EXCLUSIVE: Connor Estelle (Pinesap) responds to accusations of fascism, supporting Franco, and being a Groyper

Connor Estelle, known online as "Pinesap," is a Catholic commentator who has gained attention for his outspoken political and religious views. He has built a significant following through platforms such as Instagram and X, where he blends Catholic content with provocative political commentary.

In this exclusive interview with the Catholic Herald, conducted in the wake of his appearance on Jubilee’s July 2025 Surrounded debate series, Estelle reflects on the scandal that cost him his job. The debate has garnered almost 10 million views online, with his part being perhaps the most contentious. He addresses the controversy around his encounter with Mehdi Hasan, including his praise for Francisco Franco and his remarks on Nazi persecution.

His reflections offer a glimpse into the motivations and struggles of a figure navigating the intersection of faith, politics and modern media, and how he seeks to reconcile his controversial stances.

CH: Can you share your perspective on what happened during the Jubilee debate with Mehdi Hasan? How did you prepare for the discussion?

CE: In the debate with Mehdi Hasan, I was caught off guard. I was not familiar with Mehdi.

The main point I had in my head was that I wanted to bring a Catholic context into the discussion because the American political system conceives of Catholicism as a very reactionary force, moving against the current. I wanted to emphasise why that's a good thing, and why the Catholic faith being seen as reactionary is not really a bad thing but shows that we're the only ones in this world who really have any sanity left.

CH: You're a Catholic layman, evident from the amount of theological content you post online. How do you reconcile your expressed political views, particularly your self-identification as a fascist, with the teachings of the Catholic Church, which emphasise human dignity?

CE: If you listen to my debate, there are some missteps I made and some points that really weren't fleshed out in a way that allowed people to understand where I was coming from. 

But I did emphasise that I believe in the Catholic Church's teaching on human dignity, because that is my political theory: I'm Catholic.

I'm not a fascist, I'm not a Nazi, not any of these terms—I'm a Catholic. The reason that during the debate I responded “yes I am” to Mehdi saying “you're a fascist” was not because I actually am. Rather, it had to do with not being beholden to a slur that is often levelled against the Catholic Church for our strict moral stance on issues such as abortion, upholding the sanctity of marriage against issues like homosexuality or transgenderism, and defending the dignity of life and of all people. Many people see those beliefs as fascist, even though they are the correct embodiment of what it means to be moral. The only reason they say they are fascist is because we are unbending when it comes to what God teaches. We are not willing to bend with the world. We're not willing to move with the progressive environment many of us in the West find ourselves in, and so that's why that term is levelled against us.

My political theory is not found in Giovanni Gentile or any of those other fascist individuals. My political theory is fundamentally Jesus Christ and what the Catholic Church teaches. I do not want to be beholden to the slurs or the terms that many want to throw my way because of my deep faith in Jesus and his Church.

CH: In the Jubilee debate, you praised Francisco Franco, noting that the Catholic Church hierarchy in Spain initially supported him during the Spanish Civil War—a period when the Red Terror saw thousands of clergy and religious killed for their faith. Can you elaborate on why you highlighted Franco’s role in this context, and how you believe the Church’s initial support for him reflects the broader struggle between Catholicism and anti-religious forces during that era?

CE: The reason I chose Franco is because I think he's an individual in the modern world who obeyed the Church, followed Church teaching, and sought to form his government according to the will of Christ. That's something we don't really see among modern political leaders.

Often, leaders who call themselves Catholic really seek to disobey Church teaching. They seek to compromise on Church teaching, or they operate like Governor Mario Cuomo who would say, “I may personally believe this as a Catholic but I am unwilling to put my beliefs into law.”

I look at a figure like Franco and I see someone who defended the Church against unjust persecution. I see him operating in a context where we really were fighting for the future of Catholicism in Spain. He was a good example of what it means to be a Catholic leader in a difficult position.

That being said, I think Franco is a confusing individual for those on the left who attack the Church, because unlike the other dictators of pre–World War II and even during World War II Europe, he wasn't a persecutor.

He wasn't seeking to persecute different ethnic groups or going after individuals willy-nilly. He disciplined guilty parties who had actively tried to engage in acts of terror. 

I brought him up as an individual who was a great champion of Catholicism, who I thought embodied a more Catholic political ethic in this world where we often have leaders who call themselves Catholic, but are unwilling to implement any of the Church’s teaching into the body politic.

CH: Your comments during the debate about Nazi persecution, particularly when pressed on the Holocaust, were heavily criticised. Do you think that was a fair reflection of your point? 

CE: I certainly could have clarified my position more. For those onlookers who might have misunderstood where I was coming from in my rhetorical approach with Mehdi, they would have understood that I, of course—it goes without saying—condemn the persecution of any individual, Jewish or not, especially during that time of horrible war when many innocent lives were lost.

