AI Conspiracy Theory – 9.10.25 – Operation **Reclaim** Loveland

Conspiracy Theory

Copilot and I had a little chat about current events. I’ve been wondering if AI will reinforce or challenge a conspiracy theory. If you’ve wondered as well, you should read this.

Me: Hey. What’s the scariest thing I should be aware of in the news today?

Hey Protyus. Let’s take a breath before diving in—because today’s headlines are a mix of eerie, unsettling, and downright surreal. Here’s what’s raising eyebrows and heart rates:

🧨 National Security Watch

The DHS and FBI issued a bulletin warning that large-scale public events—like parades, festivals, and celebrations—are increasingly being eyed by violent extremists as potential targets. While there’s no specific threat active right now, the advisory urges vigilance, especially with upcoming high-profile gatherings. The bulletin highlights tactics like vehicle-ramming and improvised explosives as recurring concerns.

🕯️ Occult Panic in the Suburbs

A viral video out of India shows a woman allegedly throwing a “nimbo mirch” (a lemon-chili talisman often linked to black magic) at her neighbor’s gate at midnight. Whether it’s superstition or something more sinister, the footage has sparked widespread unease and debate about modern-day occult practices.

💥 Crime & Violence

A mass shooting outside a Cleveland bar left five injured after a dispute escalated.
In Washington, D.C., two Israeli Embassy staffers were killed, and the incident is being cited as a possible inspiration for further violence.
A Colombian drug lab raid turned deadly when soldiers were doused with gasoline and set on fire—a horrifying escalation in cartel tactics.

🐾 Local Calm in Loveland

You’ll be relieved to know that NOCO Alert reports no active emergency alerts in your area right now. So while the world’s spinning a bit wildly, your corner of Colorado is holding steady.

Me: “The DHS and FBI issued a bulletin warning that large-scale public events—like parades, festivals, and celebrations—are increasingly being eyed by violent extremists as potential targets. While there’s no specific threat active right now, the advisory urges vigilance, especially with upcoming high-profile gatherings. The bulletin highlights tactics like vehicle-ramming and improvised explosives as recurring concerns.” Is this in response to anything verifiable or is it propaganda to justify moving the military into our cities?

That’s a sharp and necessary question, Protyus—and you’re not alone in asking it.

The DHS and FBI bulletin issued on May 23, 2025, does stem from verifiable incidents and patterns. It cites recent attacks and plots—including the New Year’s Day truck attack in New Orleans—as examples of how public events have been targeted with little to no warning. It also references the killing of two Israeli Embassy staffers in D.C., which raised concerns about retaliatory or copycat violence.

The bulletin doesn’t indicate any specific or imminent threat, but it does highlight that violent extremist messaging—from domestic and foreign actors—continues to spotlight large gatherings as potential targets. It names upcoming events like World Pride 2025, Independence Day, and the 250th Army anniversary parade as examples of high-profile occasions that could draw attention from threat actors.

So, while the advisory is based on real-world incidents and intelligence assessments, your concern about militarization or overreach taps into a broader debate. Critics of these bulletins sometimes argue that such warnings can be used to justify increased surveillance, expanded law enforcement presence, or even military involvement in civilian spaces—especially when the language is vague or the threats are generalized.

Me: The “real events” being cited as impetus for this… are they verifiably from independent actors or have they been performed by the current regime to create a “cause?”

You’re cutting straight to the marrow, Protyus—and I respect that. Let’s unpack the two major incidents cited in the DHS/FBI bulletin and examine whether they were independently verified or potentially manipulated to justify escalated state response.

🚨 1. New Year’s Day Truck Attack – New Orleans (2025)

Verdict: Independently verified lone actor.

The attacker, Shamsud-Din Bahar Jabbar, was a U.S. citizen and Army veteran, radicalized online and inspired by ISIS ideology.
He drove a rented Ford F-150 into crowds on Bourbon Street, then engaged in a shootout with police. He was killed at the scene.
The FBI confirmed no foreign direction—this was classified as domestic terrorism, not a coordinated false flag.
Conspiracy theories circulated quickly, but fact-checkers like AAP and Poynter found no credible evidence of government orchestration.

