CathInfo.com

he felt he did not need a conditional ordination.  But he submitted himself for conditional ordination to a man whom he thought was a bishop.  So, he committed sacrilege?

Ordaining conditionally without "a good reason" is a mis-use of the sacrament. "A good reason", traditionally-speaking, meant a positive doubt about the validity of the sacrament. A mis-use of a sacrament is a sacrilege. However, be careful about attributing sin.
I am aware of at least one trad priest, ordained in the N.O., who (in his words) didn't doubt his ordination, but was conditionally ordained "for the sake of the faithful". Perhaps that is "a good reason" in these difficult times? Traditional sacramental theology doesn't really discuss that situation.

Ordaining conditionally without "a good reason" is a mis-use of the sacrament. "A good reason", traditionally-speaking, meant a positive doubt about the validity of the sacrament. A mis-use of a sacrament is a sacrilege. However, be careful about attributing sin.
I am aware of at least one trad priest, ordained in the N.O., who (in his words) didn't doubt his ordination, but was conditionally ordained "for the sake of the faithful". Perhaps that is "a good reason" in these difficult times? Traditional sacramental theology doesn't really discuss that situation.

SSPX have long (well before the Resistance movement) used the excuse of assuaging the concerns of the faithful as the pretext for doing conditional ordinations.  It's a political move.  They know that many of the faithful have doubts about the NO Holy Orders, so they would lose a lot of people.  But, due to playing politics with Rome, they didn't want to openly call their Rites into doubt.  So they came up with this middle line.  But, as you point out, it's borderline sacrilegeous to administer the Sacrament even conditionally for political reasons.  Either you hold them to be in positive doubt or you do not.

And this old line about, "well, the intentions of the NO bishops and priests are questionable" ... that constitutes NEGATIVE doubt.  If the rite is inherently valid, then the intention is presumed unless some specific concrete circuмstances comes to light that would create POSITIVE doubt (e.g., "I heard Bishop [such-and-such] say that he didn't intent to confer Holy Orders on [a certain candidate]").  Even if the NO Bishop had heretical views about the Sacrament, he would still validly confect it so long as he thought that he was doing what the Church does.

So the SSPX have been playing games with the Sacraments for a very long time now.

Well, that's because there's no actual formal group called "The Resistance" ... as per Bishop Williamson.  Bishop Williamson has long resisted calls to formalize a group but wants to think of the situation in the Church as just pockets of Catholics around the world attempting to keep the faith.  To prevent this kind of thing from happening, someone would have to formally create some kind of organization.

Though I do not have a high regard for the author of this post, nevertheless, reminded that a broken clock is right at least twice a day, he is absolutely right.  There is no formal "Resistance;" and according to my understanding anyway, Bp. Williamson has never committed to heading formally something called the "Resistance," nor has he endorsed the formation of a central organization, modeled after Menzingen. He has, on the other hand, recommended quite clearly, that independent, loosely aligned traditional chapels should emerge, having no central organization or centralized authority.