This video is so dumb and ridiculous. I found it infuriating because these indultarians still don't get it and want to save face wherever they can to salvage the modernist sect thinking it is the Catholic Church. It's too bad because I have liked this man's history talks and other stories, but he falls tremendously short here. They're just so scared of being labeled schismatic and radical. This reminds me also of when Riverrun told Michael Lofton that modernists do not actually exist anymore. 

Agreed. You can't just dismiss a term because you're sick of the reality it represents. Modernism is a specific heresy, and it still reigns supreme in the Conciliar Church. So no, it's not time to retire a perfectly useful and necessary term to describe a specific (but very broad and all-encompassing) heresy.

Having a tv on church property is modernism.

Using cell phones instead of missals and hymnals is modernism.

This is interesting. What is the traditional definition of " Modernism? "
Let's trust Pius X' definition, the last one.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Modernism-Roman-Catholicism

"... in Roman Catholic Church history, a movement in the last decade of the 19th century and first decade of the 20th that sought to reinterpret traditional Catholic teaching in the light of 19th-century philosophical, historical, and psychological theories and called for freedom of conscience. Influenced by non-Catholic biblical scholars, Modernists contended that the writers of both the Old and New Testaments were conditioned by the times in which they lived and that there had been an evolution in the history of biblical religion. Modernism also reflected a reaction against the increasing centralization of church authority in the pope and the Roman Curia (papal bureaucracy).

******* 
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm
Here is what NewAdvent says:

Origin of the word

Etymologically, modernism means an exaggerated love of what is modern, an infatuation for modern ideas, "the abuse of what is modern", as the Abbé Gaudaud explains (La Foi catholique, I, 1908, p. 248). 
********

or:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34926

"....
religion is essentially a matter of experience, personal and collective. There is no objective revelation from God to the human race, on which Christianity is finally based, nor any reasonable grounds for credibility in the Christian faith, based on miracles or the testimony of history. Faith, therefore, is uniquely from within. In fact it is part of human nature, "a kind of motion of the heart," hidden and unconscious. It is, in Modernist terms, a natural instinct belonging to the emotions, a "feeling for the divine" that cannot be expressed in words or doctrinal propositions, an attitude of spirit that all people have naturally but that some are more aware of having....

******
I see a NeoSspx priest praying his breviary from an iPad, using tiny baby wipes for baptism to clean the holy oils, removing adoring angels from the altar, co- celebrating marriages with N.O. "clergy", allowing laymen to sing the Gospel, being besides himself in joy when the protestant chaplainesse gives him permission to visit the prisoners, well, I see someone who is not Trad. 
I'm a madernist. 

Modernists view many of us as square and puritans.

During 1900’s secular single school teachers in USA were instructed to wears skirts to their ankles and not to venture after dark. They were to stay home and read the Bible.  Modernists just laugh. They call it puritanical and Amish. 

But look at modern schools teachers today promoting sex and sodomy. Many female teachers are even sɛҳuąƖ abusing students.  Many are teaching while doing pornography at night on computers and cell phones.  No wonder why American children are behind in reading and math. Most modernists are indifferent. 

While I haven't watched the video, I do think that we're definitely in a post-Modernist world, where we've entered into pure phenomenology and subjectivism.  Modernists kindof tried to blend the two into some kind of system, which is why St. Pius X referred to one page being orthodox and the next being heretical.  We're in straight open apostasy ... no need to disguise it anymore like the original Modernists had to do, going underground and hiding.

With that said, "Modernism" is a slippery term, able to manifest itself in different ways.  Lots of Trads just think that "Modernism" means being "modern", trying to reconcile with the "modern world".  No, not really.

From a theological perspective, beyond their attacks on Sacred Scripture, which is a big subject difficult to address here, the primary theological manifestation of Modernism is the notion of the development of doctrine.  But see that presupposes that therer is some objective doctrine that we're coming to a fuller undrestanding of and that we're trying to find the ultimate meaning of (and there is a sense of this that can be legitimate, since we can never fully comprehend the mysteris of the Holy Trinity and other subjects) ... but the current group don't care, don't even believe that there IS an objective truth that we're attempting to discover, just that we make our own truth for ourselves and are our own yardsticks of truth and reality.

Thus, we're in a post-Modernist era.

But if there's a single word that might be synonymous with Modernism, it's Bishop Williamson's term ... subjectivism.  Classical Modernists believed that we take objective truth and that there's a collective Church's consciousness or subjectivization of the truth, where the post-Modernists care nothing about the Church but believe that every individual should filter and interpret the truth.  Both at least assume that there is an objective truth that to some degree we must conform, even if full conformity is not possible.  These post-Modernists of today believe that there is no objective truth that we're striving for but that we all create our own truths, i.e. there's a complete detachment from objective reality.

Descartes started to use the example of an oad in the water that appears bent.  But at least in his example, there's some objective reality that correspondgs to the oar that we see, just that we can't see it perfectly and it's distorted, so we can't grasp it's total objective essence.  For the post-Modernists, if I see this bent oar in the water, there may not be an oar at all or anything resembling an oar whatsoever, i.e. where the phenomena are 100% detached from objective reality instead of just partially.

So, I listend to first 5 minutes at double speed, and he's saying exactly what I posted.  Thus far he's right on target.

Getting the clot shot is rash and morally dangerous. It is NOT Modernist.

Words have meaning. Follow the definition set down over a century ago for Modernism. Otherwise, communication breaks down and all are reduced to grunting beasts.

Too late for that.  Grunting beasts everywhere with communication breakdowns due modern inventions like tv, cell phones etc. zombies.