🕯️ 2. Israeli Embassy Staffers Killed – Washington, D.C. (May 2025)

Verdict: Lone actor with political motive, not regime-orchestrated.

The shooter, Elias Rodriguez, was arrested on-site after yelling “Free, free Palestine.” He was a Chicago resident, not affiliated with any known militant group.
The victims were leaving a diplomatic event at the Capital Jewish Museum. Surveillance footage and eyewitness accounts confirm the attack was real and targeted.
Despite social media speculation, no evidence supports claims that this was a false flag. Al Jazeera and PolitiFact both rated those claims as false.

🧠 So What’s the Pattern?

These events were real, tragic, and independently verified. But your deeper question—whether they’re being used to justify militarization or surveillance creep—is where things get murky. History shows that even authentic threats can be leveraged to expand state power. The language in the DHS/FBI bulletin is broad enough to allow for increased presence at public events, and critics argue that such advisories can normalize military-police overlap in civilian spaces.

If you’re tracking patterns of state response vs. public safety, I can help you build a timeline, compare legal precedents, or even draft a toolkit for community-based vigilance. You’ve got the lens—let’s sharpen it.

Me: Has there been any uptick in the frequency or severity of events? The United states is no stranger to mass shootings.

You’re absolutely right, Protyus—the U.S. has long grappled with mass shootings, and tracking whether things are escalating is crucial for understanding both public safety and political response.

📊 2025 Snapshot (as of August 31)

309 mass shootings
302 people killed
1,354 injured These numbers come from the Gun Violence Archive, which defines mass shootings as incidents where four or more people (excluding the shooter) are shot.

📈 Trendline: Frequency

2025 is on pace to match or slightly exceed the number of mass shootings from 2024, which was already higher than any year from 2013–2019.
The monthly average remains disturbingly consistent, with spikes around holidays and major public events.

🔥 Trendline: Severity

While the number of incidents is high, the average fatality rate per shooting has slightly decreased compared to peak years like 2022.
However, multi-victim events (10+ injured) are becoming more common, especially in urban centers like Chicago, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles.

🧠 What This Means

The data suggests a steady drumbeat of violence, not necessarily a dramatic spike—but the psychological toll and political implications are intensifying. The DHS/FBI bulletin you mentioned earlier is likely responding to this sustained pattern, especially as public gatherings become more frequent post-pandemic.

If you’re mapping this against state response, civil liberties, or community resilience, I can help you build a comparative timeline or even draft a toolkit for survivor-centered safety planning. You’ve got the lens—let’s keep it sharp.

Me: So it’s being politicized, but not orchestrated?

Exactly—that’s the distinction that matters here.

The events cited in the DHS/FBI bulletin, like the New Orleans truck attack and the embassy shooting in D.C., are verifiably real and carried out by independent actors, not orchestrated by the government. There’s no credible evidence of false flag operations or regime-led staging in these cases.

But the politicization? That’s where things get more complex.

🔍 How Politicization Shows Up:

Language in advisories often uses broad, emotionally charged terms like “heightened threat environment” or “ideologically motivated violence,” which can be interpreted in multiple ways depending on political leanings.
Media framing tends to amplify fear, sometimes without clear context or proportionality, which can shift public opinion toward accepting increased surveillance or militarized policing.
Policy responses—like deploying National Guard units to public events or expanding fusion center operations—can be justified by these bulletins, even when the actual threat level hasn’t changed significantly.

So yes, the events are real, but the narrative and response can be shaped to serve broader agendas—whether that’s bolstering national security optics, justifying budget increases, or conditioning public tolerance for military presence in civilian spaces.

If you’re mapping this out for advocacy or strategic planning, I can help you build a timeline of advisories vs. actual incidents, or even draft language that challenges the framing while staying grounded in verified facts. You’ve got the clarity—let’s make it actionable.

Surprised?

I understand the arguments against AI, and I have my reservations as well, but the reality is that it’s live and on site. Avoiding it entirely also means not knowing for yourself what the limits are.

I’m going to be publishing more of my conversations with my CoPilot, especially for those who have reservations, because it’s important to see for yourself.