This week follows a familiar pattern: a shocking, violent event in the capital is used to justify new emergency powers; a “war on drugs” in Venezuela conceals long-standing conflicts over oil and influence; and a sleek AI project called “Genesis” quietly integrates data, research, and governance into a single digital platform. In each case, humans are blamed for increased control—such as dangerous migrants, narco-states, and inefficient scientists—while the true beneficiary is the security bureaucracy itself. This pattern mirrors previous analyses of crises in education, Epstein disclosures, and AI–energy–defense integration, all of which serve to expand centralized technocratic power rather than constrain it.
Together, these narratives emphasize our warning: raw facts are shaped by narrative engineers to manipulate logic and rhetoric toward compliance. The DC shooting is quickly used to justify more troops, surveillance, and restrictions on rights as inevitable. Venezuela is depicted as a narco-villain to make closing its airspace and preparing land operations seem like moral duties rather than economic pursuits. The Genesis Mission is hailed as a scientific breakthrough, but actually establishes a federal AI superstructure controlling energy, food, health, and security policies by 2030. Behind the headlines, the core story remains simple: create or exploit crises, then present a solution that reinforces the system causing those crises.
False Flags on Capitol Streets
2 National Guard members remain in critical condition after D.C. shooting - ABC News
National Guard D.C. shooting suspect had CIA-linked history in Afghanistan - New York Times
Live coverage: Shooting of National Guard members in Washington, D.C. – CNN
USCIS halts all asylum decisions after D.C. shooting of National Guard members – Fox News
The basic facts are that two National Guard members were ambushed near the White House. Specialist Sarah Beckstrom has now died, and another remains in critical condition. The suspect, 29-year-old Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal, previously worked with U.S. government agencies in Afghanistan, including the CIA, before arriving in the U.S. and being granted asylum. Immediately after this event, the Trump administration announced a broad pause on all asylum decisions and visa issuances for Afghans, citing the need to protect Americans. The narrative is framed not as “a government insider turned violent,” but as a foreigner attacking America, thus leading to tighter vetting and control of all foreigners.
The main contradiction is that the same federal system initially approved Lakanwal’s entry and asylum; the Trump administration granted the suspect asylum in April 2025. Reports indicate he arrived during Operation Allies Welcome and was later granted asylum after collaborating with U.S. forces and CIA-linked units in Kandahar. Essentially, the security authorities vetted, recruited, and utilized him, yet now they fail to recognize the threat they previously acknowledged. Instead of addressing issues like CIA partnerships or flaws in the asylum process, the proposed 'solution' is to halt asylum for others and deploy more troops on D.C. streets. This reflects a security-minded version of the “broken window” fallacy: the system that caused the damage is the solution to the problem it caused, "benefiting" everyone.
Discussing false flags does not imply asserting that this event is one; rather, it involves recognizing that it aligns with a well-documented pattern of exploiting crises. The declassified Operation Northwoods from the late 1990s showed that in 1962, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed staging terrorist attacks and hijackings, even killing civilians on U.S. soil, to justify war against Cuba—only to be thwarted by President Kennedy. This historical evidence indicates that segments of the U.S. security establishment have considered sacrificing innocents to generate political support. When an ex-CIA associate later becomes the public face of a new security crackdown, skepticism isn’t paranoia; it’s pattern recognition.
Even if this shooting was not planned, the sequence of events feels predetermined. In a few hours, the incident is characterized as a terrorist act, connected to the wider “failed vetting” story about Afghan refugees, and used to justify stopping asylum across the country, with the claim that "every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.” Notice what’s missing: any meaningful public discussion about why National Guard troops are patrolling inside the country, or why D.C. is being treated like a militarized zone. The story implies that having more soldiers at home means greater safety, rather than questioning whether an ongoing domestic military presence signals an escalation of martial law.
This directly fuels the problem–reaction–solution cycle outlined in The Fallacious Belief in Government: first, create or enable unstable conditions; then, highlight the resulting tragedy; and finally, propose a solution that consistently increases power within the same institutions that failed. Here, the “problem” is a gunman connected to the intelligence community; the “reaction” is media-induced fear of refugees and urban crime; and the “solution” involves a ban on asylum, expanded background checks, and increased military and law enforcement presence on American streets. The fundamental logical question — not raised on CNN or Fox — is why the public should trust the very agencies that trained and cleared this individual to now decide who is safe enough to be in the U.S.
The emotional framing aims to prevent deeper analysis by humanizing the National Guard members and emphasizing their service and families. Meanwhile, the wider context—such as the Afghanistan war, CIA’s paramilitary activities, and long-term blowback—is downplayed to a footnote. The CIA’s role in the suspect’s case is mentioned but portrayed as incidental rather than central. This shift reveals that the system wants you to see the shooter as a dangerous outsider, rather than recognizing the complex network of state-backed violence originating abroad and leading to domestic restrictions justified by the very tragedies it contributed to.
