers are being built without public approval and without public input. A Utah data center is highlighted as an example: the Stratus Data Center in the empty desert of northwestern Utah near Snowville, close to the Idaho border. The project is said to be pushed by Kevin O’Leary. It is described as being more than twice the size of Manhattan and as potentially needing up to three gigawatts of electricity, compared to the output of multiple nuclear reactors. Environmental groups are said to warn it could raise Utah’s planet-warming pollution by nearly fifty percent, and that its power systems could consume up to 16.6 billion gallons of water per year—enough to fill around 25,000 Olympic swimming pools—despite being in one of the driest states in America. The transcript also uses multiple size comparisons (including San Francisco, Disneyland, Disney World, Paris, suburban house lots, Los Angeles to Central Texas, and football fields) and adds that it could raise daytime temperatures by five degrees and nighttime temperatures by 28 degrees. The project is characterized as an “ecological disaster.” The transcript then shifts to a “very emotionally charged” meeting in Box Elder County. Box Elder County commissioners are said to have moved to approve the Sprouts project after protests outside, a crowded exhibit hall, multiple interruptions, and then shifting to a smaller room and broadcasting to Zoom, which upset people. Commissioners are described as saying the county’s land is not zoned, limiting their ability to stop the project, and that approving it allowed them to obtain concessions from the developer. Finally, the transcript questions what so much data would be for, suggests it could be intended for the largest, most expensive AI surveillance system in human history, and links that idea to a claim that Trump and other billionaires traveled to China weeks earlier for deals or negotiations related to AI surveillance, framing this as a conspiracy idea.

An environmental lawsuit was just filed against the city of Lakeville over a potential hidden data center. Not to mention this is being built right next to Lakeville South High School. The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy claims that the city violated state environmental law by conducting a review of a 1,360,000 square foot development without disclosing it's likely a data center. This matters because data centers have unique environmental impacts. The lawsuit points to 2,500,000 gallons of daily water use, noises from computers and ventilation, and a developer specializing in data centers as evidence that the city knew what this really was. MCEA wants the court to halt all development and require a full environmental impact statement.

- Indianapolis residents organized to stop Google's proposed $1,000,000,000 AI data center on a 500-acre site, which reportedly would have used 1,000,000 gallons of water per day. Google withdrew its petition to build, preventing a city council vote. Community members described the victory as “we beat Google,” while warning the fight isn’t over and noting tactics used by a secretive tech company in Saint Charles, Missouri. Residents voiced fears about water supply, contamination, and rising electricity costs, with one farmer stressing the risk to livelihoods if water is unavailable. - The victory was celebrated as a win for community power, though participants cautioned that Google could reappear with a new plan in a few months. The broader context included concerns that big tech seeks data centers in communities, potentially impacting water and energy prices, and the possibility of revisiting projects once opposition fades. - An NPR overview on America’s AI industry highlighted concerns about data centers depleting local water supplies for cooling, driving up electricity bills, and worsening climate change if powered by fossil fuels. The IEA warns climate pollution from power plants serving data centers could more than double by 2035. In the Great Lakes region, water utilities, industry, and power plants draw from a shared resource; questions arise about how much more water the lakes can provide for data centers and associated power needs. - Examples cited include Georgia where residents reported drinking-water problems after a nearby data center was built; Arizona cities restricting water deliveries to high-demand facilities. The Data Center Coalition notes efforts to reduce water use through evaporative cooling versus closed-loop systems; a Google data center in Georgia reportedly uses treated wastewater for cooling and returns it to the Chattahoochee River. There is a push toward waterless cooling, with a balancing act described: more electricity to cool means less water, and vice versa. - Rising electricity bills are a major concern as data centers increase power demand. A UCS analysis found that in 2024, homes and businesses in several states faced $4.3 billion in additional costs from transmission projects needed to deliver power to data centers. The dialogue includes questioning why centers aren’t built along coastlines where desalination could be used at the companies’ own expense, arguing inland siting imposes greater resource strain on residents. - Financial concerns extend to tax incentives for data centers. GoodJobsFirst.org reports that at least 10 states lose more than $100,000,000 annually in tax revenue to data centers; Texas revised its cost projection for 2025 from $130,000,000 to $1,000,000,000 within 23 months. The group calls for canceling data center tax exemption programs, capping exemptions, pausing programs, and robust public disclosure. - The narrative concludes with a call to resist placing data centers in established communities, urging organized action and advocating for desalination and energy infrastructure funded by the data centers themselves. A personal anecdote about Rick Hill’s cancer recovery via Laotryl B17 and enzyme therapies is tied to a promotional plug: rncstore.com/pages/ricksbundle, discount code pulse for 10% off, promoting Laotryl B17 and related detox/purity kits.

