Matt Ehret. Interviewed by, among many other people, Reiner Fuellmich. Various books to his credit. Massively prodigious output. But … is he trustworthy? The verdict is in: no. If you want to jump to the interview that sealed that vrdict, scroll down to the end.
I think some of Paul's criticisms are fair, and the overall conclusion that Matt cannot be trusted is correct. However in other cases I think Paul is incorrect.
I'm guessing Paul is perhaps a historian himself, and therefore Matt's connect-the-dots style offends him in and of itself. I disagree that this is a valid criticism given the current circumstances. As far as I can tell we are in a war with an occult group or groups, and in that circumstance we cannot afford to stick strictly to the rules which apply to academic historians. We must instead adopt the methodology of a military intelligence officer which is an altogether different craft.
On specific points where I disagree with Paul:
1. The Plymouth Brethren.
Paul, while criticizing Matt for failing to define his terms, and claiming that the Plymouth Brethren were Gnostics frequently fails to define his own terms in this chat and furthermore suggests that the Plymouth Brethren were NOT influenced by gnosticism on the basis of the word of his good friend who told him they weren't. Come on. This is hardly an academically rigorous argument.
There is evidence that the Plymouth Brethren, or at the very least one notable nineteenth century member John Darby (the inventor of dispensationalism) was a Theosophist (Kabbalistic cult which has incorporated significant elements of Gnosticism). John Darby's propaganda appears to have played a significant role in furthering the cause of Zionism which in turn appears to be a significant element of the occultists' agenda.
2. Gnosticism.
Paul accuses Matt of skipping over a definition of Gnosticism. This may be true - but Paul commits the same sin in his own discussion. Gnosticism is not just the idea that the material world is evil. One of the most dangerous ideas of Gnosticism (or at least some Gnostic sects) is the idea that, consequent to this, our creator (God - or the demiurge in Gnostic tradition) is evil for mixing our souls with material bodies, and that Lucifer/Satan was in fact the good guy in trying to rescue us from this condition. Paul does not mention this.
Paul then suggests that Matt is a Gnostic himself just because he divides the world into good and evil - that appears to be nonsense to me. Which is not to say that Matt is, or is not, a Gnostic but the mere act of dividing the world into good and evil does not make one a gnostic any more than having four limbs makes me a horse.
3. Trojan horse
This is just pedantry. Yes the Trojan horse was a Greek device - and I'm sure Matt Ehret is well aware of this. Nevertheless the term we use to describe the device is "Trojan horse", and nobody except a pedant would insist on distorting sentence structure in order to acknowledge the inaccuracy of this phrase every time it is used.
4. British empire
I agree that Matt is almost certainly a propagandist with an agenda. But Paul appears to have his own agenda. The British couldn't oppress the world because they didn't have a huge army? And people welcomed them because the British were less oppressive than other empires? Really Paul? These are exactly the sort of sweeping generalizations which Paul accuses Matt of.
5. Fabianism
The Fabian society was and remains a key part of the occult complex, and a force for evil (and no Paul - making this claim does not imply that I'm a Gnostic). Were some members duped - believing that they were working for a different aim than they actually were? And would they be horrified if they could see today where their work has led? Yes - both of those are true. Occult societies work by duping their members - members are *always* told they are working towards a noble goal which is different to the true, hidden, goal. Nevertheless, however well intended some of those people might have been, they were more than willing to work through cunning and deception. And in my view even the ostensible aims of this society were evil. There is a reason that they were named after Fabian, and their coat of arms was a wolf in sheep's clothing.
My own view is that Matt attacks Britain not because his primary goal is to attack Britain - but because his job is to divert attention from the actual criminals.
I think some of Paul's criticisms are fair, and the overall conclusion that Matt cannot be trusted is correct. However in other cases I think Paul is incorrect.
I'm guessing Paul is perhaps a historian himself, and therefore Matt's connect-the-dots style offends him in and of itself. I disagree that this is a valid criticism given the current circumstances. As far as I can tell we are in a war with an occult group or groups, and in that circumstance we cannot afford to stick strictly to the rules which apply to academic historians. We must instead adopt the methodology of a military intelligence officer which is an altogether different craft.
On specific points where I disagree with Paul:
1. The Plymouth Brethren.
Paul, while criticizing Matt for failing to define his terms, and claiming that the Plymouth Brethren were Gnostics frequently fails to define his own terms in this chat and furthermore suggests that the Plymouth Brethren were NOT influenced by gnosticism on the basis of the word of his good friend who told him they weren't. Come on. This is hardly an academically rigorous argument.
There is evidence that the Plymouth Brethren, or at the very least one notable nineteenth century member John Darby (the inventor of dispensationalism) was a Theosophist (Kabbalistic cult which has incorporated significant elements of Gnosticism). John Darby's propaganda appears to have played a significant role in furthering the cause of Zionism which in turn appears to be a significant element of the occultists' agenda.
2. Gnosticism.
Paul accuses Matt of skipping over a definition of Gnosticism. This may be true - but Paul commits the same sin in his own discussion. Gnosticism is not just the idea that the material world is evil. One of the most dangerous ideas of Gnosticism (or at least some Gnostic sects) is the idea that, consequent to this, our creator (God - or the demiurge in Gnostic tradition) is evil for mixing our souls with material bodies, and that Lucifer/Satan was in fact the good guy in trying to rescue us from this condition. Paul does not mention this.
Paul then suggests that Matt is a Gnostic himself just because he divides the world into good and evil - that appears to be nonsense to me. Which is not to say that Matt is, or is not, a Gnostic but the mere act of dividing the world into good and evil does not make one a gnostic any more than having four limbs makes me a horse.
3. Trojan horse
This is just pedantry. Yes the Trojan horse was a Greek device - and I'm sure Matt Ehret is well aware of this. Nevertheless the term we use to describe the device is "Trojan horse", and nobody except a pedant would insist on distorting sentence structure in order to acknowledge the inaccuracy of this phrase every time it is used.
4. British empire
I agree that Matt is almost certainly a propagandist with an agenda. But Paul appears to have his own agenda. The British couldn't oppress the world because they didn't have a huge army? And people welcomed them because the British were less oppressive than other empires? Really Paul? These are exactly the sort of sweeping generalizations which Paul accuses Matt of.
5. Fabianism
The Fabian society was and remains a key part of the occult complex, and a force for evil (and no Paul - making this claim does not imply that I'm a Gnostic). Were some members duped - believing that they were working for a different aim than they actually were? And would they be horrified if they could see today where their work has led? Yes - both of those are true. Occult societies work by duping their members - members are *always* told they are working towards a noble goal which is different to the true, hidden, goal. Nevertheless, however well intended some of those people might have been, they were more than willing to work through cunning and deception. And in my view even the ostensible aims of this society were evil. There is a reason that they were named after Fabian, and their coat of arms was a wolf in sheep's clothing.
My own view is that Matt attacks Britain not because his primary goal is to attack Britain - but because his job is to divert attention from the actual criminals.
There's more - but I have to finish my taxes :-)
I wonder what the motive is here. Matt, is doing really well right now. I am suggesting a debate, what is there to lose?
Thanks for the enlightenment about Ehret.
Thank you .. I was fascinated & listened to the whole conversation & have been confused since ... I’m so glad I was not the only one with questions 🙏
interesting...listening now...and thx...and you look fabulous!