THOUGHT TALK REPLAY. THE VERDICT IS IN ON MATT EHRET. Prolific. Widely interviewed. NOT TRUSTWORTHY. Watch now!

Jan 23, 2024

Matt Ehret. Interviewed by Reiner Fuellmich, among many other people. Various books to his credit. Massively prodigious output. But … is he trustworthy?

The verdict is in: no.

But a quick no isn’t enough. And also, the interview has a history.

Still, if you want to jump to the interview that sealed the verdict, here it is:

ttps://rumble.com/v48rvqi-thought-talk.-elsa-and-paul-gregory.-the-verdict-is-in-on-matt-ehret.-not-t.html
https://www.bitchute.com/video/L3FFVg8YiWRS/

Now, here’s how it all started.

The exploration of Matt Ehret’s reliability started accidentally. Someone sent me a video of his. I passed it on in a post. Someone wrote back, not enthusiastic. Paul Gregory.

I read what Paul had to say. His misgivings stirred up my own.

I’d had feelings of uneasy at least three times, when Matt spoke about things in areas where I have some little expertise:

- once on something to do with World War II (where I have “borrowed expertise,” meaning I trust what Diana West had to say in her evidently meticulously researched American Betrayal;

- once when he spoke about the Crusades, where I have considerable knowledge, again some of it “borrowed expertise” from Bill Warner’s detailed research on the Crusades;

- and once when he spoke about knowing the truth about Khazaria though everyone I’d read said there is very little evidence - so how could Matt know so much more - how could he be so much better at “connecting the dots” (something he likes to do)?

About the Crusades. Matt mentioned that wise rulers in the West like Charlemagne did not go on Crusades for 2 centuries. He mentioned the names of Charlemagne’s sons, and even where and how the oldest had died. Lots of details. But … Matt did not mention that for 200 years, Christian leaders in the East were begging for help due to ongoing Islamic violence. Quite an omission.

Here is Bill Warner with a perspective on the Crusader battles not hinted at in Matt’s work:

But I let all that go. Matt Ehret has so much to say, and says it very well, quickly, with a smile, and with an ongoing outpouring of facts. He knows so many facts. And according to himself, he connects the dots.

The question remains: how accurate is his dot-connecting?

I read what Paul Gregory had to say - which is a lot, more than enough for me to recognize that my misgivings about Matt Ehret were not minor things, but indicated big shortcomings - dangerous ones, even. (Again, to just go to the video, scroll down).

Here is what Paul wrote to me:

I have been listening again to the long conversation with Ehret that you linked to.  I have also read most of https://canadianpatriot.org/2023/12/21/sir-henry-kissinger-midwife-to-new-babylon/
You might also like to glance at:
https://expose-news.com/2023/12/24/the-babylon-conspiracy-two-angles/  where Ehret also features large. Published Christmas Eve!
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.
Initially, most of my objections were that key facts are omitted, rather than falsities being reported. Meanwhile, I see Ehret as playing fast and loose with the narrative. He speaks fast, which indicates to me that one is not to have time to reflect on the content.
My verdict is that he is highly selective in the facts, ignoring crucial context. Some of his „facts“ would need checking on since they are at variance with conventional wisdoms. He then weaves a story around these „facts“ which upends much established history. His story fits together the way incidents in a novel might. But history is about loose ends, about the gaps in our knowledge and what we can know of the past.
I first encountered him when he was interviewed by Reiner. For a while I received his newsletter and listened to him on other forums.
See also my analysis of Cynthia Chung: The Empire on which the Black Sun Never Set. Early in 2023 I posted this on my Substack under the name „Dishonest History“. My comments there apply largely also to Ehret, her husband.
Here then are comments about details in his diatribe:
This is almost too trivial to warrant correction, but 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 (I remember the account of a Dutch woman crying openly as she saw them led away).
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 all 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 had his share of racial prejudice. In a long life in politics, his standpoints changed as he found his way, as we all would, sometimes toying with (and later rejecting) ideas which today we might find reprehensible. This does not make his a fascist, or warrant associating him with Eichman.
Ehret denigrates (underplays) the Allied contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. It is true that the Soviets took by far the highest casualties (I know about this from a personal connection). But many deaths were caused by the Bolshevics themselves.
Kursk: the biggest tank battle ever. I know about this from a another personal connection, having once been invited to stay at nearby Belgrad. My information is that, at Kursk, the Russian tank commanders sometimes knew the orders given to the German tank 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.
By the way: apparently Moscow was saved by British tanks. Later the Soviets developed their own tanks, which were vastly superior. There was mention of the fast-moving German tanks in 1940. No mention of the British tanks advancing rapidly through Belgium sweeping all before them. Goering sent in the Luftwaffe, which put paid to the British advance. [By the way, de Gaulle had recognised the importance of tanks years earlier and been sidelined for doing so.]
On the subject of the Luftwaffe: this, and air defences, were largely unavailable to the Germans on the Eastern Front as the Soviets advanced because they were needed to defend German cities and arms factories in the homeland against raids by the RAF and US Air Force.
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.
In a similar vein, he (like many others now, such as the Swiss peace activist and historian Danielle Ganser) like to condemn the US for allowing Pearl Harbour to happen so as 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 people 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.
Ehret is always moralising but never spells out his moral position, just insinuating that all right-minded people must share his intuitions and prejudices. Close to woke.
In passing, the Fabian Society is denigrated as if it had been a conspiracy from the start.  No consideration that the actors, or most of them, may have had good intentions which were subverted by all-too-human shortcomings, mistakes and misjudgements.
His description of the „burned 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 makes sweeping statements about the Nuremberg trials, claiming these were instigated exclusively to punish nazis who had  refused to collaborate post-war 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.
Remarkably, there are several minutes about narrative warfare, it being asserted 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 I would make 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 different motives and perceptions.
Then there are side comments about school education with the claim that this is all about memorising. Maybe it is now, but not in my day. At university I was once reprimanded for knowing the facts but failing to assemble them into a coherent narrative.
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 govt 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 potential Soviet aggression, with an explicitly expansionist policy.
[Aside by Paul: The problem we have later had is that our politicians and military strategists have failed to comprehend that Russia is not a reincarnation of the Soviet Union, that Russia has learnt its lesson and abandoned these policies. In Ukraine our politicians and military strategists have been fighting the last war. Or the military-industrial complex did not relish having won and needing to retire (to do other and more constructive things). That is, a failure of imagination. (The second rate hire third rate. The first rate hired first rate, but those days are past.)]
Ehret describes Trotski 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 Bolshevic Revolution.
Note that Ehret is a Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. Is this connection why he is willfully blind to the dark side of Soviet history?
Here is a link about a Jewish homeland in Russia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast
[There had, by the way, been a Jewish state several centuries earlier in a region which is now within Russia.]
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 is something different. Imperialism is something different.
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 Trotski, by the way]. Yes, some – but not all – US bankers.
Enough for this round.
Paul Gregory, December 25, 2024