Certainly there is nothing wrong with political alliance with other Christian sects and with Muslims against Zionist Imperialism.

Differences of opinion in the religious domain should be decided in an honourable, peaceful, theological discussion, which in the long run gives the right to those who deserve it, but prevents that these antagonisms degenerate into religious wars or violent conflicts, which always make impossible a political uniting of the peoples, which is so neces-sary, in the first place to eliminate the threat by Jєωιѕн Imperialism and later to secure world peace, which is indis-pensable for the progress and maintenance of the human race.

This goes too far.

I remember being horrified by lots of sections of this book, but that was a while ago when I was more paranoid.  I'd have to read it with fresh eyes, not just skim it like before, to see if "Maurice Pinay" is advocating a merely expedient, political detente with the Prots and other Christian sects, or if there is something more to it.

Here is the Hoffman quote I was thinking of, from an interview with Kourosh Ziabari.  

"I am writing a book on freedom of conscience. One of the findings has been that during the European wars of religion when Protestants and Catholics murdered, censored and defamed one another, a martyr to freedom of conscience was only considered as such by Protestants if he or she was one of the Protestants; by the same standard, Catholics regarded a person who was censored or killed for their faith only a martyr if they were of the Catholic faith."  This mentality of religious hatred which occluded objective judgment has a long history in the West.

It is Hoffman who occludes objective judgment.  The objective i.e. factual judgment is that the Catholic Church is the true Church and the only one that can trace its origins to Christ.  So there is a difference between Catholics punishing heretics, and Protestants -- who are involved in a heretical sect -- persecuting Catholics.  Yet you would never pick up on such a distinction reading this interview.  

Even though the people of Europe, for example, are today mostly agnostic or atheist, they seem to have inherited this old criterion from the European wars of religion. Consequently, a Muslim who quits the faith and turns against it and is persecuted, is a martyr in the eyes of the West, but a Judaic who does the same with regard to Judaism is not a martyr but a psychologically troubled person, a "self-hating Jєω."

Intellectuals who challenge the claims of execution gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau are not regarded as martyrs to freedom of conscience when they are arrested, fined, beaten or jailed.  They are like Catholics in Anglican England or Huguenots in Catholic France; they are of the devil's party and therefore freedom of speech does not apply to them; neither are they martyrs to freedom; only criminals."

Here he is equalizing Catholic martyrs and Protestants who die in religious conflicts.  He is making anyone who is attacked for "free speech" into a martyr, basically.  The emphasis is never on Catholicism, always on free speech.  Perhaps he doesn't know what the Catholic Church teaches about free speech?

In the United States freedom of speech is guaranteed in the public sphere by virtue of the Founding Fathers who forbade the fratricidal wars of religion on American soil and banned the establishment of a state religion. Without a heritage of religiously demonizing adversaries in the war of ideas, Americans refused to permit the jailing of heretics.

He says this as if it's a good thing.  Heretics are enemies of social order and of civilization itself.  Then again, the US as we know it was founded by Freemasons who didn't seem to care much that being a Freemason meant automatic excommunication.

"There have been some exceptions to this: President John Adams jailed Congressman Matthew Lyon for "ѕєdιтισn." Abraham Lincoln jailed his opponents and closed newspapers. President Woodrow Wilson's administration locked up war critics such as Eugene Debs. But the American people never approved of this repression, it was viewed as something foreign - the despotism of kings. George W. Bush tried to alter that perception after the 9/11 attacks, when he and Vice President Cheney attempted to enact king-like powers for the Executive branch of government. It remains to be seen if, in the name of "National Security," Americans will surrender their birthright of freedom.

In Britain and Europe the slogan of the state church was "error has no rights." They were certain that the state, either in the person of Queen Elizabeth I of England, the pope of Rome, the Bourbon kings of France, the Lutheran establishment in Germany or Calvin's theocracy in Geneva, had the competence to legally decide and declare what thoughts were true and what was error. Though Europe today would scorn Calvin and the pope, many Europeans are dutiful sons and daughters of this dictatorship over the mind. Hence, when France and Germany declare that those skeptics who question the homicidal gas chambers have no rights, they are acting on behalf of a European religious mentality, as did their ancestors, only in the modern instance the mentality is not Catholicism or Calvinism, it is h0Ɩ0cαųstianity."

Make no mistake, he really is comparing the Pope ( and the Catholic kings of France ) to Elizabeth Tudor as a sort of tyrant.  All of them are infringing on his precious liberty in one way or another, whether they be Catholic or Anglican.

Then again, when Chesterton can go around praising the most Satanic event in world history, the French Revolution, and still be treated like an uncanonized saint, it's no wonder this flies with certain people.

I believe Pius XII is a true Pope, which I admit I doubted before -- that is why I thought I could get away with such vitriol against him, to me at the time he was practically in the same category as Ratzinger -- but that he was a pretty bad one.

I actually have a more elaborate theory about this now based on the Apocalypse but I will spare the site from that.

Yeah, my vague memory is that this book was very Vatican II-sounding and was suggesting some kind of religious union with Protestants.  Don't hold me to that though.

Interestingly, Michael Hoffman, who is also fixated on the Jєωιѕн question, is all for religious liberty.  Maybe hatred for the Jєωs, rather than simple realism about their anti-Christ activities in the world, blinds you.  Or maybe there are infiltrators who portray themselves as anti-Jєω to win the confidence of certain Catholics, at which point they then slip them some misleading opinions.

I told him that by adopting such a philosophy, he unwittingly adopted a Masonic concept which is ironically attached to the Jєωs.  What a tragedy to devote oneself to exposing this false sect only to end by adopting one of its most potent errors.  His focus is too narrow and not sufficiently supernatural, thereby his work is not very effective as well.    

I believe that Belloc approved of reforms that were enacted through Aug 4 1789.

I don't really get the point of your post here. Care to elaborate?

We would have to let Belloc clarify his stance on that. Although, I have not seen him on here in several weeks.