We don’t need another data center. The speaker says people don’t know the health impact, arguing that placing many facilities together “crunched” will lead to a “mass exit” and ruin the community. They emphasize that the community’s welfare should be prioritized and that decision-makers may believe they are doing what is correct, but are not pausing to pay attention to what local people are saying. The speaker concludes that they will fight for their people.

The video documents a drive through rural farmland in Indiana to a growing AI data center. The area is described as “super rural,” with miles of farmland and few signs of life until the data center lights appear, creating a noticeable intrusion in an otherwise empty landscape. The narrator notes the drive covers “30 plus miles, maybe more of nothing but just beautiful rural farmland,” and expresses strong emotion about returning to this area after a year away. As the video continues, the scenery remains rural and expansive, with mentions of semi trucks and cement trucks on the way to the site. The narrator highlights the emotional impact of the development, stating, “the first time I drove this, it genuinely made me so emotional because I haven't been this way. I haven't left town in, like a year.” The content hints at a pause in filming near a small parking lot or staging area before continuing along the corridor toward the project. A key claim is that the Meta AI data center is being built on this farmland, consuming “beautiful farmland that we will never be able to replace.” The narrator emphasizes the contrast between the large land use for the data center and the relatively small number of jobs it will create, stating that it will “only employ one to 500 people,” which the speaker finds startling. The final sentiment underscores the perceived imbalance between the considerable land impact and the limited employment opportunity, describing the situation as “pretty fucking insane.” The video ends after confirming the path to the data center and the ongoing construction.

Meta is building a two gigawatt data center in Mansfield, Georgia, a facility so large it could cover a significant part of Manhattan. These data centers power AI tools but come with costs, including environmental impacts and strain on the power grid. Residents Beverly and Jeff Morris, whose home is less than 400 yards from the data center, are experiencing issues with their water quality, including sediment. They feel overwhelmed by the infrastructure changes and believe Meta should be responsible for the costs, such as replacing fixtures and lines. Data centers are considered a "hot item," and this supercomputer is built to power Grok. The question is posed: What is the true cost of the AI revolution, and who should be paying for it?

