An educated guess as to why the relative silence could be that the conservatives are stepping up to the plate (people like Taylor Marshall, LifeSite News, Michael Matt etc) and it is perhaps more effective coming from them in getting people off the fence.

There's some sense in this.  Nobody can accuse Taylor Marshall, LifeSite News, John Smeaton, Michael Voris of being "rad Traditionalists" or "quasi-schismatics", since the SSPX occupies that space and they are not SSPX supporters.

If the SSPX stays relatively quiet it makes the argument (now coming from what used to be conservative novus-ordo Catholics) that much more noticeable and impactful, just as you would listen and give greater weight to the arguments of other resistance members more than novus-ordinarians or SSPX loyalists.

In 1986 the SSPX were a voice crying in the wilderness.  In 2019 there are many more and some of them have significant internet media presence and large following.

An educated guess as to why the relative silence could be that the conservatives are stepping up to the plate (people like Taylor Marshall, LifeSite News, Michael Matt etc) and it is perhaps more effective coming from them in getting people off the fence.

There's some sense in this.  Nobody can accuse Taylor Marshall, LifeSite News, John Smeaton, Michael Voris of being "rad Traditionalists" or "quasi-schismatics", since the SSPX occupies that space and they are not SSPX supporters.

If the SSPX stays relatively quiet it makes the argument (now coming from what used to be conservative novus-ordo Catholics) that much more noticeable and impactful, just as you would listen and give greater weight to the arguments of other resistance members more than novus-ordinarians or SSPX loyalists.

In 1986 the SSPX were a voice crying in the wilderness.  In 2019 there are many more and some of them have significant internet media presence and large following.

I agree with some of what you wrote above. Indeed, nobody can accuse the conservatives you listed as being rad traditionalists or quasi-schismatics, since they do not support the SSPX. And it's a good thing that laymen are speaking out against what is going on today.

However, the SSPX differ from the men you listed, in that the SSPX are Catholic clergy. It's a different kettle of fish for the clergy to speak out against error, which, if they did so, ought to carry more weight than that of a layperson. But few Catholic clergy in the conciliar church are speaking out against error, since they could jeopardize their status by doing so. That's why it's important for the SSPX to condemn error, as Archbishop Lefebvre did.  The Archbishop didn't let it bother him that he was called a schismatic. He took it in stride, because defending Our Lord and His Church requires sacrifice.

You may be right about an argument being more impactful and noticeable, if one stays relatively quiet. The problem is, when the SSPX does eventually say something about the errors that plague the Francis papacy, they do so in an imprecise manner, in that they do not address the problem clearly and directly. Error needs to be clearly defined and condemned, and also shown how it goes against Church teaching. The SSPX shies away from this nowadays.

Nothing from SSPX, so they'll haul out Sarah to do their dirty work for them ...
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/criticism-synod-structurally-neutralized-truths-51896

Just generically about the synod though.

Cowards and traitors: "Here's what OTHER people are saying.  But us, well, we are just impartially reporting the news!  After all, the SSPX is a pius union of impartial journalists!"

Cardinal Sarah's last interview. The SSPX should read it:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-sarah-interview

I had no idea the Cardinal was a comedian.

I had no idea the Cardinal was a comedian.

Bergoglio could explicitly deny the Holy Trinity, and these men would be too cowardly to reject him as a non-Catholic.

Bergoglio could explicitly deny the Holy Trinity, and these men would be too cowardly to reject him as a non-Catholic.

Who exactly are "these men?"
You're saying, I think, that these men are the sspx hierarchy.  Would these men, perhaps, include, also, members of the R & R and other traditional folks?  If Bergoglio denied the Holy Trinity in even more explicit language than he has already done, (and he seems to draw pretty close at times), would Bp. Willamson himself reject Bergoglio?  Would he then declare publicly that Francis is not a Catholic, and by extension, not a real pope?  Because by their actions, three of the last popes have done this.  Each time they stepped into a ѕуηαgσgυє at the side of its chief rabbi, or entered barefoot into the interior of a mosque, accompanied by an iman, they were doing just that.  They were denying the Holy Trinity, and essentially worshiping a false god.

Well, technically speaking, nobody can reject his papacy, regardless of what he says or does, according to Bellarmine and JST (both said a declaration of the Church was required declaring the fact of his heresy, with the only dispute being whether or not a second declaration was necessary to declare Christ had deposed him, or whether the first declaration of heresy did this ipso facto).

Anyone who rejects him prior to at least the declaration of the fact of his heresy by the bishops is striking out on his own personal theory (which won’t have the backing of any pre-conciliar theologians).

anyone who still thinks this Jewgorglio freak from hell is their Catholic pope is striking out
In cuм ex Apostolatus Officio” does it state a declaration of the Church is required?
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

does Salza agree with you?

John Salza, Second Article, p. 5: “Ability to Recognize a Formal Heretic: Catholics are able to recognize a formal heretic without a declaration from the Church. See canon 188.4 and cuм Ex Apostolatus. While Dimond and I agree with this statement, Dimond (as you will see) repeatedly claims that I don’t believe Catholics can recognize a formal heretic, and that is simply not true (I have never held such an error). This is a deliberate or negligent mischaracterization of my position.”