Matthias Ehret and Cynthia Chung
engage in fraudulent history

Matthias Ehret’s devious, seductive rhetoric
and his fake history

It must be feared than many people with little knowledge of history and lacking critical skills will be seduced by Matt Ehret’s clever rhetoric and appealing narrative. This is why I am returning to him to focus here on his most recent diatribe:

“The British Empire’s Gnostic Revival of Scientific Paganism and a New World Religion” published on 26.12.2023.
Just read that title slowly. Do you understand it?

Let us take it apart.

(i) In the following text Ehret fails to explain to us what Gnosticism is, or what he understands it to be. You can look it up, but that will not help you in understanding the claims Ehret makes. Few people will have much idea of this ideology, which held sway two thousand years ago. Gnosticism, in many guises, claimed that matter was evil, but that people could escape this evil by being initiated into secrets and rituals. Manichaeism, which came later, was not dissimilar.

(ii) What is “Scientific Paganism”? Again, no explanation.  

To remind you: Paganism is any religion (however good) which, unlike Christianity, Judaism or Islam, does not worship a unique God. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paganism. But this does not explain how it can be “scientific.”  

Indeed, Ehret has a misconception about the nature of science. He writes:  “The Science of History: Pregnant Moments vs Linear Chronologies” But History is not a Science. Physics and Chemistry are sciences, defined by scientific method, which cannot conceivably be applied to history. History is properly described as a Discipline, discipline that Ehret is sadly lacking in.  

(iii) In the title and elsewhere, Ehret uses the word “Religion.” No-one. least of all Ehret, takes the trouble to spell out what this word means. [I do: The proper topic of Religion is First and Last Things, for which rituals are cultivated. More at http://www.thinking-for-clarity.com/Lastthings.html. It proves useful to keep “Religion” separate from “Morality”]

(iv) Ehret refers to a minor 19th century movement, Theosophy (apparently originating in the USA, and not, as he implies, in Britain), as signalling the rebirth of Gnosticism.   

https://www.britannica.com/topic/theosophy

He also denigrates the Fabian Society: But see: https://www.britannica.com/money/topic/Fabianism

Ehret insinuates that the Theosophists and Fabians directed British politics and global ambitions. Yet these were marginal groups which flourished briefly in the twentieth (not, as Ehret implies, the nineteenth) century. (As a moderate left think-tank, the Fabians continue to this day, overshadowed by countless others.)  

Ehret does not quote any authoritative sources of the time or later historians to back up his assertions.

(v) What does this phrase mean? « When those false ideas are permitted to shape the cultural standards of what is considered “normal” for too long,...  »

Ehret fails to say which “false ideas” he means. He is talking about what he calls “pregnant moments,” such as the years in the USA following 1865. Yet there is not a single statement among his many sweeping generalisations about the late 19th century which cannot be seriously challenged, or which he attempts to substantiate. Some may have taken on life later, i.e. in the twentieth, but were not valid at the time. Ehret paints a picture of late 19th century USA which many would consider a deluded and smug caricature. (Contrast the contemporary judgements made by Mark Twain.)

Note Ehret’s Agenda: anything British is bad, most everywhere else, if rebelling against things British, angelic. For example, this invective against Great Britain: “...nations were breaking free of the shackles of colonialism and ignorance...” Yet this was the heyday of German and Belgian colonisation, notorious for cruelty and genocide far worse than anything alleged against the British. Coming from someone who purports to be a historian and not a schoolboy, the “breaking free” is therefore not remotely true. That is, it is a lie. Not a mistake, because Ehret is too clever and consistent in his arbitrary assertions for it to be simple error.

By the way: In that century it was the British Royal Navy, not the Dutch, the French or others, who suppressed first the trade in slaves and later much slavery itself.

(vi) We must conclude, therefore, that Ehret indulges in capricious inventions, at best speculations about what might have been happened, much as a historical novelist might phantasize, i.e. without evidence. Ehret’s imaginations are similar to those of the “British Israelites,” “Dispensationalists” who dreamed (without a shred of evidence) that the hegemony of Britain and the USA was God-given to what were claimed to be the Lost Tribes of Israel.  

This is dangerous because naive readers will be impressed by his fake erudition, his connecting random dots,  and will believe in a narrative which is not only entirely false, but politically and culturally subversive.

In my previous post, and also in the conversation published at https://www.bitchute.com/video/L3FFVg8YiWRS/

and https://rumble.com/v48rvqi-thought-talk.-elsa-and-paul-gregory.-the-verdict-is-in-on-matt-ehret.-not-t.html  I have pointed to further transgressions by Ehret of proper debating norms and culture. I have there identified the tactics he uses in furtherance of his self-promotion, all the while pretending to stand with us in the Résistance.

“Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that history is best understood as a living process shaped by 1) ideas of good and evil, 2) decisions to act according to those ideas whether right or wrong, and 3) the freedom to embrace error, corruption and lies which often wear the clothing of truth”

Ehret does not spell out his understanding of good and evil, or of right and wrong, let alone ponder whether his readers have concluded likewise. Others may see history and the history of ideas as often disordered, with ideas (good and bad) being reinvented as the natural outcome of human reflection.   

Note “the freedom to embrace error, corruption and lies which often wear the clothing of truth”  which is a license he has taken very much to heart. Ehret does indeed wear “the clothing of truth.” 

The “clothing of truth”:

According to a 19th century legend, the Truth and the Lie meet one day. The Lie says to the Truth: “It’s a marvellous day today”! The Truth looks up to the skies and sighs, for the day was really beautiful.  They spend a lot of time together, ultimately arriving beside a well. The Lie tells the Truth: “The water is very nice, let’s take a bath together!” The Truth, once again suspicious, tests the water and discovers that it indeed is very nice. They undress and start bathing. Suddenly, the Lie comes out of the water, puts on the clothes of the Truth and runs away. The furious Truth comes out of the well and runs everywhere to find the Lie and to get her clothes back. The World, seeing the Truth naked, turns its gaze away, with contempt and rage.

Cynthia Chung

Cynthia Chung has ruined what is otherwise a convincing story-line by errors of fact which are so egregious as to appear deliberate, including omission of essential context, character assassination and abuse of language. The reader cannot and must not rely on her for points of historical detail.

Much damage is done in the real world by tendentious narratives swallowed and peddled by the gullible & uninformed, with much moralising about distant events which are routinely misrepresented. It is therefore imperative to issue a warning against what appears to be a woke agenda. The criticism below focuses on particular chapters. Other chapters would seem to be unobjectionable. Chung quotes extensively from a handful of books, which themselves may or may not be reliable.

First, tho, a summary of the main argument, which is all-too-plausible.

I. “The Empire on which the Black Sun Never Set” (447 pages) is one telling of how secretive bodies have for centuries been engaged in long marches to create or preserve oligarchies and to undermine free & transparent institutions. Much of what is told is credible and for many years has been accepted in circles critical of the dominant narrative. In particular, the Western intelligence services and high finance are held to have themselves been ultimately responsible, through false flag operations and sundry manipulation, not only for terrorist attacks and assassinations but ultimately for wars, including the world wars, and for economic crises.

Since in early 2020 blatant lies and absurdities began to be propagated about a generally minor ailment — obviously in order to destroy civil rights — such allegations have become entirely credible even among many who had hitherto taken “received wisdoms” for reality. This scepticism has been reinforced by the refusal of the dominant media to report on the background to the Russian intervention in Ukraine.

The forces at play are evidently evil, which is to say they go way beyond what might be explained in terms of all-too-human faults, errors of judgement or misfortune. Here a truthful historical account will not rest with explaining misunderstandings but must issue with moral condemnation where this is due.

II. This said, sadly, hard-working Cynthia Chung has done her — and our — cause a great disservice by succombing to woke, i.e. the drive to “cancel” (i.e. suppress) whatever does not fit a popular narrative or counter-narrative.

The first duty of a historian is to be truthful; not to tell a good story. A second duty is to keep assertions of fact and moral judgements distinct and be sparing with the latter.

Even as someone knowledgeable about the history of the last century or two I am unable to check on much of what Chung narrates or that her preferred sources claim. However, reading her, I have stumbled on falsities in minor matters which go beyond being mere mistakes and look like deliberate misrepresentation. This means that I and we cannot rely on her narrative even where it is persuasive. I shall go into some detail of her misrepresentations further below since any such accusations must be properly documented. 

III. Here is a list of where she falls down badly: 

* 1. Abuse of language, for example, by failing to define key terms such as  “fascist” or “eugenicist” and then attributing these characterics on the flimsiest of grounds to whoever she needs to classify as a villain. She confuses slavery with exploitation.  

* 2. Omitting key considerations (e.g. historical context)

* 3. Engaging in character assassination

* 4. Use of value-laden (or evaluative) terms where the argument has not been made

* 5. Assertion as fact on matters where her evidence is so flimsy that it looks like deliberate deception

* 6. Mis-attributing titles presumably to create false impressions among the readership. It is hard to see how this can be anything other than deliberate.

Further to 1. and 6.

She speaks of “openly pro-fascist Prime Minister Lloyd George.”

“Asquith...was replaced by Lloyd George who was in favour of partitioning the Ottoman Empire. Interestingly, it would be under the openly pro-fascist Prime Minister Lloyd George that the Balfour Declaration was signed and the British Mandate of Palestine created.” This refers to 1917. According to Merriam-Webster (see below) the “The English words 'fascist' and 'fascism' are first cited in 1919 and 1921, respectively.”