Venezuela Siege for Black Gold
The Real Reason Trump Wants Venezuela: It’s the Oil - Medium
Trump says airspace above and around Venezuela should be ‘closed in its entirety’ - Reuters
Coverage of escalating U.S.–Venezuela tensions and drug gang narrative - Miami Herald
Trump says land operations against Venezuela ‘drug gangs’ to start very soon - Sky News
Trump’s recent declaration that the airspace around Venezuela should be considered completely "closed" is described as a move against drug traffickers and human smugglers. The wording is intentionally vague, targeting airlines, pilots, and “drug dealers," blending commercial flights and criminal activities under an emergency label. Meanwhile, Trump and supportive outlets announce plans for U.S. land operations against alleged Venezuelan drug gangs “very soon," continuing a campaign of maritime strikes that have already caused many casualties. As with past interventions, “drugs” serve as a moral justification for actions that, in other contexts, would be seen as acts of war.
The Medium analysis clarifies this perspective by emphasizing that Venezuela has some of the largest proven oil reserves globally. Its ability to redirect exports to China, Russia, or other buyers challenges U.S. influence over international energy markets. The sanctions, blacklists, and “special designations" intended to target cartels also hinder Venezuela’s capacity to trade its oil beyond Washington's restrictions. When airspace is “closed,” shipping routes are monitored, and land operations are announced, the overall impact goes beyond drug interdiction. It effectively encases a resource-rich country that refuses to fully align with U.S. policies within a blockade.
From a logical standpoint, we are asked to accept a peculiar syllogism: Venezuela is equated with drug gangs; drug gangs are equated with poison; thus, any military intervention in Venezuela is justified as an anti-poison self-defense measure. However, discussions rarely mention the U.S. drug consumption, domestic pharmaceutical corruption, or the CIA’s documented history in narcotics trafficking. Instead, Venezuela is portrayed as a sort of floating cartel, whose sovereignty can be disregarded because it has been rhetorically reduced to an open-air crime scene. This dehumanization—casting a nation solely as a pathogen source—is a common prelude to regime-change campaigns.
The declaration of “closed airspace” sets a dangerous precedent: it suggests that the U.S. can, via executive order, take control of international skies and waters based on unverified claims about “narco-" or "terrorism.” Reuters notes that the FAA had previously warned about dangers when flying over Venezuela due to increased military activity; now, the White House is essentially creating a no-fly zone that bypasses both Congress and international law. Like many post-9/11 practices, the more often this happens without significant opposition, the more it becomes standard policy—an approach future administrations might adopt against other “problem” states.
Historically, resource-driven interventions often lack transparency. Cases like Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Libya’s responsibility to protect, and Syria’s chemical weapons campaigns have framed military actions as humanitarian needs, all while oil, pipelines, and strategic interests quietly underpin the narratives. The Venezuela rhetoric follows this same pattern. Articles from the Miami Herald and Sky News emphasize drug gangs such as Tren de Aragua; Medium links this to a broader history of U.S. involvement in Latin America, where the war on drugs conveniently aligns with oil control and political influence. Ultimately, this creates a rhetorical illusion: the stated goal is to eliminate poison, but the true objectives are control over petroleum and regional dominance.
In the framework of Agenda 2030, this is significant because energy serves as a key tool for transforming sustainable development indicators into control mechanisms. The control of oil, gas, and transit routes essentially reinforces the foundation of industrial civilization for the coming decade, even as renewables are emphasized as the ultimate solution. The Orinoco Belt in Venezuela and its infrastructure remain too vital to be handed over to a government aligned with alternative power sources. Utilizing airspace restrictions and threats to land operations under the pretext of drug enforcement is not contradictory; instead, it represents the final merging of the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the emerging War for Resources into a single, ongoing reason for intervention.
Genesis Code for Data Dominion
$150 Million AI Lobbying War Fuels the Fight Over Preemption - Forbes
Trump aims to boost AI innovation, build platform to harness government data - Reuters
Launching the Genesis Mission (Executive Order) - White House
The Genesis Mission is portrayed as an innovative scientific initiative: an executive order aiming to “usher in a new era of discovery” through AI to advance research and increase scientific output. The White House describes it as a national endeavor—comparable in scale to the Manhattan Project—tasking the Department of Energy with building an integrated AI infrastructure to progress in energy, climate, fusion, quantum, medicine, and defense. DOE emphasizes that the mission will “harness the current AI and advanced computing revolution” to maintain America’s leadership in energy and strengthen national security. At first glance, it seems to focus on technocratic efficiency: centralizing data, integrating research platforms, and enabling algorithms to automate discovery. However, the agencies implementing Genesis are the same ones already blending defense, surveillance, and corporate interests—they are not neutral knowledge custodians.
