‘Don’t believe what you see,’ says the Democrats’ queen of denial



Don’t trust your lying eyes — trust Maxine Waters. She talked to some people.

Lady Macbeth understood politics. Her advice was chillingly simple: “Look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under’t.” Appear harmless. Conceal the dagger. Say one thing, mean another. Democrat politicians in Los Angeles have followed that script — not to serve truth, but to manage appearances. Their goal is not persuasion but manipulation: Craft a narrative, distract the public, appeal to empathy, and most of all, get you to surrender your ability to think for yourself. Once that’s done, they can do as they please — with your property, your freedom, and your country.

A radical leftist party that tells us not to think for ourselves or believe what we see, but instead blindly accept its cultural Marxist narrative about how the United States is evil.

But every so often, one of them slips. Not on purpose, of course. Truth is a dangerous thing for such people, and when it leaks out, it’s an accident. Still, when it happens, it’s a gift — an unfiltered glimpse into the worldview and strategy they typically hide behind layers of euphemism and doublespeak.

Such a moment happened with Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) when she uttered the now-immortal words: “Don’t believe what you see.” She meant it. And it tells you everything you need to know about the mind of the modern social justice politician.

Let’s set the scene. Fires rage across Los Angeles. A man stands triumphantly on a car, waving a Mexican flag, while other cars burn around him. The air is thick with smoke and shattered glass. You don’t need a Ph.D. in criminal justice to conclude that this isn’t a peaceful gathering of concerned citizens asking to debate policy.

And yet, speaking in the midst of smoldering chaos, Waters and her fellow Democrat officials — Governor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass — chant the same refrain: There’s nothing to see here.

Waters, attempting to rewrite reality in real time, gave us this gem:

Even those who were out of step with what we are advocating — peaceful protest — did not create any violence. Nobody was shot. Nobody was killed. ... I was on the street, I know ... talking to people about what happened. ... Don’t just rely on what you’ve been told or the few incidents that you saw.

In a single breath, she accomplishes several feats of logical acrobatics. First, she insists there was no violence — while conceding at the very outset that some number of demonstrators were “out of step.” That means, by definition, violent people were doing violent things. Second, she defines “non-violent” as “no one got shot or killed.” By that standard, you can flip police cars, punch officers, loot stores, and set city blocks ablaze — and it’s all perfectly peaceful. As long as no bullets fly and no one dies, the left gives it a moral stamp of non-violent approval.

But here’s the true heart of the message: Don’t believe your eyes.

She admits there were “a few incidents,” and yes, you may have seen video evidence. But don’t trust it. Trust her. Forget your senses. Forget what you saw, what your neighbors saw, what your newsfeed overflowed with for hours. Instead, cling to the narrative. Believe her and the people she talked to.

And this is not an isolated slip. It is the modus operandi of the modern left. Doublespeak is the official dialect of the progressive ruling class. Every statement is a contradiction wrapped in a euphemism, dipped in good intentions, and served with moral superiority.

Yes, that’s a man in a dress with poorly applied lipstick, but he’s a woman. Don’t believe your eyes or what biology says.

Yes, Democrat-run cities are poorer, filled with homeless encampments, and more dangerous — but that’s called standing with the oppressed, not a failure of governance.

Yes, working hard, being on time, studying math, and avoiding vice used to be good advice, but now it’s structural racism.

Yes, universities are teaching young adults to hate their neighbors and live in a permanent state of envy, but it’s all in the name of social justice.

Yes, they committed crimes, but it is the policeman’s fault for showing up and catching them.

Again and again, the left presents a world turned upside down and demands that you call it progress.

RELATED: It’s not a riot, it’s an invasion

Blaze Media Illustration

We should not be surprised. Scripture warns us of those who call good evil and evil good. The leftist narrative demands this kind of reversal — because it cannot survive reality. If you believe your eyes, the spell is broken. If you see the results of their policies, the revolution begins to look like a disaster.

And here’s the part they never account for: the darkness in their own hearts. They promise to build a better society, a just society, but their foundation is not virtue or repentance — it is envy, resentment, and the lust for control. They want to help others, but they can’t even help themselves. They promise Marxist utopias but live in a darkened heart.

Where conservatives ask the government to fulfill its constitutional duty — especially to “ensure domestic tranquility” and “provide for the common defense” — leftists ask the government to make their lives feel better. All of their anger at life and frustration over unfulfilled hopes gets externalized as someone else’s fault. It’s projected onto the United States as the oppressor, the colonizing empire. That Mexico sold California to the United States — after briefly owning it for about 20 years, and all over 150 years ago — is somehow the explanation for why life in Southern California isn’t what they hoped for in 2025. And if it isn’t the United States, then it’s “whiteness” or “heteronormativity.”

They read Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron” not as satire, but as a policy guide.

The riots play this out right in front of us: people lashing out at the system, not because they’ve thought carefully about justice, but because they’ve never learned to take responsibility for their lives. Their suffering must always be someone else’s fault — usually a neighbor who worked harder, obeyed the law, or believed in God. Democrat officials appeal to pity for people who are facing hardships and blame the United States, while not once mentioning the life choices made by people.

