What You're Being Led to Believe About All These Violent Riots

This article was written by Julie Telgenhoff

The Fourth of July violence in Newport Beach, California, was not presented to the public as ordinary holiday chaos.

Fireworks were launched into crowds and police officers. Stores were looted. Hundreds were arrested. The violence spilled into one of California’s wealthiest coastal communities, creating exactly the kind of images guaranteed to frighten people who normally feel protected from street disorder.

Almost immediately, an explanation was introduced. The Newport Beach Police Association claimed that the crowd had been spurred by an alleged “TikTok Takeover,” while the mayor blamed social-media posts for causing the number of people on the peninsula to triple within hours. But no public evidence was presented identifying who created the alleged takeover, how it was promoted or whether the people responsible for the violence had even arrived because of those posts.

Once again, the internet was placed at the center of the story. A chaotic holiday crowd was no longer simply a policing failure or an outbreak of opportunistic violence. It became evidence that social-media platforms could instantly mobilize dangerous groups and overwhelm an American community.

In months leading up to the riots, Right-leaning media had already been advancing a broader explanation for political unrest: that Marxist organizations, foreign influence, Chinese-linked money and professional protest networks were operating throughout the country. Although no public evidence connected those networks to the Newport Beach violence, the narrative was already in place.

These stories appear different, but they lead the public to the same conclusion.

A foreign enemy is using the internet to organize domestic chaos, and that is the message they want you to believe. 

The public is not being encouraged to ask who benefits from the fear, why these narratives appeared before the riots, or why federal agencies are requesting billions of dollars for expanded digital surveillance, artificial intelligence, financial tracking and network analysis.

Instead, Americans are being trained to believe that violent unrest is being imported into the country through TikTok, China, Marxists, foreign donors and shadowy political organizations.

Once people accept that premise, internet control begins to look like protection.

And this pattern did not begin on July 4. Let's discuss reportings leading up to this event. 

In January 2026, FBI Director Kash Patel announced that the bureau was investigating the people funding and organizing protest activity.

In May, the public was told that approximately 600 organizations with a combined $2 billion in annual revenue were mobilizing thousands of May Day demonstrations. The headline created the impression of a massive centralized protest machine, even though the $2 billion represented the combined annual revenue of hundreds of separate organizations—not money directly spent creating riots.

But the number was never meant to clarify the truth. Instead, it was meant to frighten people.

Then, on July 2, just two days before the Fourth of July violence, FBI officials again told the public to “follow the money” when apparently disconnected protest groups appeared in different cities. They claimed the bureau had discovered nefarious funding sources behind political violence.

No names were released. No complete evidence was shown. No specific financial network was publicly proven. The public was simply told that the hidden network existed.

Forty-eight hours later, affluent Newport Beach erupted into chaos over the 4th of July. 

The timing does not prove that the FBI or media created the riots. But it does show that the public had already been handed the explanation before the images appeared.

That message read loud and clear: Do not view the violence as spontaneous, as teenagers following a viral invitation, or as an ordinary breakdown of public order. Instead, view it as a coordinated foreign-backed attack moving through the internet. That is the psychological setup.

Although labeled for fiscal year 2027, the FBI’s budget request was already being processed in March 2026, and it reveals the solution being prepared.

The bureau is requesting approximately $12.5 billion, including more than $1.18 billion in new program expansions. The request includes artificial-intelligence systems, centralized digital networks, social-media analysis, financial investigations, biometric collection, cybersecurity infrastructure and tools designed to identify entire networks of people before crimes occur.

The FBI’s new Joint Mission Center brings together multiple federal agencies to trace money, analyze organizations and identify networks allegedly connected to domestic political violence.

The government is no longer interested only in the person who throws the explosive.

It wants to know who that person follows online, which accounts they communicate with, which organization promoted the event, who donated to that organization, which encrypted chat they joined, where their phone traveled and who appears inside their digital network.

A riot becomes the doorway into the surveillance of thousands of people.

