Catchy!

https://open.substack.com/pub/bigmodernism/p/you-must-zip-it?

(tweet continues) Much of this has to do with people coming to know LGBTQ people as family members or friends. Nothing changes a person’s attitude to LGBTQ issues faster than their child coming out to them. I’ve had many (perhaps a few dozen) experiences of people telling me that they had opposed LGBTQ ministry until their child came out to them. Suddenly they were all ears. (Also, as more and more people come out, another phenomenon is quietly changing attitudes in the church: nieces and nephews coming out to bishops, priests and brothers and sisters.) Short of that, a change in attitude can come from hearing stories about LGBTQ people from people they trust. There’s a reason why Jesus taught in stories, not in definitions. When asked, “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus doesn’t give a PowerPoint presentation on what it means to be a neighbor. Instead, he tells the Parable of the Good Samaritan. As the Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann once said, arguments can close our minds down, while stories can open them up. (end tweet)

Paraphrasing Jeff Foxworthy, who is more of a theologian than either of these two… If you think changing attitudes can change doctrine, you might be a heretic.

“And when he hath let out his own sheep, he goeth before them: and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers.” John 10:4-5

Stephen Kokx
@StephenKokx

The divisions among Traditionalists that have emerged since the conclave suggest the crisis has reached a new level.

What was once thought to be widely understood has now been shown to be grasped by only a very few. There really are only “rockets of resistance” left.

I think often about this supposed version of the Third Secret of Fatima. Learn more here https://novusordowatch.org/fatima-true-third-secret

“There will be a wicked council planned and prepared that will change the countenance of the Church. Many will lose the Faith; confusion will reign everywhere. The sheep will search for their shepherds in vain.

A schism will tear apart the holy tunic of My Son. This will be the end of times, foretold in the Holy Scriptures and recalled to memory by Me in many places. The abomination of abominations will reach its peak and it will bring the chastisement announced at La Salette. My Son’s arm, which I will not be able to hold back anymore, will punish this poor world, which must expiate its crimes.

One will only speak about wars and revolutions. The elements of nature will be unchained and will cause anguish even among the best (the most courageous). The Church will bleed from all Her wounds. Happy are they who will persevere and search for refuge in My Heart, because in the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph.”
5:32 PM · Sep 19, 2025

https://x.com/StephenKokx/status/1969198061290172859

Leo says the quiet part out loud: Catholic doctrine on homosexuality and marriage is changeable; Trads can shut up and say the Novus Ordo in Latin.

By Chris Jackson

On September 18, 2025, Leo gave a bombshell interview to Crux senior correspondent Elise Ann Allen, excerpts of which were published in her new biography Leo XIV: Citizen of the World, Missionary of the XXI Century. In the conversation, Leo laid out his vision on four flashpoints that have torn at the Church for decades: homosexuality, women’s ordination, synodality, and the liturgy.

What he said was a program. He signaled openness to revisiting women’s ordination, defended Fiducia Supplicans on LGBT blessings, suggested episcopal conferences might gain doctrinal clout, and dismissed the difference between the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo as a matter of attitude. Most chillingly, he floated the possibility that Church doctrine on marriage and sexuality could change once “attitudes” have been softened first.

Trad Inc’s “wait and see” is over. That posture is now clear complicity.

“Attitudes First, Doctrine Later” — The Heresy in Plain Sight

Here is the most chilling line of Leo’s interview, spoken in direct response to a question about changing Catholic teaching on homosexuality:

“We have to change attitudes before we even think about changing what the Church says about any given question.”

Let the weight of that sink in. When pressed about whether the Church might one day alter her moral doctrine on sodomy, fornication, and so-called same-sex “marriage,” Leo’s answer was not a clear and binding no. It was a roadmap: first shift the mindset, then shift the magisterium.

That is the precise formula condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, where he explains that Modernists make dogma evolve “according to the needs of the times” and “the consciousness of the people.” Divine revelation becomes hostage to public opinion.

