Trust Your Eyes

Progressive gaslighting and the fight over Los Angeles' visible reality

Most people in America want to live in a nice city.

Crime, homelessness, trash, and poverty exist everywhere. But unless you're virtue signaling about preferring the "bad" part of town over clean suburbs, most Americans want to raise their kids, get to work, go out to eat, and visit parks on weekends safely, not surrounded by homelessness, fires, drugs, and trash.

That's the reality many in Los Angeles face right now.

Spencer Pratt, mayoral candidate for the city, has been running common-sense campaigns showing the visible failures of progressive governance in America's second-largest city. Interviews, viral clips, social media posts, and footage of burned-out neighborhoods, homeless encampments, crime in the streets.

His opponents and their Democratic supporters are trying to maintain the narrative that seeing is not believing.

The real question here is gaslighting.

It's bad enough in personal relationships. In oppressive countries like Cuba and North Korea, speaking out against unpleasant realities could get you fined, arrested, or killed, because it contradicts the government's narrative.

So how do we respond when the evidence is right in front of our eyes?

The Counter-Narrative Machine

Progressive politicians and their media allies follow a predictable pattern. They don't deny the fires or homeless encampments. There's too much footage online.

Instead, they reframe what you're seeing.

"This is a housing crisis, not a governance failure." The tent cities aren't the result of policy choices, they're inevitable market forces beyond anyone's control.

When Pratt posts videos of trash-strewn streets and open-air drug markets, they don't address what's in the frame. They attack the messenger. He's "exploiting tragedy for political gain." He's "lacking compassion." He's "oversimplifying complex socioeconomic factors."

The conversation shifts from the actual problem, visible urban decay, to the tone and motivations of the person pointing it out.

They cite statistics. Crime is actually down, they say, using numbers that don't account for crimes residents stopped reporting. They point to funding. "We've invested billions in addressing homelessness." The money disappears into nonprofits and consultant fees while encampments grow larger.

The message underneath is consistent: Don't trust what you see. Trust what we tell you.

This is the counter-narrative machine at work. Its primary function isn't to solve problems, it's to make you doubt that the problems you can see are actually problems at all.

Gaslighting as a Control Mechanism

Here's how gaslighting works in a personal relationship.

Your partner does something hurtful. You confront them. They don't just deny it, they make you question whether it happened at all. "That's not what I said." "You're remembering it wrong." "You're too sensitive." "You're crazy for thinking that."

Over time, you doubt yourself. Maybe you did misunderstand. Maybe your perception isn't reliable.

Once that doubt takes root, you become dependent on the other person to tell you what's real. You stop trusting your own judgment. That's when control is established.

Make someone doubt what they see, hear, and experience. Then position yourself as the authority on what's actually true.

The same mechanism works in politics. The tactics are identical. The goal is the same.

From Personal to Political

When progressive politicians tell Los Angeles residents that the homelessness crisis is being managed, that crime isn't really increasing, that the trash and needles on the streets aren't indicators of policy failure, they're using the exact same playbook as a personal abuser.

The parallel isn't metaphorical. It's the same psychological manipulation deployed at a different scale.

In both cases, the controller needs you to distrust your own perception. Because once you do, they can present any narrative as truth, no matter how much it contradicts observable reality.

The stakes are just higher when it's political.

In a personal relationship, gaslighting destroys your sense of self. In politics, it destroys your ability to participate meaningfully in democracy.

We can disagree about solutions, but we have to agree on basic facts. When political actors gaslight citizens about observable conditions, they're undermining the foundation of self-governance.

If you can't trust your own eyes, how can you make informed decisions about who should lead? If your direct experience is constantly invalidated, how can you advocate for change?

You can't. That's the point.

Why Institutional Gaslighting Is Worse

When someone gaslights you in a personal relationship, you can eventually leave. You can talk to friends who validate your experience. You can rebuild your sense of reality.

When institutions gaslight you, where do you go?

The progressive establishment in Los Angeles has institutional power. They control city government. They have media allies who amplify their messaging. They have nonprofits that depend on their funding. They have academic institutions that provide intellectual cover.

