According to Miriam-Webster, the definition of brainwashing is 1 : a forcible indoctrination to induce
someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting
regimented ideas. 2 : persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship.
I have recently had the experience of discussing politics and current events with a person that many
would describe as far right (though before the current presidency or the Tea Party's redefining of the
Republican party she might have been considered extreme right).
Looking back at the conversation, it seems very surreal. It almost devolved into a shouting match
several times because both sides felt very strongly about what they were talking about. With
diametrically opposed sides, you have to consider that there will be some things that are discussed that
are plainly true or false.
The problem was not that there was a lot of falsehood, or a lack of debate, but rather an inability to
accept any source by both sides as a true authority. I believe that this dismissal of sources and thus the
acceptance of biased and corrupt sources in light of truth is the wall between the two sides that will
forever block the ability to reason together.
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord (Isaiah 1:18). Although the Lord goes on the teach
about repentance, I think that it is telling that before any accusations or judgments, the Lord is inviting
us to reason, to discuss and come up with a common starting place.
One would hope that scientists, recognized experts in specific fields, historians and historical figures
would be accepted starting points. If we abandon proper experts, we will turn to pseudo experts, those
intending to deceive and indoctrinate in order to further their own objectives.
I had a conversation with my father last year. I don't remember what we were discussing, but it was
political, about Trump and some statistic. Trump's comment was obviously false, which I pointed out.
My father asked for a source, and I quoted [from what I was reading on Snopes or Politifact] something
akin to “Historians disagree.” He then scoffed “Historians? Yeah, like you can trust them.”
I was floored. It was then that I stopped talking to him, realizing that if you are not going to accept
historians as a source, then you only have what is said right now, unverifiable. Imagine a world where
history can not be used to verify facts. Resumes and CVs could include anything at all. Promises would
be meaningless. And, of course, we would be doomed to repeat the errors of our past. If you wanted to
undermine the ability to conserve truth, the first source you would want to vilify is that which
chronicles what has happened.