Leo then added:

“I find it highly unlikely, certainly in the near future, that the Church’s doctrine in terms of what the Church teaches about sexuality, what the Church teaches about marriage, [will change].”

Again, listen carefully. He did not say such a change is impossible. He said it is unlikely, at least not in the near future. That is the language of a man who believes the Church’s moral teaching could, in fact, be rewritten, once enough “attitudes” have been softened.

The result is simple, and deadly:

First you teach Catholics to smile at sodomy.

Then you change the Catechism.

First you preach “respect” for transgender choices.

Then you change the doctrine of creation itself.

This is an open heretical program, broadcast under the cover of “listening” and “synodality.” It makes doctrine subject to mood, culture, and focus groups, precisely the way every heretical sect has broken with the Catholic Church across the centuries.

Leo has told the world exactly what he intends: change attitudes now, change dogma later. That is betrayal…

Read the rest: https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/its-over-trad-inc

(Note well, any unjust persecution cooked up as righteousness during the current thing, will be used against you ten times harder when the other side comes back in power. If there even are two sides. -nvp)

---

Pam Bondi vs. the First Amendment

But first: What the heck is Pam Bondi talking about?

That’s the question we ask in our latest editorial. More than once over the last few days, the Attorney General of the United States has sounded like someone totally unfamiliar with the protections offered by the First Amendment.

She went on a podcast to announce that “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech.” She added: “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” She followed this up with a Fox News appearance where she insinuated that employers have “an obligation to get rid of” people who say abhorrent things about Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

The awful irony of this is that Kirk was a true-blue believer in free speech and a steadfast opponent of censorship. “Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” Kirk said just last year. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.”

Kirk was right, and he had a much better understanding of the First Amendment than our chief law enforcement officer. While Bondi has tried to walk back her comments, President Trump’s definition of hate speech appears to include anyone in the media who criticizes him. “She’ll probably go after people like you! Because you treat me so unfairly!” he told an ABC reporter Tuesday. “It’s hate! You have a lot of hate in your heart!” …

https://www.thefp.com/p/pam-bondi-vs-the-first-amendment?

Honestly, this is so basic. “Hateful speech” is obviously allowed under 1A. After all, one man’s hate speech is another man’s truth. What is NOT allowed under 1A is falsely creating a public panic, slander/libel, inciting violence, and whatnot.

It’s my understanding we already have lawmakers advocating for criminal charges if a citizen criticizes foreign policy. Criticizes a foreign nation. Do you understand?

You really don’t want that.

 (tweet continues) And I’ll be candid: They blame you guys. They blame the left.

Regardless of whether you believe it to be justified, they think you’re the bad guys here. And they are reacting accordingly.

I can already hear some of you racing toward the comments to start screeching in moral indignation, so I’m going to be blunt: Shut up and listen to what I’m telling you. Your movement will lose any semblance of relevance if you don’t develop some small measure of self-awareness, and—absent someone force-feeding you bitter medicine—you guys collectively lack the humility to do this on your own.

Here are the facts:

Fact 1. Tens of millions of Americans started the week seeing a 23-year-old blonde woman—a young woman in whom virtually every parent watching pictured their own daughter—stabbed in the neck by a career criminal. These people then found out the murderer had been released from jail 14 times over.

Fact 2. Two days later, tens of millions of Americans watched a video of Charlie Kirk get murdered speaking to college students. Millions of these people knew who Charlie was; millions of them didn’t. Upon seeing the video, however, these normal Americans from across the land and across the political spectrum agreed that he was the victim of a terrible, fundamentally unjustifiable crime, and their hearts broke in sympathy for his family. Good people who had never even heard the name Charlie Kirk before wept.

Fact 3. Immediately after seeing the footage of a peaceful young man get shot in the neck, these same people logged onto Facebook and Instagram (remember, we are talking about regular Americans, not perpetually online Twitter or Bluesky users) and saw some of their local nurses, school teachers, college administrators, and retail workers celebrating this horrific crime. Not just defending it, but cheering it.

These are all facts. You may not like the implications of these facts, and we can certainly debate the underlying causes thereof, but, indisputably, they are nevertheless factual statements.