Meanwhile, Karen Bass tells us, “Everything is fine” — right before instituting an 8 p.m. curfew downtown. Maxine Waters tells us, “Don’t believe what you see,” even as she stands amid the wreckage.

So no, I don’t believe what they say. I believe what I see. And what I see is this: a radical leftist party that tells us not to think for ourselves or believe what we see, but instead blindly accept its cultural Marxist narrative about how the United States is evil. I refuse.

Rejecting Santa Ono At The University Of Florida Shows Americans Are Done With DEI

Santa Ono’s rejection is a bellwether in a broader campaign to dismantle the leftist orthodoxy embedded in higher education.

DEI Should Have Ended Harvard’s ‘Elite’ Status 60 Years Ago (Or More)

Racial discrimination in favor of minorities at so-called elite schools was already widespread by the early 1970s.

GOP-Appointed University Of Florida Trustees Vote On DEI Booster For President Today

The University of Florida may reverse its nation-leading shift away from identity politics by hiring a DEI-pushing president.

The Statue Of The Random Black Woman In Times Square Is Leftist Cultural Warfare

This kind of 'artwork' is designed to denigrate and tear down western civilization for the purpose of seizing cultural and political power.

Christianity Is The Real Target Of All The Hysteria Over ‘Christian Nationalism’

Are there any real and credible statistics supporting a menacing movement by Christians seeking to theocratize America with neo-Naziism?

Twisting the truth: Wikipedia’s ongoing misinformation war



For over a decade, I have argued with Wikipedia curators about the biographical sketch covering my life and work. Each time a surrogate or I correct false or slanderous details, the misinformation reappears within weeks — often with even greater distortions. Friends who have helped me in this thankless effort suggest giving up, believing that no matter how many corrections we make, the falsehoods will always reappear.

Christopher Rufo has assured me that anyone paying attention knows Wikipedia leans left and misrepresents those with views deemed unacceptable. However, after decades of acquiring unfriendly critics, I doubt most readers will dismiss Wikipedia’s misrepresentations in my case.

One position I will never conceal is my contempt for peddlers of what George Orwell called 'smelly little orthodoxies.' One can’t despise such people enough.

I have also observed Wikipedia’s double standard in editing biographical sketches. Friends with technical expertise have spent weeks trying to correct inaccurate statements about me. Each time, they must provide excessive documentation and navigate endless disputes before even minor corrections are approved. No matter how often they succeed, new distortions inevitably replace the old ones.

When left-leaning contributors make unsubstantiated claims about figures they associate with the political “dark side,” those assertions often go unchecked. The most recent version of my Wikipedia entry falsely states that I oppose Israel’s existence. I have never expressed any sentiment remotely resembling that.

While I have criticized AIPAC for unfairly attacking Israel’s critics, I have consistently defended Israel’s right to protect itself. Yet my biographer offers flimsy evidence to suggest otherwise. One supposed indicator is my past friendship with the late Murray Rothbard, who was explicitly anti-Zionist. But why assume I shared all his views, including his stance on Israel?

Another so-called proof is that I once wrote a review essay for the American Conservative about Elmer Berger, a Reform rabbi critical of Israel’s founding as a Jewish state. Although I described Berger’s position as unrealistic, I apparently didn’t denounce him strongly enough to satisfy those eager to paint me as anti-Israel.

Guilt by association

Wikipedia contributors also attempt to discredit me by linking me to white nationalism. They note that I spoke at an American Renaissance conference in the 1990s but fail to mention that my remarks focused solely on my research on American conservatism — without endorsing white nationalism in any form.

The entry also highlights my past acquaintance with Richard Spencer, though that relationship largely predated his public embrace of white nationalism. Even more tenuously, it refers to an attack from the ADF against an organization I once led, claiming it was “friendly” to white racists. However, even the Wikipedia entry admits that our group was never identified as inherently racist.

These misrepresentations follow a familiar pattern. When leftist editors shape a narrative, they demand exhaustive proof to correct errors. Meanwhile, baseless smears against those they oppose remain unchallenged.

The Wikipedia entry omits that I spent years writing for leftist magazines and that members of the conservative establishment once attacked me as a “right-wing Marxist.” Over decades, I have engaged with a wide range of political groups — both right and left — but rarely with establishments. My work does not focus on race, as it is not my field of study. Instead, my scholarship examines European and American political movements.

Despite this, Wikipedia and Tablet's Jacob Siegel claim that I have written extensively on Latin fascism and seek to create a “post-fascist” imitation of it for the present age. Nothing in my research on changing concepts of fascism supports that bizarre conclusion. I have consistently argued that fascism belonged to a past historical era and should be viewed as an archaic, failed political model.

Opposite of reality

One of the weirdest, most glaring errors about my work appears not in Wikipedia’s biography but in its discussion of “cultural Marxism” as a supposed Jewish conspiracy. There, I am falsely listed as a major source of this ugly, pervasive, anti-Semitic accusation — an assertion that conveniently aligns with the misleading portrayal of me in my biographical sketch.