Miley Kaczynski, a lifelong Wisconsin resident living 1.6 miles downstream from the Meta Data Center in Beaver Dam, describes dramatic changes to a natural creek on her horse farm that have followed upstream construction. The creek, a 20-foot-wide, up-to-four-feet-deep waterway, had flowed reliably for decades as part of a connected system feeding into Beaver Dam Lake, until construction began upstream. Since then, the creek has stopped flowing even without rainfall, often returning only during brief wet periods, and when it does flow, it is sometimes cloudy and erodes the banks. This pattern has repeated dozens of times over a single construction season, leaving the creek dry half the time. Dust from construction covers her yard, turning grass white, and heavy dust plumes make her unable to see the hood of her truck while driving past the site. She notes this behavior is not consistent with natural variability or weather patterns and had never happened before. Kaczynski attempted to report these concerns to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), but found the system fragmented: reports are passed between departments and some are lost. She learned there is no single entity responsible for downstream impacts when large-scale construction disrupts a water system. Different permits govern activities locally, at the county and state levels, and some at the federal level. She emphasizes that this is a policy failure, not a failure of individual agency staff. She asserts that the law favors businesses over residents and that the creek’s flow appears correlated with upstream industrial activity, including daily blasting with dynamite during construction. When that discharge stops, the creek stops; when it resumes, water returns abruptly. Kaczynski highlights that corporations receive fast approvals and tax incentives with limited review, while residents must prove damage after the fact, at their own expense, against billion-dollar companies. She has spent significant time researching this issue (ten to twenty hours per week) and has faced high costs for water testing on her property (shipping a sample costs $121, with the test around $400 per test). Her property shows elevated strontium and other indicators consistent with deep groundwater influence, changes that coincide with upstream blasting and excavation, warranting independent investigation. If left unresolved, filters and additional testing could cost over $1,000, and her backyard footprint will be converted from permeable land to a paved industrial space of nearly 1,000 acres after construction. She explains the broader community impact: rural farmers and families cannot compete with corporate land purchases, leading to a loss of Wisconsin’s working landscapes as new projects fill in. A second data center is proposed in Beaver Dam. The city annexed land from her township, with Alliant Energy negotiating with farmers to sell collectively; once annexed by the city, rezoning proceeds to county oversight and is described as a rubber-stamp process. By the time residents learn it is a data center, it is too late to stop it. Township residents feel unrepresented—she lacks a representative at the city level, cannot legally prove damage before construction, and is left to navigate a system that she says is not prepared to protect residents. Kaczynski asks who will save her and others, noting that retroactive bills and a missing safety net leave them vulnerable. She ends by urging transparency and action, expressing gratitude for the hearing but lamenting that her full story has not been heard.

All of these stories from across the US are incredibly encouraging. The series demonstrates that what technocracy spells is a very dark future—one where you can’t escape the eyes of big brother and AI spying on you twenty-four seven, controlling every aspect of your life. Digital currency and CBDCs are part of this vision, signaling a dystopian future. But we’re not against AI or innovation; we understand data centers are needed. The concern is the aggressive nature of the biggest players and the direction they want to take humanity. What these communities have demonstrated is that we have the right to protect where we live and those around us. If you want to build this infrastructure, do it on shorelines, set up your own desalination, and don’t touch our water. Figure out your own energy costs. Promises that data centers will cover a portion of their energy costs can be changed at any moment, so don’t fall for those assurances. The predator billionaire class companies, many with ties to Epstein, supposedly don’t care about us or our communities; they don’t care about protecting humanity. They care about building their technocracy—the endgame of Elon Musk’s grandfather’s vision for how the world should be run. We still have the power to say no and protect our local communities. No flock cameras. No data centers. We will remain untouched. If you want to build your dystopia, you can figure it out on your own elsewhere, away from these communities. This stance is actively affecting their plans. We applaud these communities and hope the last part of this series reminds people that they are not powerless. One woman organized an entire town and stopped that agenda in her town, and it is wonderful to see. Every one of us can do our part. If we understand the agenda and the endgame— which was the point of this series— we have the motivation to act.