When this entire apparatus tells you that your concerns are misplaced, that what you're seeing isn't what you think, that problems are being addressed even as they visibly worsen, you're not dealing with one abusive partner. You're dealing with a coordinated system.

They won't arrest you for posting videos of homeless encampments. Not yet. But they'll label you. Uncompassionate. Lacking nuance. Part of the problem. Maybe even dangerous.

In a personal relationship, gaslighting isolates you from people who might validate your reality. In politics, it does the same thing. Speak up about what you're seeing, and you risk being labeled extreme. Question the official narrative, and you're divisive.

The social pressure to conform, to accept the approved narrative, to stop trusting your own eyes, it's immense.

And it's backed by institutional authority. Government officials. Credentialed experts. Journalists. They all speak with the weight of legitimacy.

But authority doesn't change what's true. The burned neighborhoods are still burned. The encampments are still there. The crime still happens. The trash still piles up.

That's why it's more dangerous than personal gaslighting. It weaponizes legitimacy against truth. It makes dissent seem unreasonable. It isolates anyone who refuses to accept the narrative.

The Authoritarian Trajectory

Cuba and North Korea didn't start with executions for dissent.

They started by controlling the narrative. By making people distrust their own judgment. By establishing the state as the sole authority on what's real.

In those countries, the government maintains an official story. Everything is fine. The leadership is wise. The system works. The problems you think you see aren't really problems, they're either exaggerated by enemies of the state or they're necessary sacrifices for the greater good.

Anyone who contradicts the official story isn't just wrong. They're dangerous. They're threatening social stability. They're counter-revolutionary.

The mechanism is the same as what we're seeing in Los Angeles. Deny observable reality. Attack those who point it out. Maintain the narrative at all costs.

We're not at the point of arresting people for posting videos of urban decay. But the impulse is there. You can see it in the calls to de-platform critics, to label dissent as "misinformation," to treat political opposition as a threat rather than a normal part of democracy.

Once a government establishes that it can define reality, that observable facts matter less than official narratives, you're on a path that leads to authoritarianism.

If you accept that your direct experience is less valid than what authorities say, you've given up the ability to resist.

That's how authoritarian control works. Not primarily through force, though force comes later. Through the destruction of independent judgment. Through making people dependent on the state to tell them what's real.

The progression is predictable. First, make people doubt themselves. Then, present the official narrative as the only reliable truth. Then, punish those who refuse to accept it.

We're somewhere in the middle of that progression. The gaslighting is well-established. The official narratives are in place. The punishment is still mostly social rather than legal.

But the trajectory is clear.

What Happens When You Can't Trust Your Eyes

Once people can no longer trust their own perception, control is complete.

You can't resist what you can't see. You can't fight back against problems you've been convinced don't exist. You can't demand change when you're not sure there's anything that needs changing.

This is what's at stake in Los Angeles and every other city where political leaders gaslight residents about observable conditions.

It's not really about homelessness policy or crime statistics or budget allocations. Those are important, but they're secondary.

The primary battle is over reality itself.

Do you trust what you see? Or do you trust what you're told?

When Spencer Pratt posts footage of burned neighborhoods and tent cities, he's not just campaigning for mayor. He's asserting that observable reality matters. That what you can see with your own eyes is valid. That you're not crazy for wanting your city to function.

That simple assertion, that reality is real, has become radical because gaslighting has become so normalized.

The fight right now is about whether we keep the basic human right to trust our own senses. To believe our own eyes. To insist that what we experience directly is more valid than what authorities tell us we should believe.

If we lose that, we lose everything.

A population that can't trust its own perception can be told anything, controlled completely, led anywhere.

The burned buildings and tent cities and trash-filled streets of Los Angeles aren't just symptoms of failed governance. They're tests.

Will you believe what you see? Or will you accept the narrative that tells you it's not really that bad, it's being handled, you're lacking compassion for caring?

Your answer to that question determines whether you're free or controlled.

It's that simple. And that serious.

Enjoy The Freeman Wire?

Feel free to forward to a friend who might like it!

What did you think?

👍 Thumbs up if you enjoyed it
👎 Thumbs down if it missed the mark

Want to share your thoughts on the essay or just say hello? Simply hit reply.