Later she speaks of “Lord Lloyd-George,” presumably in order to insinuate inherited membership of the aristocracy. >>According to Special Branch, Lord Lloyd George had “approached Mosley through Rothermere with an offer to join the party ‘in any capacity’ in February 1935 ”<<

Only the year before he died, in 1944 aged 82, long after he was in active politics, did Lloyd George, of humble origins, receive the title of Earl, not “Lord” and he was and is always referred to simply as Lloyd-George. https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/david-lloyd-george

The use of “fascist” for anyone Chung considers evil is endemic in certain parts of the book. This is a slur because the first thing to do here, before attributing a fascist standpoint to people not usually considered remotely fascist, would be to define what she means by “fascist”, but she fails to do this anywhere. She just shouts “fascist!” at anyone she has taken a dislike to — much as the woke mob does. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/fascism-meaning-and-history (800 words) gives a clear account of what fascism is and the origins of the expression. It is not synonymous with “right-wing” or “conspirational” or “having sometime in a long career expressed opinions or analyses which were also held by avowedly fascist figures such as Mosley”.

Chung argues here and elsewhere on the basis of guilt by association, which is a hallmark of woke.

“International fascism” is a related expression which Chung uses without proper elucidation. It insinuates a co-ordinated international movement rather than just a commonality of ideas. 

Similarly, with “eugenicist”. Merriam-Webster again: “the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the population's genetic composition”

Similarly with “Malthusian”: “of or relating to Malthus or to his theory that population tends to increase at a faster rate than its means of subsistence and that, unless it is checked by moral restraint or disaster (such as disease, famine, or war), widespread poverty and degradation inevitably result”

(The failure to distinguish between Malthusian and eugenicist ideas has become widespread altho these are completely different ideas. )

Further to 2)

Chung blames Churchill for the Cold War. Blaming the messenger. She fails to mention the legendary oppressiveness of Stalin’s regime or the millions he caused to perish, not least in the Holodomor. No mention of the Soviet Union’s expansionist ideology and the accompanying strong-arm tactics which forced the East European countries to become communist. No mention of people fleeing East Germany for a freer and ultimately more prosperous life in West Germany.  

A more general point is the blanket condemnation of the British Empire, a standpoint which is today almost universal among right-thinking people. But any such condemnation must encompass a historical perspective. How did the British Empire compare with that of France? Did the German, Belgian and Dutch colonists treat their colonised better? (They treated them far worse.) What was the moral quality of the governance which the growing British Empire replaced? Did British intervention lead to a growth or a decline in the population and/or well-being of the lands conquered? Was there more or less slavery? What were the long-term effects, including cultural effects, of the occupation? Are there no respects in which the British Empire enriched the peoples and lands conquered? Is there a categorical (God-given) right for people to have exclusive claims on the territory on which they were born?

Questions of harm or merits of the British Empire are not settled. Nigel Biggar has recently found himself “cancelled” by Bloomsbury for his book “Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning,” now to appear under William Collins.  

I suggest that answers to these questions will give a differentiated picture, with diverse conclusions being drawn for different locations.

More further to 2.)

Chung spends several paragraphs on the Suez Canal and Nasser, but fails to even mention the well-known outcome of this dispute, presumably because the end contradicts her narrative of a British takeover of US foreign policy. It ended in 1956 with PM Anthony Eden (together with his French counterpart and in coordination with Israel) attempting to take back the Suez Canal militarily. Britain was forced to back down by threats from the USA. It is this event more than any other which is widely considered to have marked the demise of Britain as a great power.

Further to 3.) and 5.): Engaging in character assassination.

As a philosophy graduate of Eliot College I was astonished to read “T.S. Eliot had incorporated this philosophy of Maurras into his core, and in his 1928 essay collection For Lancelot Andrews, he described himself as a classicist in literature, royalist in politics, and Anglo-Catholic in religion.”  This famous quip may or may not have come from Maurras, but adopting and adapting an isolated phrase is hardly evidence of having “incorporated the philosophy of Maurras into his core” or for speaking of "an Eliot-Maurrassian creed”.

The entries about T.S.Eliot in Brittanica and Wikipedia do not mention Maurras, but do mention many other names including the genuine philosopher F.H.Bradley. 

In his 1934 pageant “The Rock” T.S. Eliot even caricatured (mocked) Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts (page 47 at https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.3608/page/n46/mode/1up?view=theater ). 

There was no need for Chung to even mention T.S. Eliot, instead of which she cast aspersions on him with what can only have been malicious inventions.

---

---