This is no longer merely crowd control. It is the construction of a system capable of combining online speech, financial activity, location data and personal associations into one permanent investigative map.

The wealthy location of the Newport Beach riots also matters. When unrest is confined to poor neighborhoods, the political class can ignore it. When violence reaches wealthy coastal communities, expensive shopping districts and protected zip codes, fear becomes personal. Influential residents demand action, media coverage intensifies and stronger government intervention begins to look reasonable.

This follows the Hegelian Dialectic model of Problem ----> Reaction ----> Solution: a crisis creates public fear and outrage, which then allows authorities to introduce policies or powers that people might otherwise reject.

----> The problem is violent chaos, presented as the work of foreign-controlled platforms, Marxist networks and mysterious outside financiers.

----> The reaction is fear, anger and the demand that something be done.

----> The solution is expanded internet surveillance, financial monitoring, artificial intelligence, biometric collection and greater federal control over the systems people use to communicate and organize.

The government does not need to shut down the internet to control it. Control can be achieved by identifying anonymous users, tracking donations, monitoring encrypted groups, mapping associations, pressuring technology companies and preserving private communications.

The foreign-enemy narrative makes the expansion easier to sell. Americans are being led to believe that China, Marxists, TikTok and mysterious foreign financiers are creating violent riots inside the United States.

The deeper purpose is to convince the public that the internet itself has become a national-security threat. Once the internet is framed as the weapon, surveillance becomes the defense. 

People may still be allowed to speak, but they will know they are being watched. That knowledge alone changes behavior.

The riots create the fear. The foreign enemy receives the blame. Wealthy communities demand protection.

And the American public is led toward the prearranged solution: total surveillance and eventual control of the internet.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If my work has helped you in any way, you can support my independent writing here:  https://buymeacoffee.com/asheepnomore

Every bit helps me keep researching, writing, and sharing outside the corporate-approved narrative.

The Chaos You’re Feeling Is by Design

 

by Julie Telgenhoff

Yuri Bezmenov’s ‘normalization’ warning matters today because it explains how mass moral disorientation is engineered until populations accept extreme political, social and institutional behavior as ordinary. Normalization is the final and most dangerous phase of ideological subversion, when the abnormal is presented as permanent, inevitable and beyond resistance.

The 4 Stages of Subversion

Bezmenov, a former KGB propagandist, outlined how nations are captured from within:

1. Demoralization (15–20 years): Infiltrating educational and cultural institutions to rewrite a nation’s history and values so that the population can no longer distinguish right from wrong.
2. Destabilization (2–5 years): Attacking essential structural elements like the economy, foreign relations, and defense.
3. Crisis (up to 6 weeks): Precipitating a violent shift that brings a country to the brink of collapse.
4. Normalization: The culmination where the populace becomes numb to radical changes, and new ideological parameters are forced upon them as the inescapable, permanent reality.

On July 3, 2026, the official White House social-media account took an image celebrating the marriage of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce at Madison Square Garden and digitally replaced the illuminated “JUST&T MARRIED!” announcement with “Trump Is Your President.” It also published an “America’s Eras Tour” graphic centered on Trump.

Image: WION NEWS

The White House inserted the president into a celebrity wedding so that he could settle a personal grievance with a singer who had opposed him politically.

In another era, this would have been considered deeply embarrassing. The White House was supposed to represent the country, not behave like an obsessive troll account operated by an adolescent. Yet the incident passed through the news cycle as entertainment. Some laughed. Some cheered. Others rolled their eyes and continued scrolling.

That reaction is more important than the post itself.

Demoralization did not simply mean making people unhappy. It meant leaving them unable to judge events according to consistent moral principles. Right and wrong would be replaced by political allegiance. The same behavior would be condemned when performed by an enemy and celebrated when performed by one’s own side.

Subversion does not always arrive with tanks. Sometimes it arrives as a meme.

