2150 words
I. Taking stock
Those of us who have not been in deepest slumber these last four years have faced a steep learning curve, with new revelations coming thick & fast. We have had to discover that assumptions and beliefs of a lifetime, in many fields, have been misplaced. Across the board, our trust in institutions has been destroyed. Science, journalism, judiciary, medicine, banking and history have all been found wanting in fundamental honesty. We have been forced to the realisation that, for at least a long century, the anglosphere nations and others have been subject to an undisclosed civil war, with deep states thwarting the will of the people and the handful of wise politicians. The integrity of the banks in particular, both central and operational, has come under fire.
There can be no doubt that evil conspiracies have been at work. Questions arise as to motivation and scope. There is also the spectre of “controlled opposition” and of players who spin stories a bridge too far. Some of the more speculative re-writings claim that secretive societies and dynasties reach far back, into the mists of time; and that power rests seldom where we assume it to be.
The picture is blurred by a near universal abuse of language. Value-laden words such as fascist, antisemitic, democratic, liberal, religion, eugenics and Christian are used almost arbitrarily, i.e. with neither precision nor definition. Moral standpoints are insinuated as self-evident and therefore unquestionable by right-minded people. They are not stated or discussed explicitly.
Since untruths have been disseminated aplenty by the mainstream, many critics seem to believe that they too can play foul, boldly asserting as fact matters which would each need independent and time-consuming verification. Even the most well-educated are confronted with assertions so eclectic that none can be certain that they are all false.
This being so, our policy must be to examine the character of those conveying questionable narratives. If once they are found to have played hard & fast with the truth, then relegate their speculations to the realm of fantasy.
At the end of the day, what counts is the restoration (or re-creation, or re-invention) of what we mistakenly believed we had attained, namely a culture of checks & balances, of disclosure, free of censorship, and dialogue. On disclosure: Non-disclosure agreements must be declared null & void even retrospectively.
Identifying perpetrators behind the scenes and apprehending those we know will be a separate challenge.
This said as a forward, I turn to two prominent story-tellers, or entertainers, masquerading as historians. As critics of the clampdown since 2020 and of much previous mischief, they have our sympathy. But there is overreach.
II. Summary verdict on Matthew Ehret
I discussed Cynthia Chung’s The Empire on which the Black Sun Never Set at https://fuzzydemocracy.substack.com/p/dishonest-history Her husband is Matthew Ehret. See or listen to his:
Breaking History Ep. 24: Assad and Putin Spill the Beans on Ugly Truths of Nazism at
https://canadianpatriot.org/2023/12/21/sir-henry-kissinger-midwife-to-new-babylon/
Also relevant: https://expose-news.com/2023/12/24/the-babylon-conspiracy-two-angles/ where Ehret also features large.
Recently there have been other videos by completely different people covering themes similar to those dealt with by Ehret in his “Greater Israel” as a British Imperial Project. (early in the Kissinger essay)
Ehret is highly selective in the facts, ignoring crucial context and omitting key considerations. Not a few of his „facts“ would need checking on since they are at variance with legacy wisdoms. He then weaves a story around these „facts“ which up-ends much established history. His story fits together the way incidents in a novel might. But history is rife with loose ends, gaps in our knowledge and what little we can know of the past.
III. Detailed observations on Ehret’s diatribe
Ehret massacres language. When many soldiers are killed in battle, this is not properly referred to as a massacre: „the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty“ (Merriam-Webster).
Similarly, Ehret uses the word „fascist“ as a catch-all for whatever he disapproves of. I discuss this linguistic abuse in detail in my critique of the book by his wife, Cynthia Chung.
Winston Churchill was a man of his times, and therefore with his share of racial prejudice. In a long life in politics, his standpoints changed as he found his way in an ever-changing world, as we all would, sometimes toying with (and later rejecting) ideas which today, in hindsight, we might find reprehensible. This does not make him a fascist, or warrant associating him with Eichman.
Ehret fails to mention the Holodomor (Ukrainian famine) or other atrocities committed by Stalin. He only ever has eyes for misdeeds by the British and Americans, some of which can be explained or described in a less unfavourable light. Note that Ehret is a Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. Is it due to this connection that he is wilfully blind to the dark side of Soviet (and therefore Russian) history?
Like many others, such as the prominent Swiss peace activist and historian Danielle Ganser, Ehret condemns the US for allowing Pearl Harbour to happen in order to have an excuse for war. We are meant to believe that poor Imperial Japan was forced to attack Pearl Harbour because the US refused to supply oil – fuel which was needed to continue Japanese aggrandisement in China and Korea. So these high-minded historians believe that Imperial Japan had a Divine Right to massacre (really massacre) in Nanking/Nanjing and elsewhere, with the wicked USA seeking to curb its expansionism.
Moreover, not every subterfuge is to be condemned.
Ehret is keen to moralise but never spells out his moral principles, just insinuating that all right-minded people must share his intuitions and prejudices. Close to woke.
IV. Russia, World War Two
Ehret underplays the Allied contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. It is true that the Soviets took by far the highest casualties. But many deaths were caused by the Bolsheviks themselves. Soviet airmen were trained in the USA and provided with planes to match. Moscow was defended by British tanks. Later the Soviets developed their own tanks, which were superior. Ehret mentions fast-moving German tanks in 1940. No mention of the British tanks advancing rapidly through Belgium and sweeping all before them. Goering sent in the Luftwaffe, which put paid to that. On the subject of the Luftwaffe: this, and air defences, were largely unavailable to the Germans on the Eastern Front in the face of the Soviet advance because they were needed to defend German cities and arms factories against raids by the RAF and US Air Force, both of which took heavy casualties.