- The speaker argues that data centers are expanding globally despite claims of an energy crisis, describing this growth as dangerous and indiscriminate. Project Matador in the Texas Panhandle is highlighted as potentially the largest data center, planned up to 18,000,000 square feet (about 6,000 acres) and reportedly using up to 96,000,000,000 kilowatts of electricity per year. Conservative figures are used for illustration. Texas residential electricity use is stated as approximately 172,000,000,000 kilowatts annually, meaning Matador could consume roughly 55–65% of all Texas residential electricity, with hundreds more centers either operating, under construction, or planned in the state (87 in operation, about 135 under construction, and a pipeline of over 600 planned). - The video cites reports of data centers destroying communities nationwide and worldwide. A segment about Meta’s new AI data center in Richland Parish, Louisiana, is presented: the center is 4,000,000 square feet and 2,250 acres (roughly 70 football fields). Residents describe rising rents due to out-of-state workers, disruption to local businesses, constant noise and bright lights, and a halo over homes. The speaker notes that the area has long faced job and poverty issues, and while some view the AI center as an economic opportunity, the disruption is described as significant and ongoing. - A conservative view is attributed to the Louisiana report, followed by the speaker’s own assertion that AI data centers will drain water and energy, potentially enabling a “smart city” agenda that renders rural areas unlivable and pushes populations to cities. The speaker suggests rural communities may be targeted as part of a broader strategy. - The discussion moves to Utah, where the Stratos project is described as rivaling Matador in scale. Jason Basleronex (the speaker’s reference) describes a proposed largest hyperscale data center in Box Elder County, Utah (approximately 40,000 acres, 62 square miles), backed by Canadian billionaire Kevin O’Leary and fast-tracked by Utah’s Military Installation Development Authority with Governor Spencer Cox. The public would be locked out of decision-making. The project is linked to anticipated 50% increase in CO2 emissions, polluted water, and 24/7 noise and light pollution. The implication is that the initiative operates as a military operation, with national security justification cited. - A clip from Noah B Price is cited to illustrate living near a data center: water usage of 5,000,000 gallons per day in a drought state, with residents unable to collect rainwater in some areas, constant roar, and destroyed property values. The clip is used to argue about the “AI future” and potential government abuse of technology, including references to a broad list of dystopian outcomes (social credit systems, programmable digital currency, cars controlled by tech, rural self-sufficiency eliminated, and gene-edited humans integrated with AI). The speaker suggests these are directions supported by certain tech and government actions. - The video concludes with a call for local communities to band together, elect representatives who oppose the agenda, and protect their communities as a sanctuary against the “eye of Sauron” at Palantir HQ. It frames the data-center expansion as a threat to rural living and a push toward an AI-driven, controlled future. - The message ends with an advertising note for Genesis Gold Group and a free wealth protection guide via dailypulsesilver.com, promoting gold and silver investment as a hedge.

Thomas Massey holds a high-ranking seat on the judiciary committee in Kentucky. The transcript claims that if he loses his election, Kentucky would lose that seat and, as a result, lose his position to effect change through the judiciary committee. It says that two weeks ago, during a judiciary committee session, a bill was introduced quietly and was about to pass unanimously. The transcript identifies it as the Protect American AI Act and claims it was supported on both sides of the aisle. It further claims that Massey “single handedly killed” the bill. According to the transcript, the bill would have granted immunity to data center developers for any harm they cause to communities. The transcript describes Massey’s action as unexpected and states that there is not a single article written about it. The transcript then claims that data centers “paid” to ensure nobody knew about Massey killing the bill, characterizing data centers as a hot button issue and saying they do not want anyone to know this outcome. It asserts that people believe data centers should not be able to build across the street, destroy home values, damage the water table, or poison children without accountability. Finally, the transcript argues that residents should be able to sue data centers to hold them accountable for harms they cause.

This segment juxtaposes everyday living with the expanding footprint of data centers and the perceived costs of the AI revolution. In the home, Speaker 0 demonstrates a high-pressure cold water line used for storage and filling tanks, noting that the water is needed for flushing toilets. Speaker 1 observes sediment in the water coming from the faucet and asks if that sediment comes from the data center, to which Speaker 0 confirms—“Yeah. And this is what's in all the pipes.” Speaker 2 adds that the well itself is likely “20,000” (units implied) and that this figure doesn’t include costs for replacing fixtures, faucets, toilets, and pipes underneath the house. The cumulative burden feels overwhelming, as Speaker 0 describes feeling up against a “huge wall that you can't penetrate” and a sense that “they don't care.” Turned outward, the report spotlights Meta’s new data center in Mansfield, Georgia: a 2,000,000 square foot facility intended to power AI tools such as ChatGPT and other technologies integrated into daily life. Data centers are described as a hot item and an exciting asset class, with Meta building a two gigawatt-plus data center so large it could cover a significant part of Manhattan. Yet this growth comes with significant costs: light and noise pollution, environmental impacts, and potential rises in energy bills. The facilities exert extraordinary demand on the power grid and require entirely new infrastructure. Speaker 0 voices concern that the burden should be borne by those responsible, not residents. Speaker 2 argues that large tech companies—Meta, Amazon, Microsoft—“can afford to pay for their own generation,” urging people to search their profits. The reporters pursued two central questions in Georgia: “What’s the true cost of the AI revolution, and who should be paying for it?” They note the proximity of a house to the data center—“less than 400 yards.” The profile then introduces Beverly and Jeff Morris, who purchased their home near downtown Atlanta in 2016, with deep roots in the community. Beverly characterizes country living as her peace and therapy, while Jeff notes he was raised about five miles away.

