Yesterday, I posted an interview that Mike Church did with Frank Wright. It was excellent for several reasons, but what I found most penetrating about Mr. Wright’s analysis was his explanation of how the oligarchs who run Great Britain — members of the same scoundrel class that runs the rest of the West for the most part — are using the immigrants for their own purposes. They are fueling the flames of violence by making England “multicultural,” and, when the inevitable conflict arises, they gaslight the natives by calling them xenophobes, right-wing extremists, racists, etc., thus further villainizing the victims and pressuring them either to consent to their own destruction or to become the very violent extremists they were accused of being when they weren’t so. The ensuing chaos — once the inevitable violence breaks out — is then manipulated by the same scoundrel class who created the conflict so that they can impose their own tyrannical control over society.
Frank was careful not to enter into the polarizing “us-vs-them” rhetoric and generalize about different groups of immigrants. Instead, he pointed out who the real enemies are in a very complete way, including among their misdeeds the unjust wars of aggression that have caused so many immigrants to come to Britain in the first place.
What Frank Wright is pointing out is a modern version of divide et impera, divide and conquer, and the same is employed in the U.S. by our own domestic oligarchs (think BLM, Antifa, etc., agents in the employ of men like George Soros).
In the video below, Jonathan Pageau outlines a similar dynamic in the current culture wars surrounding the Olympics and men fighting in women’s sports. In addition to the polarizing divide et impera that the LGBTQ, etc., agenda always creates, there is an additional dynamic: deliberate ambiguity. This allows social control not only by placing a “wedge” (Pageau’s word) between the different sides, pushing the envelope of what is permissible ever further and further until a reaction is provoked. Then, when the pushback ensues, victim status is claimed, and those provoked are villainized (even criminalized). If the reaction on the part of those provoked is rational and articulate, not violent, then the social revolutionaries resort to gaslighting, and accuse the other party of misunderstanding the situation. It is at that point that they fall back into the ambiguity progressives so love (as do their Catholic allies: the Modernists) by claiming that it’s not black and white, that they really don’t think a man should beat up a woman, that it’s much more complicated than all that, that chromosomes are not as simple as people make them out to be because, you know, science, etc.
I would go further than Mr. Pageau in saying that we really must take sides in these matters, but I do agree with him that, in taking sides, we have to articulate clearly what our position is and not simply play the role assigned to us by those who crafted this conflict in the first place. Such caution, in my estimation, is what led Frank Wright not to spout off in the kind of racist rant that the British oligarchs would prefer him to perform. He was wise to go off script.
There is another point of convergence between Pageau’s Olympic observations and Wright’s commentary on events in the U.K.: What Pageau says of ambiguity in the sexual realm matches what Wright says of the behavior of the media in Britain. The latter leave details out about the identity of the criminals, allowing an already passionate and beset class of Englishmen to make their own assumptions, and then they accuse them of being racist and xenophobic when those assumptions get made. Thus, if the common, working-class man assumes the malefactor is a Pakistani Muslim instead of the son of Rwandan immigrants, the media can show how the fundamental problem is racism and the stupidity of common British palefaces. This allows the oligarchs in government and media to exacerbate the division (the “wedge”) and foster more chaos they can then control with despotic measures.
James Corbett often says that the real war is between the powers that shouldn’t be (the oligarchs, what I’ve called here the scoundrel class) and the people. It’s governments versus the governed. Hence, “the people” end up fighting in wars they themselves would not have chosen because their “representatives,” beholden to special interests rather than “the people,” have said they must. Ultimately, of course, the real real war is the Devil vs. Christ the King, chaos vs. divine order — but Mr. Corbett’s observation is part of that bigger picture, as are the observations of Frank Wright and Jonathan Pageau.
Ultimately, the attack against what remains of Christian social order in Great Britain — with the help of largely non-Christian immigrants — and the battle against “male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27), currently on display at the Paris Olympics, are part of the same diabolical war against God and the reality He authored. The former is a continuation of the Protestant Revolt that fragmented Western Christendom, tore whole nations out of God’s Church, and undermined the social order of the former res public christiana; the latter is a continuation of the sexual revolution that promotes mortal sin as an alternative lifestyle, separates sexual relations from the begetting and rearing of children, and undermines the fundamental building block of society that Jesus sacramentalized: Matrimony.
May Jesus Christ live and reign in our hearts, our homes, our communities, and our nations. This is the only answer.
Without any further ado, here is Jonathan Pageau’s thought-provoking video, preceded by his own YouTube introduction:
This is a complement to my previous video where I explained the symbolism of the 2024 Paris Olympics opening ceremony (linked below). This time I discuss the latest Olympic controversy in the women’s boxing division where the gender [really sex, as gender is a linguistic reality] of boxers was called into question. It’s related to the same message of the opening ceremony; I argue that gender ambiguity is being weaponized against the public to challenge societal boundaries, gaslight, win a supposed moral upper hand, and thereby perpetuate the culture war. It’s important to be able to see these patterns in public discourse and not to get carried away in our opposing camps.
