Pope Leo XIV Backs Muslim Invasion of West, Cites Failed Lebanon as ‘Model’ Whereas Somalis Loot Minnesota

Pope Leo XIV has openly aligned his papacy with the globalist project of mass migration and Islamic expansion into the historic Christian West, fulfilling what John Zmirak argues was the real “campaign promise” behind his election.

Zmirak’s essay warns that behind the softer rhetoric and liturgical window dressing, Leo’s Vatican is doubling down on the one non‑negotiable plank of the Francis era: open borders and demographic replacement in every Western nation.

A Papacy Built to Save Open Borders

Zmirak recounts how the conclave, exhausted with Pope Francis’s crude Marxism, scandals, and embrace of Chinese Communist organ‑harvesters and clerical predators, still refused to abandon the underlying agenda. Instead of another “overtly Marxist” Latin American, they chose an American prelate formed in the Chicago machine of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin and his “Seamless Garment” cover for pro‑abortion Democrats. The strategy, Zmirak writes, was to cool the culture‑war optics while keeping the border project intact.

He argues that mass migration is not just one issue among many but the master lever for the Left: if Western countries are flooded with dependent newcomers who can be counted and harvested by corrupt electoral systems, every other progressive goal “is pretty much accomplished.” A pope who can calm angry donors with a bit more Gregorian chant while preaching “welcome the stranger” as a blank check is, in this logic, the perfect chaplain for the regime.

Leo’s Lebanon Example and the Reality of Christian Collapse

The mask, in Zmirak’s telling, slipped when Pope Leo chastised Christians for “fearing” Islam or trying to limit Muslim mass immigration, pointing to Lebanon as evidence that Christian‑Muslim coexistence is “absolutely not a problem.” Zmirak calls that claim morally obscene, likening it to shrugging off sex trafficking by pointing to how “well” Jeffrey Epstein’s victims turned out.

He reminds readers that Lebanon was founded as a Christian refuge, once majority‑Christian, prosperous, and famously tolerant – Beirut was known as “the Paris of the Middle East.” Demographic pressure from higher Muslim birthrates and the dumping of Palestinian “refugees,” aided by Western clerics promoting birth control, steadily reduced Christians to a vulnerable minority. Today, many live effectively at the mercy of armed Islamist factions such as Hezbollah, with the country a byword for sectarian collapse rather than coexistence. As one embedded post Zmirak links notes in the context of the “siege of a synagogue and of a cathedral” in the West, this is not a model but a warning.

Zmirak’s verdict on Leo’s stance is blunt: “As a Catholic, this is the most fundamental betrayal of my lifetime. We asked ‘Il Papa’ for bread, and he gave us a stone.”

In his view, invoking Lebanon as a success case for Christian‑Muslim harmony while Europe and North America repeat its demographic trajectory is not naivety but complicity.

Minnesota as a Preview of the Future

To illustrate what “import the Third World” looks like in practice, Zmirak turns to Minnesota. Once a dull, safe, largely Lutheran Midwestern state, it now functions as “a colony of Somalia,” where refugee networks, shielded by Democrats and diversity bureaucrats, have allegedly turned welfare systems into a pipeline for overseas Islamist causes.

He cites LifeZette’s reporting that federal officials uncovered what they describe as the largest theft of taxpayer funds in U.S. history: more than one billion dollars in public money siphoned off by at least 86 suspects, “largely within small Somali communities in the state.” Authorities say the scammers “created or operated companies that billed Minnesota for social services that were never provided,” targeting programs meant to feed children, assist the homeless, and fund autism therapy.

Zmirak frames this not as a one‑off scandal but as the predictable outcome of a system where any attempt to scrutinize minority‑run nonprofits is met with threats of “racism” lawsuits. He notes that, according to the New York Times’ account of the fraud, Minnesota’s education officials were deluged with pandemic‑era applications from “feeding sites” and began questioning clearly inflated meal counts. The largest contractor, Feeding Our Future, responded by warning that if the state didn’t fast‑track approvals for “minority‑owned businesses,” it would sue for discrimination. The state backed down; the fraud exploded.

A Program, Not a Misstep

For Zmirak, these episodes are not isolated misjudgments by a well‑meaning pope. They are proof that the current Vatican, much like the political class in St. Paul, London, or Brussels, is committed to policies that predictably weaken historic Christian nations in the name of humanitarian slogans and electoral calculus. He argues that Leo is simply doing what the cardinals elected him to do: “fulfilling his campaign promises” to keep the borders open, soothe donor anxieties with aesthetic concessions, and dismiss the mounting evidence of social breakdown and Christian retreat as unchristian “fear.”

The warning is stark: if Western Christians accept a theological reframing of “welcome the stranger” that demands our own dispossession, we should not be surprised when our cities start to look less like what they were and more like Lebanon, or the Somali enclaves now hollowing out Minnesota. In that light, Pope Leo’s comments on Islam and migration are not merely controversial soundbites; they signal a deliberate choice about who and what the Vatican is prepared to sacrifice in the name of its new global order.