CHARLIE KIRK SAW THROUGH FRANCIS AND LEO

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. Protestants wanting a field day on this are warned that anti-Catholic rants are not posted on this page.

Conciliar cardinals, bishops and priests too should hang their heads in shame. Protestant evangelical, martyred Charlie Kirk exposed their complicity at least, or even their betrayal of Jesus Christ, in a way that Catholic commentators could not. No matter how hard they tried.

No matter how often we said that an heretical pope was no pope at all.  It was the most egregious scandal of our time and cardinals and bishops and priests refused to face the facts - or perhaps after 12 years of Bergoglio's abuse of the Mystical Body of Christ they'd succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome, as a way to cope with their dreadful situation.

Most astonishing was the Protestant Charlie Kirk calling Bergoglio out for targeting the Latin Mass while princes of the Church mostly stayed shtum over the Antipope's illegal, cavalier suppression of the most potent source of good on the planet, at a time when the Mass was needed as never before.

And Kirk recognised +Leo early on as an impostor like his predecessor. He suspected him to be an open borders globalist installed to counter Trump. How prescient. 

Leo presents the conciliar Antichurch as a Church of Nice and that makes him even more of a danger to truth than Bergoglio. What an indictment of the conciliar Novus Ordo cult, that it takes a Protestant to point out its breaches of Catholic doctrine.

 

 

The Catholic commentariat loves to dismiss Protestant critiques of Rome as ignorant or simplistic. But sometimes the outsider sees more clearly than the insider. And sometimes, tragically, it takes a Protestant to say the obvious: if the pope speaks heresy, maybe he isn’t the pope.   Charlie Kirk, an evangelical who died wearing a St. Michael medal around his neck, had that clarity. He looked at the clown show in Rome under Francis, and then under Leo, and called it what it was: Marxism dressed up as Christianity.   Below is a roundup of Kirk’s words, sharper and braver than most so-called “conservative cardinals,” and what they reveal about the crisis in the Church.   1. Francis: The Pope of Empty Pews   From as early as 2014, Kirk mocked Francis’s impotence: By 2015, he was hammering Francis for missing opportunities to end abortion:   And by 2016, he was skewering the hypocrisy of a Vatican walled fortress lecturing America on immigration:   Kirk wasn’t fooled by the “who am I to judge” media darling. He saw a pope who could bless Biden but never rebuke Obama. In 2023 he went further, pairing Francis with Andy Stanley as men ensnared by the same “heretical trap,” thinking souls can be won by compromise: 2. “Maybe He’s Not the Pope” Kirk’s most prophetic line came in a conversation with Michael Knowles: “If my pastor starts saying crazy things, I find a new pastor. So if your pope starts saying crazy things, maybe he’s not the Pope.” That is the scandal of our time, spoken bluntly by a Protestant. Millions of Catholics have thought the same in their hearts, but most Catholic “leaders” refuse to speak it. Kirk had the courage to articulate the thought that terrifies bishops and cardinals. 3. Leo: The Chicago Globalist in a Cassock When Prevost became Leo XIV, Kirk gave him the benefit of the doubt. He prayed publicly that the new pope might usher in a “Golden Age of Christianity”: That was May 2025—days before Kirk realized the game was already rigged. Within a week, he was warning his audience: Charlie Kirk saw what many Catholic commentators refused to see. He recognized the telltale signs: the George Floyd retweets, the open-borders messaging, the continuity of Francis’s agenda under a new face. 4. “Why is the Pope Targeting the Latin Mass?” Here is where Kirk absolutely nailed it. While conservative Catholics were wringing their hands, Kirk said the quiet part out loud: “We knew that ‘Catholic’ Joe Biden’s FBI was targeting the Latin Mass, but why is the Pope?” That one tweet exposes the entire fraud. Kirk instinctively understood that the Latin Mass is the barometer. No Protestant loyalty to Vatican politics, no fear of losing privileges, just a straight shot of truth: Biden’s regime and Francis’s Vatican are on the same side, against tradition. For a man outside the Church, Kirk grasped what bishops inside the Church refuse to say. The suppression of the Mass of the Ages is proof that these men are not defending Christ’s Church, they are dismantling it. 5. A Protestant Outsider With Catholic Instincts Kirk was no theologian, and he admitted his stumbling blocks: transubstantiation, Marian dogmas, the papacy itself. But in practice, he lived with instincts more Catholic than many bishops. He wore the St. Michael medal. He mocked heretical statements on 60 Minutes: He knew Truth saves souls, not compromise. And he recognized that if Rome preaches Marxism, it ceases to speak for Christ. Conclusion: The Judgment on the Cardinals It is a profound indictment when an evangelical commentator saw more clearly than the princes of the Church. While cardinals mutter about “forgetting” Fiducia Supplicans, Charlie Kirk declared: “Maybe he’s not the Pope.” Kirk’s words leave the hierarchy without excuse. If he, outside the household of faith, could recognize the stench of apostasy, then what is stopping the shepherds who possess both the authority and the duty to act? Silence for the sake of “unity” is no excuse. Souls are at stake. Charlie Kirk died wearing the cross of St. Michael, not because he believed the Vatican’s lies, but because he loved the truth of Christ. That alone makes him a rebuke to the postconciliar papacy and its silent collaborators.Chris Jackson from Hiraeth In Exile <bigmodernism@substack.com>

DOES NZ REALLY WANT IMMIGRANTS LIKE UK'S?

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address FB Messenger or X.

 

1984 has arrived in once-Great Britain, where Winston Churchill once stated that "Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog", where 40,000 Muslims are now on the terror watch list and traitor PM Keir Starmer has appointed a Muslima - an Islamic activist - as Home Secretary in charge of M15 and immigration. It makes your blood run cold to realise that George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984" was truly prophetic and is coming to many countries, including New Zealand.