The discussion centers on why data centers are expanding so rapidly despite the claim that existing phone and television usage already relies on server storage. Participants cite large-scale developments such as Loudoun County, Virginia’s “never-ending” complexes and a proposed 40,000-acre AI data center campus in Utah described as “two and a half times larger than Manhattan,” with claims that Utah lacks water and that the data center would require more than double the current energy consumption of the entire state of Utah. The question raised is what is really happening behind this scale and where the collected information goes. One participant links the projects to “intel” involvement, pointing to companies said to include Palantir, Nvidia, and Abraxas, and to allegations that some of these firms received CIA investments to start, including staffing by retired senior CIA officers. This leads to questions about whether “the CIA [is] spying on our own people,” referencing Edward Snowden’s revelations and mentioning NSA’s and CIA’s surveillance of Americans. The conversation states that NSA’s charter includes a restriction that it may not spy on Americans, and notes that Snowden’s disclosures are described as the reason people “wouldn’t have any idea” without them. The Utah compound is described with a claim that it has enough memory storage for every phone call, every email, and every text message from every American for the next 500 years, prompting questions about why that amount of storage exists and why such facilities are “everywhere,” and what information they are collecting. The conversation shifts to personal protection, with a suggestion that it is “almost impossible now” and a recommendation that the only way to protect yourself is to “own no technology at all,” referencing Eric Rudolph or the Unabomber as examples. The participant further claims that governments and intelligence agencies are “scooping up” data and holding it, and contrasts earlier post-9/11 practices—where obtaining information required federal judges to approve warrants—with newer methods. The transcript claims that instead of warrants, the government can use “national security letters” to require providers to turn over all information on a named person, or can query the data centers directly by inputting a name so that information “pops up,” describing a lack of legal protections and stating that these actions are “legal now.” It concludes by naming the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016 (and National Defense Act of 2016 as referenced in the transcript) as the change that made this legal.

In a Mansfield, Georgia kitchen, the cold water pressure is shown while water is filled for storage. The transcript describes items used to fill water for flushing toilets and notes visible sediment coming from the water exiting the faucet. It also says the contents found in the pipes reflect sediment likely tied to the well source, stating that just the well itself is probably “twenty thousand,” not counting replacement of fixtures, faucets, toilets, and the lines underneath the house. The homeowner characterizes the situation as overwhelming, saying it feels like “up against this huge wall that you can’t penetrate,” with the impression that “they don’t care,” and that there is “nothing that you can do.” The scene shifts as the narrator drives by Meta’s new two million square foot data center facility in Mansfield, Georgia. The transcript explains that data centers power tools like ChatGPT and other AI tools integrated into daily life, and states that “this entire supercomputer is built to power Grok.” It adds that Meta is building a two gigawatt plus data center large enough to cover a significant part of Manhattan and that data centers are viewed as an exciting asset class. Concerns are raised about the costs of data centers, including light and noise pollution, environmental impacts, potentially rising energy bills, and extraordinary demand on the power grid requiring entirely new infrastructure. The narrator says data centers “should be responsible for that, not us,” and argues that Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft “can afford to pay for their own generation.” The narrator says they came to Georgia to ask two questions: the true cost of the AI revolution, and who should be paying for it. Beverly and Jeff Morris bought their home in 2016, about an hour’s drive from downtown Atlanta, and describe their deep community roots, saying being in the country provides peace and therapy and that they decided the home was “it” and “perfect.” Beverly says she was raised about five miles from the area. The house is described as being less than four hundred yards from the data center.