This initiative centers on developing the American Science and Security Platform, an AI-powered federal network designed to analyze extensive government data and provide automated tools for modeling, hypothesis testing, and experimental planning. Essentially, it involves a large, government-managed data lake supporting foundation models, autonomous research agents, and predictive systems that will increasingly shape the selection of scientific questions. When combined with the administration’s goal—widely reported by Reuters and Science Business—of creating a single federal AI platform to harness government data across agencies, Genesis is less like a discovery engine and more like the operating system of a digital government.
This context highlights the significance of the $150 million AI lobbying campaign, as documented by Forbes, focused on preemption. Major tech companies, venture networks, and aligned interests are pushing for a single federal regulatory system that supersedes stricter state AI laws. Their timing is strategic: while Genesis centralizes federal data and research infrastructure, the industry prefers to see regulation streamlined in Washington, where corporate influence is strongest. This creates a feedback loop—corporations lobby for federal control, federal agencies develop platforms using these corporations’ tools, and both cite each other as evidence of responsible governance—not innovation but cartel-like behavior masked as patriotic duty.
The name “Genesis” carries a rhetorical weight. In Judeo-Christian tradition, Genesis is associated with creation—the beginning of the universe. Naming a national AI project this way implies a new myth of creation, in which code replaces the Logos and the state–corporate AI complex becomes the demiurge shaping reality. It elevates federal algorithms to the role of judges determining truth, permissibility, and legitimate futures. In the context of Agenda 2030—which uses data metrics to guide policies on climate, education, health, cities, and resource allocation—Genesis functions as a symbolic altar where data from various sectors is collected, refined, and redirected to serve institutional aims.
Viewed through the lens of The Fallacious Belief in Government, the Genesis Mission suggests that centralized authority appears moral merely because it utilizes technology. AI is presented as a neutral instrument for progress, yet the mission’s design does not ensure alignment with natural rights, scientific independence, or human dignity. Instead, it emphasizes national security, energy dominance, and strategic advantage—the same justifications used for mass surveillance, warrantless data collection, and covert wars. In this view, technology functions as a new priesthood, exerting the same coercive power.
The main concern is epistemic capture. If Genesis becomes the primary platform for American research, scientists, universities, and private labs could become reliant on a system in which access, model settings, and permissible inquiries are not just influenced by politics but controlled by it. Controversial topics—such as vaccines, climate modeling, genetic editing, election security, and biodefense—might be quietly suppressed by safety agents or funding algorithms that favor policy over accuracy. To outsiders, it will seem as though the "science” naturally supports Genesis's conclusions. However, as the COVID pandemic revealed, when platforms control access and visibility, they influence public perception.
Genesis completes a trilogy that has been subtly outlined during this week’s stories: streets militarized for reasons linked to selective crises, foreign airspace shut down supported by moralistic stories, and a new digital myth that combines AI with federal datasets, claiming to offer salvation by 2030. The core theme isn't about humanitarian or scientific interests; it's about consolidating power—force, resources, and information—under a ruling class that sees consent as a bother and unpredictability as a flaw. Rather than heralding a new scientific era, Genesis represents the architectural foundation of a new way of knowing.
Manufactured Chaos, Managed Creation
Across all three topics, a clear pattern emerges: the state either initiates crises or neglects to prevent them, then leverages the fear generated to consolidate its power. When a National Guard soldier is killed near the White House, the response isn't to question why CIA-linked assets are being deployed domestically or why the military is patrolling the streets. Instead, emphasis is placed on halting asylum and increasing military presence within the country. Venezuela is depicted as a narco-state, with plans to close its airspace and prepare for land operations, conveniently enhancing U.S. control over vital oil reserves. AI is hailed as marking a new scientific era, but the reality is a federal platform that centralizes data, research, and regulation, serving the interests of corporate lobbying.
In a society shaped by years of televised crises and algorithm-driven outrage, this pattern often remains unnoticed—simply taken for granted as normal. Critical thinking goes beyond spotting hypocrisy or rhetorical tricks; it involves understanding the underlying framework: the problem–reaction–solution governance cycle. Until this cycle is recognized and challenged, every new tragedy, war scare, or technological breakthrough will be absorbed into the same system, leading to increased control. The alternative isn't chaos; it involves anchoring science, security, and economics within decentralized, accountable institutions that are less likely to exploit crises for their own gain.
Listen to this week's news in verse for a quick recap!
