Why Beijing Defends Ancient Greece

A Qiushi essay you probably missed just made the Party the unlikely guardian of Western antiquity

In the corner of the Internet, there’s a lot of buying alternative versions of world history. Ancient Greek civilization, in this telling, was forged by Renaissance-era Europeans. Mount Emei in Sichuan is “actually” the prototype of the Alps. And the true wellspring of modern Western civilization is the Yongle Dadian(永乐大典), a Ming-dynasty encyclopedia supposedly smuggled to Europe by missionaries in the dynasty’s final years, which went on to spark the Scientific Revolution.

By the logic many people carry around, Beijing should be happy to look the other way. Observers tend to assume that the Chinese government welcomes content that deconstructs Western history. The latest Qiushi article seems overturned such assumption.

On September 1, Qiushi, the Party’s flagship theoretical journal, published an essay titled “Recognizing the Historical Nihilist Essence of ‘Pseudo-History Theory.’”认清“伪史论”的历史虚无主义本质 Two things are worth explaining for readers unfamiliar with Chinese political conventions. First, Qiushi is the Party’s leading theoretical journal; its articles typically represent formal, authoritative statements of official policy. Second, the piece is signed “Wen Ping” (文平). The last time (I can find) this byline appeared was in the second issue of Qiushi in 2022, on the topic of historical confidence. It is almost certainly a pen name, perhaps short for “cultural commentary” (wenhua pinglun 文化评论)?

To my mind, what’s new in this article is not the attack on “historical nihilism” as such. It is that the range of such criticism has expanded—from nihilism that deconstructs Chinese history to nihilism that deconstructs Western history. In a sense, I believe this signals that China does not evaluate historical questions on a simple “pro-Western” versus “anti-Western” axis.

A little bit background, in the Chinese context, the term “historical nihilism” (lishi xuwuzhuyi 历史虚无主义) has usually referred to a specific category of content that disparages heroic episodes within Chinese history —in short, a sort of narratives that flatter the West and denigrates China.

“Western pseudo-history theory” (weishi lun 伪史论) is at the opposite end of that spectrum. It argues that the entire edifice of Western ancient history is a fabrication; the glories of ancient Greece, Egypt, and Rome were concocted by modern Europeans to construct a sense of civilizational superiority, while the true origin of human civilization lies in China.

Given China’s sheer population, believers in pseudo-history are far from few in the lower-tier internet market, and many of them like to style themselves as debunkers of “Western centrism.” Though, this posture acturally betrays a deeper insecurity. If all of Western history is fake, then the West managed—on the strength of just a few hundred years of development—to defeat an agrarian civilization with an industrial one in the Opium War of 1840. Doesn’t that prove the " superiority of Western civilization precisely” that the pseudo-historians so bitterly denounce?

I would not read the Qiushi article in isolation. Readers familiar with my earlier writing will remember the “Chigua Mengzhu” (吃瓜蒙主) affair late last year: a blogger shot to fame with the theory that Dream of the Red Chamber was secretly written to “mourn the Ming,” igniting a Han-nationalist historical controversy over the Ming-Qing transition. The authority that stepped in at the time was the Zhejiang Provincial Publicity Department, whose article “Beware the ‘1644 View of History’ Hijacking the Narrative” settled the matter officially, criticizing such narratives for “deconstructing the continuity of Chinese history.” Back then, it was just provincial publicity department.

But this time, the Qiushi article explicitly links the community spreading pseudo-history with believers in “the Yuan and Qing were not China” (元清非中国) and the “1644 view of history” (1644史观), charging that they “tacitly align and resonate with certain overseas narratives aimed at deconstructing the continuity of Chinese civilization.” 与境外某些旨在解构中华文明连续性的叙事形成暗合与共振。This actually places last year’s “mourning the Ming” episode and this year’s campaign against pseudo-history within a single governance framework.

Look closely at the choice of examples. When the article opens by cataloguing pseudohistory, it juxtaposes two kinds of claims: on one side, assertions that directly deny China’s documented history, such as “the Tang dynasty never existed” or “the Song dynasty lasted 800 years”; on the other, precisely the claims that “Mount Emei is the Alps” and “the Yongle Dadian gave birth to modern Western civilization.” By filing the signature claims of Western pseudohistory under the same “variant of historical nihilism” as “the Tang never existed,” the article completes its verdict.

And if that reading seems too subtle, the article also states directly that “extreme pseudohistory rhetoric proliferating online continues to spread overseas, and has already damaged our country’s academic discourse power and external cultural image.” That sentence can only point to Western pseudohistory. After all, a Chinese person who denies the Tang dynasty existed will simply be dismissed as a crank—but if someone claims “ancient Greece was forged,” there will be people ready to package the phenomenon into a straw man of “Chinese state propaganda directed abroad.” Moreover, the article’s final paragraph specifically states that “history must not be arbitrarily altered, and the ancient and splendid civilizations of all peoples must not be dissolved into nothingness” it clearly covers more than Chinese history.