Donald Trump did not create America’s moral and institutional decay, but he has become its perfect delivery system. I believe he was selected for precisely this role. He was selected to become the great divider: the figure capable of making millions of people defend conduct they would once have condemned, simply because the person performing it belonged to their political tribe.

His function is not merely to pass policies. His deeper function is to demolish the remaining behavioral limits surrounding power.

Image: The Boston Globe

Trump demonstrated this again when former FBI director Robert Mueller died in March 2026. The president of the United States responded publicly: “Good, I’m glad he’s dead.”

A president openly expressing pleasure over another person’s death should have produced a moment of national moral clarity. Instead, many people immediately began explaining why Mueller deserved it. The question was no longer whether celebrating death was beneath the presidency. The only question was whether Mueller belonged to the correct political faction.

That is demoralization.

Trump has described political opponents as “vermin” and used language about immigrants “poisoning the blood” of the country. He has repeatedly called people “animals,” turning human beings into an undifferentiated enemy population.

The purpose of such language is not only to insult. It lowers the moral barrier against whatever treatment may follow. Once a group becomes vermin, animals or poison, cruelty can be presented as sanitation, protection or patriotism.

The official White House account later released an “ASMR” video featuring close-up footage of shackled immigrants being prepared for deportation. Human beings in chains were transformed into sensory entertainment and government-branded social-media content.

A person can support immigration enforcement while still recognizing the depravity of turning humiliation into entertainment. Policy is one matter. Enjoying the spectacle of restrained people is another. Demoralization deliberately erases that distinction.

Image: The White House via X

The same pattern appears in the administration’s increasingly monarchical imagery. Trump announced “LONG LIVE THE KING!” while the official White House account published an image of him wearing a crown. He later shared an AI-generated image of himself dressed as the pope, which the White House also circulated.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte jokingly used the word “daddy,” and the White House converted it into a presidential promotional video set to “Daddy’s Home.”

King, Pope, and Daddy are not the images of a constitutional public servant. They are the archetypes of unquestionable authority. Each can be dismissed individually as humor. Together, they condition the public to experience domination as personality, leadership and entertainment.

That is how normalization advances. The first occurrence shocks people. The second becomes controversial. The third becomes a joke. By the fourth, it has become part of the president’s brand.

This is why Trump is so effective in the role for which he was selected. He does not merely violate social and institutional boundaries. He forces his followers to participate in destroying them. Every new act demands another defense. Every defense moves the boundary a little farther.

“They deserved it.”

“He's playing 5-D Chess.”

“It was only a joke.”

“Stop being so sensitive.”

“What about the Democrats?”

These reactions are the machinery of normalization. The population performs the work upon itself.

Demoralized people no longer ask whether an action is honorable, humane or appropriate for the presidency. They ask whether it humiliates the people they have been trained to hate. Cruelty becomes acceptable when directed at an approved target. Narcissism becomes strength. Vindictiveness becomes authenticity. Institutional degradation becomes evidence that the president is an outsider “shaking things up.”

This does not mean the system was healthy before Trump. It was not. Previous administrations expanded war, surveillance, censorship, corporate power and government secrecy while maintaining a more polished public appearance. Trump’s particular assignment is different. He was selected to rip away the respectable mask and make the degradation itself desirable.

He turns government into spectacle, leadership into personal worship and human suffering into shareable content.

That is why the White House inserting Trump into Taylor Swift’s wedding matters. Viewed alone, it appears petty and ridiculous. Viewed as part of the larger pattern, it reveals an official institution now operating as an extension of one man’s ego and private resentments.

And hardly anyone is shocked, because this is normalization.

Bezmenov warned that after sufficient demoralization, people could be shown factual information and still remain incapable of interpreting it outside the ideology that had captured them. They would not recognize the process because their ability to recognize it had been dismantled.

Trump is fulfilling that role extraordinarily well. He is teaching the population not merely to tolerate degradation, but to applaud it, repeat it and attack anyone who still possesses enough moral awareness to object.