The reason there was any sort of hesitancy in my interaction with Mehdi is that I often feel that while Catholics gave their lives during the Holocaust to help preserve innocent Jewish lives—even to the point of being martyred, such as Alfred Delp, St Titus Brandsma, St Edith Stein, and even Venerable Pope Pius XII—the secular world still uses that time period to attack the Church. They say we didn't do enough or act in the right way, or claim that our traditional view of Judaism as a false religion somehow abetted the Holocaust.

With Mehdi, I didn't want to play that game. I didn't want to kneel to him using a slur or rhetorical technique that has been used to attack our religion—when Catholics literally shed their blood to preserve innocent Jewish lives during World War II and the Holocaust. I was unwilling to play that slimy rhetorical game he was trying to set up.

CH: Some critics on online platforms have labelled you a “white nationalist” or “Groyper”—labels most would say conflict with Catholic social teaching. How would you respond to these characterisations, and what do you believe is the core of your political and religious identity?

CE: I am not a white nationalist because to be a white nationalist in the common parlance means that I believe in America being a white ethnostate, when I know there are people here who happen not to be white and are as much American as I am. So, in that way, that's not a fair characterisation of my view, because that would imply I have hatred towards people because of the colour of their skin or the fact that they are a different race from me.

That conflicts with our faith—and anything that conflicts with our faith, I do not support.

I do support the idea of ethnic Europeans in America being proud of who we are as a culture, as the Magisterium itself has always promoted. Every group and every race, being part of the beautiful human tapestry that is the family of God, should be proud of where they come from and what group they are part of—but not to the detriment of any other race, not to the detriment of our brothers in humanity, and certainly not promoting hatred. That is completely anti-Catholic and not something I endorse.

I am, much to the controversialist’s chagrin, a proud Groyper because Groypers are Catholic. I have seen many men within the Groyper movement—or what we could call America First at large—go into seminary. I’ve seen them live devout Catholic lives. I’ve seen them convert. I’ve seen them embrace greater ideals of charity and following Jesus Christ as a result of coming into contact with this movement. I would not be a Groyper if I didn’t believe that being a part of America First and supporting Nicholas J. Fuentes did not fundamentally make me a better Catholic—which it has. Nick played a major role in my conversion to the faith and my adoption of a Catholic worldview, as well as embodying ideals such as loving my neighbour and loving my enemy, and fully embracing Jesus Christ as the centre of my politics.

That touches on the core of my politics. I’m a Catholic above everything else. I believe in Catholicism, and I will live and die as a Catholic. No political ideology that conflicts with my Catholicism is something I want to embody or believe in. I fundamentally love our Lord Jesus Christ; I love our Blessed Mother Mary—and any idea that goes against them is an idea that I am against. But any idea that supports them, and any movement that espouses his sacred name, I am willing to follow, because I follow Jesus Christ.

CH: In your post-Jubilee appearances, such as on the Rift Report podcast, you have spoken about the societal backlash you faced. Did you anticipate the public reaction to your statements, and what has this experience taught you about engaging in public discourse, particularly as a Catholic seeking to influence political conversations?

CE: I was not expecting the extent of the backlash. I certainly knew there would be people who took issue with me, who were maybe offended by me, but I did not expect the sort of nastiness and evil that I saw in response to my segment on Jubilee.

It was a harrowing experience to endure that kind of persecution. What I will say, however, is that since appearing on Jubilee and understanding the nature of platforms we appear on and where we can give a voice to Catholic politics, I know that any place hostile to our faith is not a good place to appear—because all they will seek to do is misrepresent the faith.

All they will seek to do is put us in a bad position or a bad light and not allow us ample opportunity to explain what Catholics believe. I want to be persecuted for what I believe as a Catholic, not for what people think I am. If I am going to be persecuted for my Catholic beliefs, then I am not ashamed of what I believe as a God-fearing Roman Catholic. I think we need to be on platforms where we are given the opportunity to speak freely and openly about the Gospel—ones where nothing is edited, nothing is made to be a hit job or an ambush, but one where people can accurately hear what Jesus Christ wants to do in their lives, and that they may come to the foot of the Cross and know the love of God.

CH: How do you plan to continue your work as a Catholic commentator considering this controversy? What might you change?

CE: I certainly still want to be humorous, funny, and light-hearted. I also don't want to be falsely edgy. I don't want to convey my message in a way that inhibits what I am trying to communicate, which is the Gospel.

All my content going forward will be centred on the Gospel and presenting it in its pure and pristine form. I want to use methods of modern communication and humour to aid and enhance that mission. However, I want to avoid anything that winds up hindering the purity and the splendour of sharing the love of God with others.

Going forward, I want to use all methods to spread the Gospel in an entertaining, funny, light-hearted, and wholesome way, so that people may truly know just how much joy Christ has added to my life—and that they may experience it in their own lives and come to the Cross and be saved.

‍