The article then seals off the last avenue of defense: “Whatever the original intentions behind these claims, their actual consequence is often that national identity is deconstructed and cultural foundations are eroded.” This preemptively answers the most common self-justification offered by pseudo-history’s devotees that ”we are only deconstructing the West.”

The logic underneath is not hard to grasp. For Beijing, the “pluralistic unity of the Chinese nation” and the continuity of Chinese civilization are the bedrock of national identity. Both the ultra nationalism that would expel the Qing from “China” and Western pseudohistory erode that bedrock; just as the former carries the latent risk of ethnic separatism, the latter damages China’s cultural image abroad. Pseudohistory theory has never been the Chinese government’s friend. Many people simply mistook it for one.

Below is the Qiushi article I translated with the help of AI

Recognizing the Historical Nihilist Nature of “Pseudo-History Theory”

By Wen Ping

For some time now, a series of absurd arguments collectively known as “pseudo-history theory” (wěishǐlùn) have continued to ferment online, gradually entering the public eye. Among these are extreme assertions that directly deny the authentic recorded history of Chinese dynasties—such as claims that “the Tang Dynasty never existed at all” or that “the Song Dynasty reigned for 800 years”—as well as far-fetched and preposterous narratives like “Mount Emei is the Alps” or “the Yongle Encyclopedia gave rise to modern Western civilization.” When such bizarre and outlandish viewpoints are crowned as “historical truth” and run rampant, while rigorous archaeological findings are instead denounced as “falsified historical records,” what we face is no longer ordinary online rumor, but a new form of historical nihilism. It wields algorithms as a “new-style weapon” and spreads in a viral, fission-like manner among certain populations through “pan-entertainment” methods. The value orientation and dissemination logic hidden behind it merit our in-depth scrutiny.

Historical nihilism, as an erroneous social ideological trend, has philosophical idealism as its foundation. It often cloaks itself in the guise of “scholarship” or “art”—exquisitely packaged and highly seductive—while in reality harboring specific political intentions, posing a real threat to our nation’s cultural security and ideological security. Among these, the extreme manifestations that openly deny the Party’s history, vilify the Party’s leaders, and smear heroic figures are relatively easy for the public to see through, given their blatant stance and crude methods, and thus become universally reviled. However, historical nihilism has not perished as a result; rather, it constantly shifts strategies and changes its appearance. “Pseudo-history theory” is one variant of current historical nihilism marked by an especially strong anti-intellectualist character. Although it styles itself as “doubting antiquity” (yígǔ), it is fundamentally different from the scholarly practice of doubting and authenticating ancient texts based on rigorous evidence, and the two must never be conflated. History has never been a discipline immune to doubt; newly unearthed archaeological findings and newly discovered documents and classics can often correct previously entrenched historical understandings. Modern Chinese historiography was established precisely through the dual drive of empirical spirit and rational doubt. Its epistemological foundation lies in the principle that any historical judgment must withstand the test of evidence and the scrutiny of reason. “Pseudo-history theory,” by contrast, has completely abandoned the basic bottom line of empirical research. It does not exercise prudence where “historical materials are insufficient,” but rather deliberately turns a blind eye where “evidence is conclusive.” Its cognitive logic has slid from “having doubts” to “deliberate doubting,” and degenerated from “seeking truth” to “seeking difference.” Under the name of “doubting antiquity” while practicing “nihilism,” “pseudo-history theory” is not merely a disorder of historical cognition, but a concentrated projection of historical nihilism at the methodological level. While gravely distorting history, it also dissolves people’s capacity for critical thinking and public reason on a mass scale.