Normalization is complete when the abnormal no longer needs to be concealed. It can be posted directly from the White House, and millions will defend it or laugh it off before asking whether it should ever have happened.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If my work has helped you in any way, you can support my independent writing here:  https://buymeacoffee.com/asheepnomore

Every bit helps me keep researching, writing, and sharing outside the corporate-approved narrative.

Why Are They Encouraging AI Writing Everywhere?

 

Written by Julie Telgenhoff

Facebook has quietly placed artificial intelligence directly inside the act of posting. A person can begin typing, select “Help me write,” and instruct Meta AI to rewrite the post for them. Meta offers similar assistance in Messenger, where AI can rephrase a message or change its tone before it is sent. Google has already normalized this through Gemini. Gmail can generate an entire email from a prompt or refine something the user has written, while Google Docs can rephrase, shorten, elaborate, summarize or convert thoughts into bullet points.

The same pressure is already entering the employment process. Resume writing is increasingly promoted as something artificial intelligence should handle, from composing professional summaries to rewriting work history around keywords selected for applicant tracking systems. Even after someone applies, employment platforms such as Indeed may encourage the applicant to use an embedded AI tool when responding to a company’s message. The person is no longer simply being helped with spelling or formatting. AI is being placed between the applicant and the employer, shaping how the person presents their experience, personality and interest in the job.

These tools are presented as conveniences: they save time, improve grammar, and help people sound more professional. But convenience is not neutral when it enters the process through which human beings form and communicate thought. The struggle is the thinking.

When an AI system performs that work before the person has done it, something important is removed. The user may receive cleaner language, but the mind loses another opportunity to practice creating it.

This is cognitive offloading: transferring mental work to an outside tool. Human beings have always done this with calendars, notebooks, calculators and maps. Offloading is not automatically harmful. The concern begins when we stop outsourcing storage or calculation and begin outsourcing the development of our own thoughts. Research has long recognized that external tools can reduce the amount of internal mental work a person performs. More recent research has found that heavier dependence on AI is associated with lower critical-thinking ability, particularly when users accept generated material without actively evaluating it.

Facebook’s writing assistant does not merely correct a misspelled word after someone has completed a thought. It waits inside the posting box, inviting the user to surrender the thought before it has fully formed.

That is a very different relationship with technology.

Social media had already begun reshaping written language long before generative AI arrived. Paragraphs became captions. Conversations became reactions. Complex ideas were squeezed into slogans, memes and isolated sentences designed to produce the fastest possible emotional response.

The platforms trained users to post, check, react and repeat. Large scale research has found that social media behavior follows patterns consistent with reward learning: people adjust what and how often they post according to the social rewards they receive. The “like” functions as feedback, teaching the user which behavior is most likely to be rewarded again.

A thoughtful paragraph asks the reader to slow down, hold several ideas in mind and follow a line of reasoning. A single emotionally chargedAI-produced, one line sentence asks almost nothing. It can be absorbed, approved or rejected in seconds before the thumb continues scrolling.

The result may not be better human writing. It may be the gradual replacement of human writing with a standardized platform voice: polished, pleasant, concise, predictable and almost entirely without fingerprints.

Researchers have already found signs of this convergence. In one published experiment, people given generative-AI ideas produced stories that were judged more polished and creative individually, yet those stories were also more similar to one another. The writers improved their immediate output while the collective diversity of the writing declined. Other controlled research has found that AI writing suggestions can pull users toward dominant cultural and linguistic styles, reducing some of the distinctions that make individual voices recognizable.

This is the trade being offered. You can sound more competent without developing competence, appear articulate without struggling to articulate anything, and produce more words while exercising less authorship.

And here's what really matters. Eventually, people may stop noticing the exchange.

The AI-generated sentence will sound correct. It will contain the approved structure, familiar transitions and emotionally appropriate tone. The user will tap “insert,” make one small change and experience the finished product as their own.

Do this repeatedly and the relationship reverses. The machine no longer learns to imitate the person. The person begins learning to imitate the machine.