Kursk: the biggest tank battle ever, where the Russian tank commanders sometimes knew the orders given to the German commanders before these did themselves. How come? With the help of the Poles, the British had broken the German code: British military on the spot updated their Russian allies daily.
His description of the „scorched earth“ policy of the Russians retreating strikes me as inaccurate. (He does not use this expression, instead describing what happened in terms of entrapment).
Ehret describes Russia as never having had issue with its religious minorities, with Muslims against Christians, the former never having been radicalised by religious extremism. As if the war in Chechnya had never happened. As if Islamists had never committed any massacres at Russian schools. These are unlikely to have been false flag operations.
Ehret implies there was a Nato plan for world government from the outset. There is an argument that this has been happening since 1990, but before the nineteen-fifties and thereafter many peoples were oppressed by the Soviet system, deprived not only of human rights but also of prosperity. Nato was created as a bulwark against any Soviet aggression.
Ehret describes Trotsky as commandeering Nazi fifth columnists. He claims that US intelligence went to Mexico and killed the guy. Not Stalin? Evidence?
Ehret seems to confuse the timeline of the White Army and Bolshevik Revolution.
Ehret makes sweeping statements about the Nuremberg trials, claiming these were instigated exclusively to punish nazis who had refused post-war to collaborate with the USA. This cannot be true. The trials were jointly staged with the British, the French and the Soviets (the British had been opposed, but compromised). Certainly most of the prosecutors were seeking retribution for Nazi crimes. Anyway, most of the accused were too high-ranking and notorious to have been candidates for adoption via Paperclip, which only came into play later.
This is almost too trivial to warrant correction, but, contrary to Ehret, at „Market Garden“ (Arnhem) no American soldiers were massacred (tho the US air force was involved). This was a British operation, daring, and if it had been better planned (some say it was betrayed) would have caused the war to end months earlier. Many British lost their lives, others were taken prisoner.
V. Miscellaneous observations
Speaking fast, leaving the listener no time to reflect, Ehret jumps from one topic to another.
Of a sudden he takes in his sights the Fabian Society; which he denigrates as if it had been a wicked conspiracy from the start (if it ever was). No consideration that the actors, or most of them, may have had good intentions which were subverted by common shortcomings, mistakes and misjudgements. True, grand designs may have been at work, or else small-mindedness and opportunism. Which would need to be demonstrated with peer-reviewed and painstaking analysis. Ehret is too young to have gathered all the evidence alongside the many other revelations he claims as fact.
Remarkably, Ehret speaks for several minutes about narrative warfare, asserting that everything is deception and that the ultimate battlefield is the mind, with disregard for the truth. That the perception of reality is about who is the best story-teller. This is exactly the charge of cynicism which can be made against Ehret himself.
The „oligarchy“ is said to do this or that, thereby assuming that there is some unitary organisation, rather than things just going in a certain direction as decisions emerge from the power play and persuasiveness of key players with diverse motives, priorities and perceptions.
Then there are incidental ramblings about school education with the bold accusation that this is all about memorising. Yet another subject in which, apparently, Ehret is an expert. Meanwhile, some claim that there is too little memorising, such that youngsters know nothing about the centuries which preceded their own.
He confuses (or equates) eugenics and fascism. [Currently everyone is confusing eugenics, which is the attempt to breed selectively, with the attempt to control population numbers. These are separate matters which may or may not be combined.] The standard definition of fascism is that by Mussolini, namely of the state and big business working hand in glove. Nationalism is something different. Tyranny different again. Imperialism may work to curb local tyranny.
In between, just to keep the listeners’ minds racing, he jumps to the US Depression in the 1930s and Nazi-type rallies. No surprise there.
Note his manner of referring to culprits in a highly generalised way. So it is US bankers who financed the Nazis [earlier Trotsky, by the way]. Yes, some – but not all – US bankers.
VI.
There are valid questions to be raised about how plausible, or possible, it is for grand conspiracies to be maintained, in considerable secrecy, over generations or indeed centuries. It is, surely ideas which are fluid, rather than outright conspiracies, and ideas that get passed down, or more likely are re-invented as people naturally reflect on circumstances and society.
Some of those pedalling new narratives resort to a simplified psychology, for example with talk of vengeance as a motive. There is for some, certainly, devotion to power, tho to what end is hard to see. The evidence is that there has indeed been elaborate planning. We would like to know more, and reliably, about the machinations of Freemasons, Jesuits, and various other longstanding secretive societies. We have also become aware of our intelligence services having gone rogue. But the likes of Ehret, playing fast & loose with the facts, would seem to be poor pathfinders.
Finally, for now. Someone who was cruelly brought up in the Plymouth Brethren has written to me: “The Plymouth/Exclusive Brethren are not gnostics. They were very keen not to be linked to any other network, as they believed they were the only true Christians and connections to anyone else would contaminate them.” Ehret: “The Plymouth Brethren were a gnostic sect of pseudo-Christians founded in 1829...”. “Were?” The sect is still in existence. Ehret fails to say what he understands Gnosticism to be, or why the Plymouth Brethren should be called gnostic, or even what Christianity is when it is not pseudo.
With this sort of befuddlement and unreliability, is Ehret someone we should take seriously?