You asked everyone to agree that someone can be saved in the SSPX. He gave his assent to that. He then added some inflammatory comments about the SSPX, but that doesn't change that he believes that you can be saved within it. You do not look favorably upon the Vatican II Church but you would not claim everyone there is damned.
I think you're aggravated from Nekropol, and Mr. Hardin saying that SSPX is "nothing but deceit and sin" was too much at the wrong time. But I have said, and still believe, that there is a good chance that the SSPX is controlled opposition. That article "Is Sedevacantism Catholic?" that they still have up on their websites is a real intellectually dishonest hackjob, not because it slams sedevacantism but because it mangles concepts and plays down to its audience, almost assuming they'll swallow whatever is offered. I have seen this from SSPX too often, an overconfidence, like they are sure that their followers will never question them.
So I do believe there is possibly ( but who can say for sure? ) deliberate deceit involved as well. As for "sin," he is probably referring to sin against the Magisterium, that the SSPX implicitly is saying that the Church can defect. When SSPX clergy say that they want the "Popes" to throw out Vatican II, they are putting their foot in it, because they are admitting it is faulty and error-strewn, in a way that no Council approved by a true Pope could be. If they were like Caminus and argued that Vatican II skirted the edge of heresy and/or error without falling in, they'd be wrong, in my opinion, but more logical. It's just that I don't see how he -- who often chides others for not properly making distinctions, and who has plenty of mental flexibility -- could really believe that Vatican II only promoted erroneous conclusions through ambiguity rather than being actually erroneous.
Either way, what is not in question is that the present crisis is messy no matter how you slice it, as you said, Matthew. There is far too much grey area to expect everyone to be sedevacantist or else condemned to hell. This is not like the Arian crisis where the Trinity itself is being attacked; it all depends on abstruse notions like infallibility, or whether the Pope can be a heretic, or religious liberty. Even between themselves, I have seen very few sedes who agree on the precise bounds of infallibility. And religious liberty had been tolerated for so long before it was "mandated" at Vatican II that it did seem like a natural development, though it was not. The heresy is that people have the "natural right" to religious liberty but that is such a fine distinction, I can see why some people would not be ready to take the sedevacantist leap over it.
My biggest problem with SSPX these days is not theological at this point but practical. I think you are trying to play it safe, but while you are doing this, you are leading the world into ever greater danger.
You say that you are waiting for higher authorities to do the work for you, that you are content to wait and be patient, seemingly oblivious that the higher authorities that we can trust are dying out or selling out every day, that if this keeps up the true faith may be forgotten within one or two generations, and that complete darkness is falling over everything.
But I can kind of see where all this is going ( disaster, then new Pope elected by St. Peter and St. Paul ). I no longer expect any resolution this side of a chastisement, or miniature apocalypse, or Christ's return itself. Could things have been different if all traditionalists rejected the VII Popes right away? Who knows -- that is not how it happened. The New World Order must fill its cup of the wine of wrath to the full. It seems part of God's design that before the Church can be restored, the world as we know it must be radically reconfigured.