In the UK a man has been arrested for shouting "we want bacon"; UK police now arrest UK citizens for flying the UK flag; the UK has now classified cultural nationalism and concern over mass migration as an extreme right-wing “terrorist ideology”. The UK is a totalitarian state complete with total surveillance, speech police and thought crimes.

In New Zealand, PM Christopher Luxon is trying to kid us that "the social licence for immigration is very strong". He reckons that following the UK’s immigration policy is extremely important for NZ. Really? Do born-here Kiwis - of whatever colour - want to import incompatible cultures as in the UK, to betray our country from within?

Liberal democracy and secularism have failed spectacularly in the West. Even an atheist - British comedian Pat Connell - argues that only Christian nationalism can defeat Islam. To be brutally honest, that can happen only by the restoration of all things in Christ, in His Church.

 

In 2026 New Zealand First in all likelihood will be back in power because Labour and National will need them to form government.

 

New Zealand First are currently polling around 9%, just 1% below the Green Party.

 

As Mark Daalder at Newsroom has pointed out, in 2023 Labour lost a lot of voters to New Zealand First, and that’s the reason New Zealand First are back in Parliament and in power today.

 

They will be back. Labour was able to lead the 2003 and 2017 governments only due to New Zealand First choosing to govern with them. They don’t need electorate seats. New Zealand First have ruled out a coalition with Labour if it’s headed by Chris Hipkins, which means on current polls in 2026 there is higher chance of New Zealand First being in power than Labour.

 

NZ First are highly likely to be in government again next year. Why?

 

 

 

1. Reliability

 

But is Winston Peters "reliable?" Really? After keeping New Zealand in suspense for four weeks in 2023 he went into coalition with Jacinda Ardern's Labour Party. Many voters will never forgive him for that.

This is caused by specificity in their agreements and lack of policy overreach beyond that during the term. New Zealand First are very good at nailing down specific coalition agreements.

 

In both 2017 and in 2023 New Zealand First formed detailed coalition agreements, and it’s one of the clearest performance metrics we have to go by in our politics. Here’s the 2023 one.

 

The New Zealand First influence is clear in the sections on infrastructure, energy, and natural resources, and in health, seniors, and strengthening democracy and freedoms. 

 

Voters for New Zealand First can be assured that they will get another detailed agreement, and that it will be delivered.

 

2. Leadership
   
   
   For as long as he wishes Winston Peters is and will be the leader of New Zealand First. He is the most highly skilled politician New Zealand has, and the best politician in New Zealand since the retirement of John Key in 2016.
   
   
   Winston treats the media with the same contempt they show for him, and clearly there are people who like that. He is played by no one in politics and tends to come out on top in any fight. At age 80 and after 50 years in the business he is still tracking at 7% preferred  Prime Minister.
   
   
   He shows no sign of slowing down nor of stepping down. NZ First has many weak ministers and people in senior portfolios but while Winston leads the party, leadership is a core NZ First strength.
   
   
   
   3. Adaptability
   
   
   It is very easy to characterise New Zealand First as largely narrow-band conservatives entrenched within a post-WW2 modernist sensibility of a monocultural society, a resource-based economy, and a tight political economy between business and government.
   
   
   But if that were the case their vote would have died out with the rapidly shrinking scope of the state, the rise of multiculturalism through the 1990s, and the diversification of business beyond primary agriculture. They have evolved.
   
   
   
   Winston really has themes rather than principles. He used to be strongly anti-immigration, and is less so now. He used to be strongly against public asset privatisation such as the sale of Wellington Airport to Infratil, but that barely rated a mention when debated by Wellington City Council over the last three years.
   
   
   
   He used to be strong in rooting out public corruption, but for over a decade party funding now comes from major businesses. His patrician demeanour used to look like he was above the rabble, but he was the first and only Minister to front to the protesters occupying Parliament grounds in early 2022. Since then he has brought in anti-establishment figures into his party and into national leadership positions.
   
   
   
   There is also clearly a segment of conservative Maori who gravitate only to Winston. They want their provincial towns to thrive, they want the economy to dominate national politics rather than Maori culture, they want hierarchical leadership with the state as sovereign over the nation.
   
   
   
   While some of his older voters have died off or switched back and forth to Labour, he has also picked up new niche voter audiences. This constant audience-refreshing is at the core of turning adaptability into an electorate strength. It may seem politically perverse to be both reliable and adaptable, but that insults an electorate who can clearly distinguish between policy delivery and audience responsiveness.
   
   
   
   So New Zealand First are polling at the best level they’ve had.
   
   
   
   Through their coalition agreements they will continue to deliver. They are highly likely to be in the next government.
   
   
   New Zealand First need to be taken very seriously.

On X (the world's town square) we read:

Winston Peters responds to Brian Tamaki’s March and Mark Mitchell’s response:

“This country has a Judeo Christian background, whether you go to church or not. I have always said we want people who we need, not need us. Our democracy is based on Christianity I understand that.. when they come here they salute our flag and obey our rules. I cannot understand some people’s (Mark Mitchell's/ David Seymour's) response to this.”

Both big parties who have the most power have indulged in the immigration ponzy scam which irrefutably leads to a breakdown in societal cohesion. Ask yourself why is it that Victoria Australia is busy changing suburbs' names to Indian ones? Why is it that some boroughs in Australia have sharia law as does Britain?

In the past decades changing the country’s demography through mass immigration is a recipe for a disaster and will destroy the nation. Look around the world for the evidence you need of this.

 

Will immigration be a major voting issue for YOU next year? Because we need it to be and vote in numbers for a party who will big enough to make real changes to the immigration insanity.