It is especially worth noting that, against the backdrop of the rapid evolution of information technology, historical nihilism exhibits new features—diversified carriers, fragmented discourse, and stratified dissemination through niche circles. In particular, it precisely targets adolescent groups whose values are still taking shape, employing facetious and playful modes of expression paired with emotionalized, immersive discursive strategies, giving it an extremely strong power to confuse and deceive. The traffic logic of platforms naturally chases conflict and favors extreme emotional content and sensationalist narratives, which precisely aligns with the cognitive characteristics of the post-truth era: emotion precedes fact, stance precedes evidence, and resonance precedes reality. The algorithmic mechanisms of short-video platforms further accelerate the spread of “pseudo-history theory.” The rigorous and weighty institutional and cultural history of the Tang Dynasty draws little attention, whereas a shocking headline like “the Tang Dynasty is a fabrication” can rapidly harvest traffic. Such “pseudo-history narratives” follow a well-developed dissemination formula: first, use astonishing conclusions that overturn common sense to grab eyeballs; then take fragmented information out of context and splice it together through misdirection, packaging it as so-called “evidence,” and forcing it upon naive audiences under the name of “innovative findings.” Serious historical writing is being re-encoded into consumable “emotional commodities.” Disseminators exploit the weaknesses of minors—their lack of historical training and limited life experience—to beautify anti-intellectualist absurd conjectures as “penetrating insights,” continually generating a cheap sense of superiority: “everyone else is drunk, and I alone am awake.” Meanwhile, some minors, having been long immersed in the information cocoons created by algorithmic recommendations, are continuously fed homogenized and extreme viewpoints, repeatedly reinforcing their existing cognitive biases. After a batch of self-media accounts that manufactured and spread extreme “pseudo-history theory” were dealt with in a concentrated crackdown in 2025, the related dissemination did not fall silent. Instead, it shifted toward decentralized, covert dissemination pathways: more extreme assertions were broken down into short phrases and inserted into short-video comment sections, live-stream danmu (bullet comments), and community message boards. Its deep-seated harm must not be underestimated.

It should be recognized that “pseudo-history theory” is not merely a battle of ideas confined to cyberspace; it also harbors multiple political and social risks, and its negative effects have already spread from the virtual space into real society. The extreme pseudo-history rhetoric flooding the internet continues to spread overseas, already damaging our nation’s academic discourse power and external cultural image. On a deeper level, some “pseudo-history theory” narratives carry an undertone of ethnic separatism, objectively becoming a theoretical accomplice in denying the pluralistic-yet-unified configuration of the Chinese nation. For example, some define the Tang Dynasty as a “barbarian regime” based solely on imperial bloodlines, and the groups that spread such claims often simultaneously subscribe to erroneous arguments such as “the Yuan and Qing were not China” and the so-called “1644 view of history,” forming a tacit alignment and resonance with certain overseas narratives aimed at deconstructing the continuity of Chinese civilization. Whatever the original intentions behind these arguments, their actual consequence is often to deconstruct national identity, erode cultural foundations, and shake the conviction in the continuity of the Chinese nation—placing the historical consensus of the Chinese national community at risk of being fragmented. Looking at the present, some overseas forces are harnessing artificial intelligence to mass-produce false information that alters history, and there is a real risk that large volumes of AI-generated fake historical materials could flood back into the domestic internet. Once such false content infiltrates foundational corpora, it will cause AI systems to continuously output biased historical narratives, thereby forming a vicious cycle of “algorithms amplifying bias—bias entrenching cognition—cognition reshaping algorithms,” constituting a long-term, hidden, and even irreversible erosion of the historical cognition of the Chinese people, especially adolescents.

As the ancients said: “To destroy a nation, one must first eliminate its history.” General Secretary Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized the need to “establish and uphold a correct view of history, of the nation, of the state, and of culture” and to “clearly oppose and resist historical nihilism.” In the face of the continued spread of “pseudo-history theory,” we must analyze it in depth, refute it forcefully, and respond in a coordinated manner across technological governance, educational guidance, and legal safeguards. We must fully implement the responsibility system for ideological work, tighten and firmly enforce the primary responsibility of online platforms, and drive mainstream value orientation deeply into algorithmic recommendation models—never allowing algorithms to become a mouthpiece for historical nihilism. Accounts that have long disseminated “pseudo-history theory” should be dealt with in accordance with the law and regulations, severing the chain by which pernicious ideas spread; extreme conduct that disrupts public order and crosses legal bottom lines must be seriously held to legal account according to law. At the same time, schools and families should work in concert to continuously enhance adolescents’ historical literacy and media literacy, striving to achieve a paradigm shift from “knowledge instillation” to “cognitive immunity,” helping minors improve their ability to distinguish true from false in historical rumors and hold their cognitive bottom line in an internet environment surrounded by algorithms. The popularization of authentic history must also learn to tell stories using new-media approaches, helping people establish a correct view of history.

History must not be arbitrarily altered, and the ancient and splendid civilizations of all ethnic groups must not be dissolved into nothingness. From the countless records preserved in the annals of the magnificent Tang Dynasty and the cultural relics and historic sites spread across the country, to the physical remains that generation after generation of archaeologists continue to unearth in confirmation of our civilization, authentic history is supported by a complete and solid chain of evidence and needs no self-justification. What truly needs to be carefully protected is the public reason that respects historical fact and holds evidence in awe. In the face of the various erroneous arguments of “pseudo-history theory,” we should take historical fact as our shield, the rule of law as our sword, and education as our foundation—speaking out proactively, daring to draw our blade, and resolutely resisting the erosion of historical nihilism. This is both the reverence and protection that our history of several thousand years deserves, and, even more, the weighty responsibility we must shoulder for the next generation and for the future!