This charge is entirely baseless. Not only have I never held the views Wikipedia attributes to me, but my books explicitly reject them. The reality is the opposite of what my critics claim.

I have argued that critical theory’s success in the United States stems from its compatibility with the country’s evolution into a managerial state engaged in social engineering. I have also repeatedly noted that today’s woke ideology — promoted by the media, educators, and public administrators — is far more radical and far less insightful than anything the Frankfurt School theorists proposed. Compared to modern woke activists and even some so-called conservatives, early Frankfurt School thinkers could be considered homophobic and sexist.

Wikipedia also claims that Telos, originally a defender of critical theory, was a legitimate leftist magazine until I supposedly took control and transformed it into a “far-right” publication. The entry falsely states, “Under Gottfried’s tenure, Telos became far-right in its outlook.” In reality, I never served as the magazine’s editor in chief; Paul Piccone held that role. I was one of many contributors on the editorial board and played only a minor role in the publication’s engagement with European right-wing thought.

During the 1980s and 1990s, Telos began exploring critiques of centralized managerial regimes, including perspectives from “decentralist” thinkers on the right. This shift was not the result of my supposed influence but rather part of a broader intellectual evolution within the publication.

Of course, I have no expectation that Wikipedia will ever portray me fairly, but I hope others won’t judge me based on its fabrications. One position I will never conceal is my contempt for those who defame me and others like them — peddlers of what George Orwell aptly called “smelly little orthodoxies.” One can’t despise such people enough.

Leaked documents reveal INSANE DEI plan for NASA



From reckless spending and warmongering to importing illegal immigrants and carving children up in labs, calling it “care,” it’s hard to say which part of living under the Biden-Harris regime was the worst.

The insidious cancer that is diversity, equity, and inclusion certainly makes the top five, though.

Once the administration rubber-stamped the fundamentally flawed system that champions racial division, underperformance, and cultural Marxism, while trashing merit and free speech, it spread like a disease throughout the federal government and then across the country.

There was no place that was safe from the poison of DEI — not even the moon.

In Glenn Beck’s latest Wednesday Night Special, he shares the disturbing contents of newly leaked documents that reveal NASA’s dangerous plan to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion in its Artemis mission and “put the first woman and first person of color on the Moon.”

The 99-page file, Glenn says, “was leaked exclusively to my team at TheBlaze by two NASA scientists.”

The document outlines NASA’s plan to return to the moon, and yet “there’s no science” in it and there’s “not even a breakdown of cost,” he explains. That’s because the document wasn’t produced by scientists but rather by “public relations gurus,” who use “emotional appeal, psychology, and PR” to manipulate our feelings.

In his first term, President Trump set the U.S. on a path to return to the moon, but when Biden took office, he changed the trajectory. Suddenly it wasn’t about going to the moon again; it was about getting certain people to the moon. “Science [was] replaced by cultural Marxism and DEI.”

The whistleblowers who leaked the documents, Glenn says, unfortunately cannot be on the show or reveal their identities because “they’re still afraid for their jobs, even though they’re now in the private sector.”

Glenn instead shares some quotes from these anonymous sources:

  • “I was told to be seen and not heard in all meetings related to science — as a scientist.”
  • “I was just pretty shocked at how meticulous they were in controlling the narrative and already pre-idenitifying protagonists, antagonists.”
  • “The way that they would cherry-pick these rags-to-riches stories of these astronauts, a lot of it was centered around DEI.”
  • “NASA, in my opinion, has become a glorified DEI program.”

The leaked Artemis playbook reveals “Who [NASA wants] to build massive appeal with and get to participate.”

Big shock incoming …

They’re targeting “underserved and underrepresented groups,” including “BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and People of Color] youth.”

“In other words, it's not a mission to the moon; it's a marketing campaign for social activism,” says Glenn. “NASA isn't trying just to inspire the next generation of astronauts; they're going to sell an ideology.”

The document, in an effort to employ emotional appeals, outlines the Artemis mission’s “antagonists,” as if their plan to go to the moon were a story in a children’s book.

“The unaware public,” “skeptics who control the budget,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “dissatisfied NASA employees,” among others, are considered threats to the mission.

“I've never seen anything like this from America, and it would make Bernays and Goebbels proud because it was designed to stimulate widespread behavioral changes among individuals,” says Glenn, asking, “When did NASA get into that game?”

Could it be that the space agency is motivated by a “lucrative endgame”?

To hear more about NASA’s leaked documents, including the agency’s plan to get rich off its Marxism-infused Artemis program, watch the episode above. To go through the documents yourself, head over to glennbeck.com

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

University Of Virginia Officially Canceled DEI, But Has A Long Road To Actually Eradicate It

The official move from the UVA board does not mean the ideology is not still deeply embedded in the administration, or that they will not see resistance from faculty.

Anyone Who Calls A Man A Woman Immediately Erases His Own Credibility

We are in a civilizational moment where we must all resolve to reject, without apology or explanation, this deception in every form.