Here’s what it means for you, the Democrats reading this:

These normal, middle-of-the-road, non-political citizens just become politically active. They realized that politics cares about them, even if they don’t particularly care about politics. After watching Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk both bleed out from the neck, they think their lives and the physical safety of their families—the bedrock of human society, the foundation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—depend on political activation, whether they desire it or not.

These people are now sprinting—not jogging, not walking, but racing—to the right. Because they blame you guys for everything that just happened.

When they see footage of Decarlos Brown stabbing a Ukrainian refugee to death, they don’t see just one demon-possessed man. They picture every university administrator, HR bureaucrat, and DEI apparatchik that ever lectured them about systemic racism, the “carceral state,” or the need to release violent crime suspects without bail in the name of social justice.

They then think back to conversations they’ve had with their cop friends—their buddy from high school who quit the force after getting tired of being called a racist, their friend at the local YMCA who vents about having to release career criminals because Soros-funded prosecutors aren’t willing to file charges—and they realize everything the left has told them over the last five years has been utter bullshit.

And they blame you. Because, even if you count yourself as a moderate Democrat, your party supported the district attorneys, city council members, and mayors that let fictitious concerns about mental health and racial justice supersede very real concerns for their family’s safety.

When these Americans see blood erupt from the side of Charlie Kirk’s neck, they don’t see just a martyred political activist. They think of every extreme leftist they’ve ever met who (1) calls anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton a fascist and (2) constantly jokes—“jokes”—about punching Nazis and “bashing the fash.”

They realize that there really do exist people who wish to see them dead for their moderately conservative political beliefs, their Christian faith, and even the color of their skin. They ask themselves if the violence visited upon Charlie might one day show up on their own doorstep.

And they blame you. Because, even if you’re just a center-of-the-road liberal, you lacked the courage to police your own ranks. You let modern-day Maoist red guards run loose across every facet of society, and what started with social-media struggle sessions has now turned to 30-06 bullet holes.

When these Americans log onto social media and see their neighbors justifying, celebrating, glorifying murder, they realize that some who walk among them are soulless ghouls at best, literally demon-possessed at worst. These people—whether they faithfully attend church every Sunday or only attend with relatives once a year, on Christmas Eve—start talking about things like spiritual warfare. They implicitly understand that no normal human casually celebrates the mortal demise of a peaceful person.

And they blame you. Because, even if you condemned Charlie Kirk’s murder, they probably haven’t seen you condemn those in your own movement who cheered it on. They view you as complicit in allowing heartless fellow travelers to celebrate death, and it repulses them.

For all of these situations, what has your response been? Nothing but bullshit.

In response to Iryna Zarutska bleeding out on the floor of a train, you post bullshit statistics about reductions in reported crime, when everyone who’s ever been to a major urban center in the last decade knows that actual crime has skyrocketed, only for victims not to waste their time reporting it to cops that don’t have the manpower to respond and prosecutors that seek to downgrade as many felonies as possible to misdemeanor citations.

In response to a 31-year-old man taking a bullet to the neck in front of his family, you post nothing but bullshit whataboutism.

> “What about January 6th?” (Honest answer: After you let Liz Cheney spend two years operating a star chamber in the House, combined with countless other failed attempts at “lawfare” against Trump, no one cares anymore.)

> “What about Mike Lee making a dumb joke on Twitter about some guy in a mask in Minnesota?” (No one outside of Utah, DC, or Twitter knows who Mike Lee even is.)

> “What about Paul Pelosi?” (That’s not comparable to Charlie Kirk getting shot, and we all know it. And, again, Paul who?)

> “What about regulations on assault rifles?” (That’s not going to get you very far when one of these killers used a knife and the other one used a common hunting rifle.)

In response to teachers, healthcare workers, and thousands of other liberals cheering on Charlie’s murder, it’s nothing but more bullshit and misdirection.

> “It’s not THAT many people celebrating!” (Yes, it is. Everyone has seen it on their Facebook and Instagram feeds.)