This is why the relentless placement of AI inside email, search engines, documents, text messages and social-media posts deserves more scrutiny than it is receiving. The issue is not simply that AI exists. The issue is that it is becoming the default intermediary between a human experience and the words used to describe it.

The platforms stand to benefit either way. Users produce material faster. More content enters the system. Communication becomes easier to categorize, predict and process. Language becomes standardized enough for algorithms to understand and distribute efficiently.

Whether the deliberate objective is to weaken human expression or that is merely a profitable consequence, the destination looks remarkably similar: people who communicate constantly but increasingly struggle to express a developed original thought.

There is an important difference between using AI as a tool and allowing AI to become the author. A person can arrive with an idea, conduct research, write a rough argument and use AI to question, organize or polish it. The person remains the source. The technology assists an intellectual process that has already begun.

However, the embedded “Help me write” button encourages the opposite sequence. The technology supplies the thought shaped product first, and the human is reduced to approving it.

Language carries memory, temperament, culture, humor, contradiction and lived experience. Real human writing is sometimes awkward because human thought is still developing. It wanders because discovery is not always linear. It requires paragraphs because meaningful ideas often cannot be reduced to one sentence without destroying what made them meaningful.

The greatest danger is not that artificial intelligence will become indistinguishable from a human being. It is that human beings will gradually become indistinguishable from artificial intelligence: brief, frictionless, predictable and unable to tolerate the mental discomfort required to form an original idea.

A population that loses its language also loses part of its ability to question, reason and resist manipulation.

People who cannot construct a paragraph will eventually struggle to construct an argument. People who cannot remain with an argument will accept whichever conclusion arrives quickest.

When people outsource writing to AI, they are not simply handing over a mechanical chore. They are surrendering part of the process through which critical thought is formed, tested and organized. As that ability weakens, people become more vulnerable to manipulation and less capable of identifying contradictions, exposing systemic harm or clearly explaining what is being done to them.

By encouraging society to trade cognitive autonomy for convenience, the widespread outsourcing of writing carries consequences far beyond grammar and style. A population that cannot independently formulate an argument will eventually struggle to recognize tyranny, articulate its suffering or organize coherent resistance against the forces causing it.

You Don’t Attract What You Want... You Become It!

 "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he." - Proverbs 23:7

by Julie Telgenhoff

Manifestation has been buried beneath vision boards, repetitive affirmations, complicated rituals and endless instructions about raising your vibration. Jason Brashear of Archaix cuts through all of it. In two short paragraphs, he explains that the desired experience must first be imagined as a memory and then embodied as an identity.

That distinction changes everything.

Most people imagine what they want while remaining conscious that they do not have it. They hope it will happen, wonder when it will arrive and continually search their reality for evidence that it is working. Every time they check, they reinforce the belief that the desired outcome is still somewhere in the future.

Brashear’s method reverses this. Instead of fantasizing about something that might happen, imagine remembering something that already happened. Remember how quickly it appeared. Remember how natural it felt when it became part of your life. Remember the relief, satisfaction or freedom you experienced once it was settled.

Hope keeps the desire at a distance. Memory makes it feel complete.

When a matter becomes clear, it ceases to concern us. We do not spend every day wondering whether yesterday happened. We know it happened, so there is nothing left to chase, force or continually confirm. This is why the imagined experience must eventually be released. Once it feels internally settled, continuing to struggle with it only reopens the question.

The struggle itself blocks the miracle.

When we fight reality, obsess over what is missing or attempt to force an outcome, we continue charging the condition we want to escape. What we resist persists because our attention keeps feeding it. The mind may believe it is searching for a solution, but it is often rehearsing the problem.

Negative situations can remain because we continually charge the field around them. We think about them, speak about them, anticipate their return and repeatedly react to them. In doing so, we keep giving them energy. The condition may be unwanted, but our behavior continues treating it as important, powerful and present.

