As Reagan said,
“It’s not that liberals are dumb, they just know so much that isn’t so.”
When I read this quote it got me thinking, and I do believe he's hit the nail squarely on the head with it. Quite often they are very intelligent people, however, they will never admit to not knowing something, or to there perhaps being a different narrative to the one they hold as 'truth.' A good example is the row over 'climate change,' the 'liberal' narrative says its all settled. The sky is falling and unless we all immediately give up our cars and all our household electrical appliances and luxuries, we're all going to die. Don't even consider presenting any factual evidence that contradicts this, or suggests it might not be as dire as they say, you are immediately accused of being in 'denial' or the 'pay' of 'Big Oil.'
The problem is that, in order to promote their 'liberal' view on any given subject they must first revise the facts. Not all the facts, just those that promote their particular standpoint. So our history has been revised to the point of farce. If one takes a look at what is taught about, for instance, the building of the British Empire, the entire focus on the history is now on how the Empire Builders 'exploited' the native populations they encountered; how the missionaries 'destroyed' cultures; and how we lived off and created our wealth out of the slave trade with West Africa. It is so selective that they completely ignore the Arab slave raids on Southern Europe Cornwall, Devon and Southern Ireland, the massive Arab slave trade from East Africa and the fact that often it was the traders, not the missionaries, who 'destroyed' cultures.
They have also revised our language, deciding by some cabalistic means, that perfectly innocent idiomatic expressions with perfectly reasonable roots in our culture and in our history (sometimes even in trades) are all related to 'racism' and 'slavery.' The selective use of facts can be a devastatingly powerful weapon when one wants to change peoples allegiances or promote a narrative that demonises a group. A good example of that is the current campaigning against Israel.
Most of the 'anti-Israel' proponents argue that they are not against 'Israelis' or against 'Jews' but against 'Zionism.' What they do not say or admit, is that their vision of 'Zionism' is a very anti-Jew position since it draws no distinction between 'Jew' (dismissed as 'merely' a religious group or label), Israel the State and Zionist which was, in fact, a political movement born out of desperation driven by the repeated purges of Jews in Europe and Russia in the 19th Century. One of the frequently repeated 'truths' one hears from 'liberal' campaigners on this subject is "there were no Jews in Palestine before 1945" and the other one (a little contradictory) is "there were no Jews in Hebron before 1867." Both are false and even a little examination of the history would expose that falsehood.
It is true that the Jewish population was much smaller than it is now, but that again, depends on how it is counted and by whom. British sources suggest a Jewish population at the time of the Mandate in 1919 as 950,000 - but, as anti-Jewish liberals are always quick to point out, the 'Arab' population was much larger. What they fail to recognise is that the 'Arabs' they are counting include the populations of what is now Jordan, Lebanon and part of Syria. Nothing like being a little loose with the figures. As to the "no Jews in Hebron" narrative, this was true - after all the quite sizable Jewish population there was driven out, killed and dispossessed in 1867. The full story of that little event is well hidden today by the history revisionists as it doesn't suit their narrative at all. In short, at the behest of a Mullah, a riot was incited which ended in the destruction of five Synagogues, the death of 67 Jewish men women and children and several hundred others driven out of house, business and farmstead into the deserts. Nor was this an isolated incident. It was one of many such which continued right up to the British Mandates and were threatened to begin again immediately Britain handed the keys of the arsenals and control of the country to the Arab population.
But in the revised narratives, the Jew has always been the aggressor and the interloper.
I could continue with many more examples ranging from the "all Police Forces in the UK are 'Institutionally Racist'" and the "Christianity is responsible for all the wars of history" and so on. The real problem here is that the revisionists have 'doctored' the 'truth' of history to the point it is no longer even close to a balanced picture. Much of it is little more than propaganda recycled. Recently I came across yet another example of how, once something has been distorted or corrupted to suit an ideological narrative, it is almost impossible to kill off. It concerned a quotation once used to support the disgraceful theory of Eugenics. Though the author and source have long been discredited and disproved in reputable journals, it popped up in a quotation in a recent article online as 'proof' and 'accepted truth.'
Sadly, Reagan was absolutely right. It's not that 'liberals' are stupid, they simply will never admit error and they certainly will never let go of any narrative that supports their cause, or admit the truth of anything that disproves it. I think it takes a rather special mindset to be this way.