I think we should be praying for the SSPX to regain its sanity before, during, and after the chapter meeting next year. Sanity meaning they would return to opposing modernism at every turn.

It never opposed modernism at every turn. That is why so many came and went. It always had this ultimate aim of securing a comfortable niche within the pantheon on terms decided by a very small band of clerics with its own take on tradition. Lefebvre's brand was always there if modified somewhat after his death.

The so-called SSPX division if it exists must be remarkable for its invisibility. The Society has been successful in expelling (or castrating) those Bp. Fellay once said he did not want in "his church". If Menzingen has hardened towards Rome, it will be be part of this familiar game it likes to play and not because of any pressure from the rank and file.

Your first sentence is a factual predicate to the rest.  And again, it is right to observe the pattern of appearing to hold firm to principal with the inevitable recession to "openess". It is, as it has been from the beginning.  Bp.Fellay is an ambitious man, and he brooks no challenges to his reign or power. Bp. Williamson was the most obvious example of that, but any other voices which have been raised against his vision have been silenced or removed as well.
These outsiders such as this Cardinal and others do not see the long standing familiar pattern of advance and retreat, which has alway been present in the SSPX. They think that these are actually changes in attitudes and position.
Its opposition, or resistance as it is now called, has always been mainly in defiant or dissenting words, while they quietly go about doining what they want to do under the cover of the crisis/necessity blanket.
That the conciliar authorities have tolerated and even treated with them for so long is proof that they were never a serious threat to the Revolution, and in fact the SSPX's very moderated dissent has served to give credibility and legitimacy to the conciliar bandits for decades.
It follows that if there is such strong opposition among some of its priests they would be principled enough to leave straight away, but that is not what happens as they were formed with the stencil of non-threatening dissent which is a hallmark of the parent sect.

After years of hearing the news about "the relations" SSPX and the Vatican II religion I have sometimes allowed it to enter one ear and go out the other. That's about as far as it goes.

From long experience, I do not believe Menzingen, and from short observation I do not follow the Resistance, their (Menzingen and the Resistance) is a fight between brothers.

That is a correct assessment as they only differ on when and how to deal with the Romans, but their views and policies are the same in relation to the conciliar entity and its non-existent level of orthodoxy.
"Recognize us as we are because we recognize you as you are"

Today the Catholic Church is in chaos, totally divided. The shepherd (the pope)  is struck and the sheep are divided. I do not expect unity, just a valid priest. Despite what I wrote, I still go to an SSPX chapel, and would go to a Resistance chapel and a sede chapel. They're all teachers of quasi-universal salvation (salvation without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity), while I am a strict EENSer, I believe dogmas are the final word and so should be believed as they are written, so, if I was to stick to my guns, I would not to any chapel. That is why all I seek is a valid priest.

That is roughly where I stand as well. Remember that almost all of the sede Bishops have origins in SSPX ordinations, so it is not surprising that the weak theology of salvation by ignorance and good will was imparted to all of these Bishops in their formation and now passed on to their ordinands.  That is the boat we are in, and as such simply finding a valid priest for reception of the sacraments is the logical policy, but without, of course a level of involvement in which you would risk adopting thier ideas about salvation.

Your first sentence is a factual predicate to the rest.  And again, it is right to observe the pattern of appearing to hold firm to principal with the inevitable recession to "openess". It is, as it has been from the beginning.  Bp.Fellay is an ambitious man, and he brooks no challenges to his reign or power. Bp. Williamson was the most obvious example of that, but any other voices which have been raised against his vision have been silenced or removed as well.

These outsiders such as this Cardinal and others do not see the long standing familiar pattern of advance and retreat, which has alway been present in the SSPX. They think that these are actually changes in attitudes and position.

Its opposition, or resistance as it is now called, has always been mainly in defiant or dissenting words, while they quietly go about doining what they want to do under the cover of the crisis/necessity blanket.

That the conciliar authorities have tolerated and even treated with them for so long is proof that they were never a serious threat to the Revolution, and in fact the SSPX's very moderated dissent has served to give credibility and legitimacy to the conciliar bandits for decades.
It follows that if there is such strong opposition among some of its priests they would be principled enough to leave straight away, but that is not what happens as they were formed with the stencil of non-threatening dissent which is a hallmark of the parent sect.

You have perfectly described the "duck walk" of the liberals -- two steps forward and one step backward -- a deceiving diabolical dance, which is always progressing toward modernism.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.