They would think they are too intelligent to be "brainwashed" and couldn't have been done to them unless they were in a lab. Well, I can tell you from first hand experience in dealing with both of them, as smart as they are, they have both been successfully brainwashed. This clip explains how it was done, accurately describes their reactions perfectly and their inability to use common sense is proof they have been successfully brainwashed.
In any discussion with me on any contentious issue that could be settled with facts or common sense, neither of my parents have ever been capable of counter arguments supported by facts. Their counter argument always deteriorates to "stupid," "mistake," "i don't care," "i don't believe it," or simply starts with one, or all of these, and never budges. They are incapable of producing facts to support their argument because such facts don't exist, and they are incapable of using common sense to support their argument because they have been brainwashed.
So here are two classic examples of discussions/arguments I have had with my parents over issues/questions that I think would have been easily settled using plain old common sense, or settled using facts and evidence. In both of these cases I got nowhere and neither of my parents could believe anything other than what they had been brainwashed into thinking was true.
1) Bobby Jindal
In Feb09 Barack Obama gave a speech to joint session of congress that was broadcast live on national TV. Following Obama, Bobby Jindal gave the republican response, also on live national TV, as is customary for the minority party.
After listening to, and then reading the transcript to make sure I wasn't dreaming, this was my common sense reaction to his speech:
Every single word was carefully chosen, every sentence and paragraph carefully constructed and articulated for maximum effect to its intended audience, the viewer.
This is my parents (both of them) summary reactions to Bobby Jindal's speech: "stupid" "mistake" "i don't care"
Here are some more detailed reactions (paraphrasing): "I don't know that the Bobby Jindal speech was live, I have no way of knowing that." "I have no idea if he wrote it alone or had help, for all I know he wrote it himself and no one else ever read it or had any input." "He didn't care what anybody thought about his speech nor did he think anyone would check it for accuracy." "He didn't think anyone would pay any attention to it or bother to dissect his speech." "He thought no one would be watching, he could get away with it and wasn't thinking who his audience was." "He didn't think critics, commentators, analysts, acedemics, historians, observers, voters, political junkies or in fact anyone in the entire world or the universe itself would listen or be interested in it." "He thought he was talking to himself." Or the classic, Jindal is "an arrogant indian."
In his office at the Louisiana Governors Mansion, Gov. Bobby Jindal chats with staff members while working on the Republican Party response to Pres. Barack Obama's speech Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2009, in Baton Rouge, La. Jindal will give the Republican Party's response to President Barack Obama's first address to Congress Tuesday night. The Louisiana governor's speech will be nationally televised. (AP Photo/Bill Feig)
In other words, my parents common sense tells them that Bobby Jindal is the first politician in history who did not choose his words thoughtfully, carefully, throughly and with extreme care as who the audience was and how they would interpret and take meaning from his words.
Jindal's speech was described by David Brooks (paraphrasing) as 'Worst speech in history of democracy.'
It also had outright lies, storytelling, bad cliches and innuendo in a career ending self destruction speech. (see this this this this this this ...endless...)
My common sense tells me every single word in Bobby Jindal's speech was carefully chosen, every sentence and paragraph carefully constructed and articulated for maximum effect to its intended audience, the viewer. And what was the effect? 'Worst speech in history of democracy.' So what conclusion, using simple common sense, can we draw from this?
Bobby Jindal gave the worst speech in history of democracy deliberately to discredit himself and the Republican Party.
And my parents common sense? Non-existent. Why?
To be fair, I had some detailed written discussions with my mother over this speech and she did come up with an elaborate storytelling parable answer to try and explain Bobby Jindal speech. The problem with her storytelling parable as she well knows, is that Bobby Jindal told a bold faced lie in this speech. Jindal knew it was a lie when he told it, and my mother knows it. So her storytelling parable explanation boiled down to "stupid," 'mistake," "i don't care," or "i don't believe it." To this day that has not changed.
This issue/question is one that has yet to see either of my parents provide facts and evidence to support their belief that money<>debt.
When I tried to explain to my father why money=debt I was told I was "stupid," "mistaken," or needed to take some economics classes and learn something as I clearly had no idea what I was talking about. This is a common retreat for my father "take some economics classes."
To the purists out there, when I say "money" I mean FRN's or any fiat currency equivalent. I'm not talking about value, wealth, assets or anything else. Strictly money as fiat currency. No other definition or meaning of money. Money as the fiat currency you pay taxes with, that money.
Last time I checked we still pay taxes in fiat currency, not sticks of bamboo, rocks, matchsticks or anything else. Our government here in Canada does not accept trades, barter, promises to pay, IOU's, diamonds, cigarettes, pencils or coconuts as mediums of exchange for payment of taxes. It only accepts its fiat currency, money, as payment for taxes.
Totally clear on what I mean by money?
Had to clear that up because my dad loves to start any discussion about money=debt with "well we could use matchsticks as money, we just choose to use money" or "if I had a 1,000 pencils worth a dollar each thats the equivalent of having a $1,000.00 dollars" or any other number of irrelevant distractions from the issue.
When the government allows you to start paying taxes in matchsticks, pencils or bits of wood, you let me know and then maybe how many matchsticks, pencils or bits of wood you have, can make or can gather, might be relevant.
So, this is how I try to explain to my father why money=debt.
Money is primarily created in only 2 ways
a) It is created by a central bank/treasury issuing IOU's
b) It is created by private banks issuing loans.
Both of these methods of money creation creates debt equal to the amount of money being created, plus interest.
The third way money is created is through "Quantitative Easing"
c) The central bank creates money to buy treasury IOU's and instead of creating offsetting debt, instead just creates an entry on its balance sheet.
Now, trying to get my parents to see how money is created by using simple common sense is a gargantuan and basically impossible task. They have seen "money as debt" 1 and 2, discussed it with the author, Paul Grignon, discussed it with me, along with having read numerous articles I have sent including the federal reserves own "Modern Money Mechanics" explaining how and why money=debt. I have also sent them a long list of quotes including this one from the federal reserve “[Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts." As well as many quotes on the nature of money from people throughout history like Napoleon, John Adams, Henry Ford, Esra Pound etc. (The only sources I have ever found that disputes the fact money=debt is a publication from a private bank or something written by ill-informed, uneducated ignorant sheeple. I have never found anything that disputes on the basis of facts that money=debt as detailed in "Modern Money Mechanics" written by the federal reserve.)
Still not a dent.
In spite of overwhelming evidence, logic, reasoning, explanation, history, they mentally refuse to apply their common sense. Why? Brainwashing.
They have been successfully brainwashed all their lives to believe that money is something other than what it really is.
And the irony? They are both going to read this and it won't change a thing.
They will likely say something like "don't expect us just to agree with you." I don't, but until today, I did expect that common sense would prevail. Now at least I know why it never will. They have both been been brainwashed.