At the root of some, not all, of these attacks on Marshall there appears to be a great deal of envy. To those who are green with envy I say, if what he has done is so easy, just do it yourself.

I couldn't do what Taylor Marshall is doing, because I can't be a compromiser, sellout, controlled opposition, or ignorant about Vatican II. I can't talk to the (much larger) Indult or "conservative Catholic" world like they're my people.

I can't get all excited when Pope Francis says something less heretical than usual.

There's a reason why all the 100% redpilled, well-educated, experienced Trads don't choose to wade into the Conciliar waters and make a big splash, as a two-eyed king in the land of the blind.

Just for starters, you can't hide what you know. If someone like me (who has more truth than the average Novus Ordite can handle) tried to grow a following in the Conciliar world, people would be overwhelmed or scandalized. I'd be called anti-s**itic and so forth. So I'd either have to actively compromise the truth, or somehow forget various truths in my mind. Nevermind that all the truths are more-or-less connected.

Bishop Williamson, and those who support him, are my people. Principled Catholics, who understand the gravity of the Crisis in the Church which started with Vatican II, who have been fighting Modernism for years, are my people.

There aren't as many of them, and even the ones who exist are poorer, because they are more principled and don't have well-paying jobs where they have to compromise their Faith. And they have more children.

So those who cater to "Trads" won't have as big a following, nor have much money (donations, support). But I say: So be it.

I can't be a Judas, not even for 30 pieces of silver a week.

I agree; there’s a bad taste in my mouth from trafficking in the faith which smacks of simony.  That’s another reason it should be the domain of clerics, many/most of whom have to abide by certain standards of poverty.  We don’t need the Catholic equivalent of those Prot televangelist, most of whom live scandalously opulent lifestyles.

I tend to agree that one should not make money off of the Faith; however, I question whether these popular bloggers are the "Catholic equivalent".    

Exactly right.  Now let's take this one step further.  

If a non-Catholic country, which will almost always be an anti-catholic country, does not have the right to suppress false religions or religious errors, does that not result in the citizens of this anti-Catholic country having a negative civil right not to be prohibited from practicing a false religion and/or spreading religious errors?

We all agree that no one has a moral right "to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall considers true," (Syllabus of Pius IX), but if the civil authority in an anti-Catholic country is not permitted to suppress religious errors, it follows logically that the citizens of that non-Catholic country will have the civil right not to be prohibited from committing that particular evil.  Do you agree?  

You've lost me with your double negative.  Which evil would these Catholics have the civil right not to be prohibited from committing?

Of which evil do you speak?

Catholics have a right to profess and practice their faith; non-Catholics do not.

You've lost me with your double negative.  Which evil would these Catholics have the civil right not to be prohibited from committing?

Not Catholic, but non-Catholics.  Non-Catholics would have the negative civil right not to be prevented from false religion and/or spreading religious errors. Those are the evils I was referring to.   See below for the reason why they would have this negative right.

Catholics have a right to profess and practice their faith; non-Catholics do not.

Right on both accounts. But the civil authorities in a non-Catholics state lack the coercive power needed to suppress false religions or religious errors.  Consequently, the citizens of a non-Catholic country (such as America) cannot be forbidden by the state from practicing a false religion and/or from spreading religious errors.

The necessary consequence of a secular state that refuses to be joined to the Church, is a negative civil right to "religious liberty" for its citizens, since it (the civil authorities) lack the coercive authority needed to suppress religious errors and false worship.