Letting go does not mean the desire no longer matters. It means no longer behaving as though your life depends upon obtaining it. You stop watching the clock. You stop demanding signs. You stop negotiating with reality. The desire becomes no big deal because, within your imagination, it has already been resolved.

This is the indifference people often misunderstand. It is not apathy. It is the calmness that follows certainty.

You must stop trying to get it. The effort to obtain it reveals that you still believe it is missing. Your behavior must communicate that the outcome is already secure, even though a deeper part of you still cares very much about it. You do not become emotionally numb. You simply stop feeding the absence.

Brashear’s second instruction is to immediately assume the identity of the person who has already received what was wanted. Reality does not merely respond to what we say we want. It responds to the identity we consistently project through our expectations, decisions, reactions and behavior.

Imagination generates reality, but action and behavior water the fantasy until it becomes fact.

You do not repeatedly try to become that person. You begin operating as that person now. The desired outcome becomes something you know rather than something you seek.

Acting wealthy does not require reckless spending or pretending bills do not exist. It means refusing to allow scarcity to define your identity. Acting loved does not mean inventing a relationship that is not there. It means no longer moving through life as someone who expects rejection. Acting successful means making choices from the identity of someone capable, secure and accustomed to opportunity rather than someone waiting to be rescued.

Reality responds to identity.

The more natural the new identity feels, the more powerful it becomes. An exaggerated performance still reveals that the experience feels foreign. The goal is not to force excitement every moment. It is to allow the desired reality to feel ordinary, familiar and expected.

There are also three things Brashear says you should not do.

The first is waiting.

Waiting produces anxiety because waiting assumes the desired event has not happened. The person who is waiting remains focused on time, delay and absence. Anxiety then pushes the experience further away because the behavior itself continues broadcasting uncertainty.

The second is looking for external validation.

Checking your phone, refreshing your messages, searching for signs or constantly looking for confirmation creates worry. Worry is another form of anxiety, and anxiety communicates that the outcome is not secure.

Behavior is what the construct responds to.

You may say that you believe, but if your actions show that you are nervous, watching and repeatedly checking, then your behavior is expressing doubt. The field is not responding to the words alone. It is responding to the identity underneath them.

The third is talking to other people about your intentions.

Your intention belongs to you. Once it is shared, other people can project doubt, fear, judgment or disbelief onto it. Their energy can affect your field, especially if their reaction causes you to question what previously felt settled.

It is your fantasy anyway. Keep it to yourself.

Download Now!

There is no need to seek agreement, permission or applause. The imagined experience is an inner act of creation. Protect it until it becomes so natural that outside opinions no longer disturb it.

This is a plane of creation, not competition. Another person does not have to lose for you to receive. You are not fighting the world for a limited supply of possibilities. You are occupying a state and allowing the corresponding experience to organize around it.

The formula is almost unnervingly simple. Imagine the desired experience as something already remembered. Feel how ordinary and secure it became. Assume the identity of the person for whom it is already true. Allow your actions to arise from that identity. Do not wait, do not search for validation and do not expose the intention to people who may interfere with it.

Then stop chasing the result.

You do not beg for what is already yours. You do not struggle to reach what has already been settled. You remember, become and release.

Then you allow reality to catch up.

The video below is clipped from a presentation lasting more than three hours inside The Underground. Brashear describes it as a synopsis drawn from thousands of pages of notes and a complete abbreviation, reduced to two paragraphs, of the central manifestation and law-of-attraction principles found throughout the works of Baltasar Gracián, Thomas Troward, Wallace Wattles, Neville Goddard, James Allen, Napoleon Hill, Rhonda Byrne, The Edinburgh Lectures on Mental Science and The Dore Lectures.

Archaix Breakthrough Analysis on Manifestation Formulas

If my work has helped you in any way, you can support my independent writing here:  https://buymeacoffee.com/asheepnomore

Every bit helps me keep researching, writing, and sharing outside the corporate-approved narrative. Thank you.