The speakers argue the United States is moving toward widespread surveillance and biometric control, describing a future where food shortages could lead to food rationing using biometrics—scanning a thumbprint at grocery stores to buy food. They connect planned technologies shown “on your timeline,” including modified flock cameras for human voice recognition, drones reading license plates from 800 feet altitude, RFID checking systems, and biometric systems, to a dystopian outcome they describe as combining “the worst parts of every Philip K Dick novel” into one direction. They respond to claims that people could use cash, stating that even cash purchases at Walmart can still generate digital records through cameras and email receipts, and that retailers are moving toward digital price tags amid inflation and currency value changes. They say they have been studying technocracy and point to data and examples they claim show growing surveillance nationwide, including in Ohio. They mention Clearview AI as being backed by Peter Thiel and say that in many states companies can access drivers’ license information and pictures. They also describe a “snitch based system” in Ohio where residents can be rewarded via a mobile app for reporting on fellow citizens, alongside flocked cameras. As an example tied to Ohio, they claim Jeffrey Epstein was co-president of a corporate town in Ohio created by Les Wexner, and that Ohio is a main corridor for AI data centers. The conversation then shifts to data centers. One speaker says some hyperscale data centers are approved under military designation, citing a Stratos Hyperscale Center in Utah said to be powering “nine gigawatts of compute,” and questions what is being done with that compute power. They also claim that in states such as Georgia or parts of Virginia, eminent domain is being declared to take private homes and bulldoze homes and farms to make room for corporate data centers, asking how a corporation can wield eminent domain and suggesting Pentagon involvement. In reply, the other speaker states the Pentagon is involved and argues against treating data centers as purely market-driven. They cite bills and a White House policy document on AI, claiming combined proposals would give the Department of Energy control over whether an AI model can be released, with a “go/no go” decision for AI models at certain sophistication levels. They also claim the secretary of commerce would be empowered to “snipe state law” and surgically shut down state regulations on AI. They say the secretary of commerce/FTC would control political bias by requiring an FTC process to determine whether AI is politically biased. They further say Lindsey Graham’s addition strips out section 230, removing legal limitations for platforms and allowing AI developers to be held personally liable. They conclude that this is a centralized federal model controlling steps end-to-end and that data centers rely on tax subsidies, describing “taxpayers funding the control grid.”

Speaker 0: Growth without restraint is driving corporate takeovers of physical space, water, power, land, and communities, with costs pushed directly onto people through their electric bills, water supply, property values, and quality of life. This is framed as enabling big tech to build the backbone of the AI economy, an economy described as planning to eliminate most jobs and most futures. Speaker 0 says the AI story is widely discussed online, including on X and Instagram. Speaker 0 rejects the idea that it is “the Chinese” pushing this, saying it is Americans asking what is happening in their communities—why electric bills are changing and why people are being forced off property—because some American oligarch wants to build a massive data center using more energy than the rest of the state. Speaker 1: Speaker 1 responds to Kevin O’Leary by saying Americans have concerns about noise pollution, light pollution, the use of local water, takeover of farmland, and destruction of local ecosystems, and that it is not foreign agents but American people who have the right to protect communities and resources. Speaker 1 argues that data centers threaten and displace local people and that they provide no benefit to the communities affected. The outcome is described as job replacement rather than job creation, with claims that people would face 24/7 noise from gas turbines and a gigawatt of power without receiving an “utopia” of abundance. Speaker 1 says the result includes noise, pollution, taking water, destroying real estate value, and taking jobs. Speaker 1 identifies himself as an accomplished AI developer who supports AI technology when used “for humanity,” but calls the data center effort “a threat to humanity.”