The 16 Vatican II docuмents started to be promulgated on 12/4/63 and ended on 12/7/65 with the NO Mass being promulgated on 4/3/69 and first implemented on 11/30/69.  Obviously, a time of great confusion and shattered catechesis with many, if not most,  in the above time frame and succeeding years not even realizing that the Church was being utterly hijacked by a ruinous praxis.  They were being told by those "in authority" that it was a new springtime.

You say that the Conciliar Church came in to being "at least 65 years ago."  That would be in 1960 before Vatican II even started.

What do you say if the person from no fault of his own and who had been subjected to nothing but bad catechesis since the age of reason attended the NO Mass without realizing the nature of what he was attending or perhaps not even knowing that there ever had been a traditional Latin Mass and went there in his mind to faithfully honor the Lord's Day and lead a just life and did not fall into any subjective state of mortal sin.? If he died while attending the NO Mass would he in your opinion automatically go to hell for dying outside the Catholic Church?

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15375021/Nick-Fuentes-anger-management-pepper-spray-Marla-Rose.html

I think Fuentes is controlled opposition, and he probably overreacted a bit here, especially when he pushed her down ... BUT

... it's quite clear this woman decided to become her own paparazza.  She admittedly had been taking videos of his house for several minutes before walking up to the door.  She wasn't just randomly going up to the door to ask if he had a cup of sugar she could borrow for a recipe.  She was effectively stalking him, violating his privacy (by taking video of his home, which could in theory capture things inside, which is where the line gets drawn), and trepassing ... going onto his property without authorization to take video to post online.

Let's say you had some other type of celebrity, say, Mel Gibson, and he saw some woman taking video of his house for some time, and then she goes up to his door (camera still rolling), and rings the doorbell.  I don't think anybody would fault him for opening the door and engaging pepper spray.  These people have no business there harrassing them, violating their privacy, and ... how do you know that they're not actually coming up there with evil intent?  What if it's some obsessed fan, or, in the case of Fuentes, somebody who hates him for his "Anti-Semitism".  Could she be armed?  You just never know.  If I tried doing this to some big name, whether an actor, or a politician, etc. ... I'd consider myself lucky if had gotten out of there with my life, that they hadn't blown me away, worried about my intentions.

Why open the door at all?

Fuentes is controlled opposition