> “I thought you guys didn’t support cancel culture.” (We don’t cancel people over their opinions; we’re more than happy to see people lose their jobs—especially their taxpayer-funded jobs—for actively cheering on murder, though. If you can’t see the difference, that’s your own shortcoming.)

All bullshit. Not even smart bullshit, but stale, mid-grade, low-IQ bullshit. Ordinary Americans see right through it, and they don’t like how it smells.

You probably don’t like hearing this. But you need to hear it.

Because I’m right, and, as you reflect on this, you know I’m right. The ranks of my political movement gained millions of righteously angry new members this week. We have a mandate to ensure these crimes never happen again, and that’s exactly what we are now going to do.

If you want to keep a seat at the table as we do so, you’d better clean house and start policing your own.
2:17 PM · Sep 13, 2025
·
23.1M
Views

https://x.com/RobertMSterling/status/1966974489553461366

(Originally posted September 15, 2020)

On The Assassination Of Charlie Kirk

By “Flannelavenger” at Men of the West

It’s been a while since I’ve written anything. And I don’t feel like I have a lot to add to this conversation that others more eloquent than me have already said. After all, I wasn’t Charlie Kirk’s target audience. He seemed like a nice enough guy. I just never got into his world.

And it’s appalling. Because a wife lost her husband and his children lost their father. And for what? Because he was trying to have a dialog about the issues facing the United States today? That’s one of the basic reasons that this site exists, because we wanted to provide a viewpoint from the political right. And frankly, Charlie Kirk was nicer than I am. He was surely more successful than we have been here at changing hearts and minds. And so he was martyred. And yes, he counts as a martyr. The viewpoints he espoused that got him killed were fundamentally driven by his Christian faith.

And in his death we have seen the complete depravity of the political left in this country. People celebrated a cold blooded murder. Because he didn’t share their politics. The Democrats and the Media are doing their best to pretend otherwise. But for years they’ve called us every name in the book. Their favorite is to call us fascists. When we are not fascists in any meaningful sense of the word. It is a lie. But then again, when you look out over the internet and see these monsters gleefully celebrating the murder of a man who just wanted to have a conversation is it any surprise that they would smear those who disagree with them with a libel that has no basis in fact?

I am encouraged that normal people are seeing this crap show and realizing that we have a problem in this country. That one side of the political aisle has completely lost it (and just to be clear, it’s the left). Kirk’s death, and the absolutely grotesque reaction to it from the left, has reached normal people in a way that we never could have. Their eyes are opening up that maybe the people the left has called fascists or extremists are neither. That maybe we are just husbands, fathers, wives and mothers who have thoughts about the best way to run a country and to order a society. That we aren’t out to hurt anyone.

But even in the aftermath, when ordinary people have reacted in shock and horror to the left wing celebrations at a gruesome murder, they haven’t apologized. They haven’t done anything to disassociate themselves from these lunatics. Members of Congress booed and hissed at the suggestion of a moment of silence. These people have shown who they are. Believe them when they show you that they hate us and they want us dead.

All that we can do is our best. We must try to honor God, and fulfill our duties to our family. In the wake of this travesty, I felt like I needed to write this if for no other reason than to stand up and say that I will not be silenced and I will not be intimidated by this. Charlie Kirk is dead today and all the positions he held that he was murdered for are positions that I am in agreement with him on. If it was up to the online left, my daughter would also never get another hug from her daddy. They accuse us of being the ones to lack empathy. But we aren’t the ones looking to murder people because we don’t agree with their world view.

But it’s time for there to be some accountability for the hateful rhetoric of the left. They can’t be allowed to spend years vilifying us and then pretend that we’re all one big country together when something like this happens. There needs to be repentance. They need to seek forgiveness. And they need to stop the whataboutism. Charlie Kirk is dead because they falsely called him a fascist.

And if this goes on and there’s not a reckoning, there’s no telling who they will kill next. It could be any one of us. Because they hate us, they want us dead, and they have now made it clear they won’t stop until they get it.

https://www.menofthewest.net/on-the-assassination-of-charlie-kirk/