1) Greatly diminished, but not completely useless.  The SSPX can still be a stepping stone to the Resistance (i.e., pre-1992 SSPX).

God CAN do whatever He wants.  What's at issue is whether God WOULD work an external / observable miracle that could and likely would be construed by many as His endorsement of the NOM.

I hold that God would not work such miracles.  I looked around for Orthodox accounts of Eucharistic miracles and could find none, even on various Orthodox forums I've checked.  That question was asked, and no Orthodox poster ever produced a link to such a miracle.  Generally the answer is that the consecration IS a miracle.

And my second hypothesis is that God would not allow demons to tamper with a valid Blessed Sacrament.  This too is backed up by the absence of any Orthodox "miracles" that can be proven at least preternatural (i.e. not explainable by natural means, including human fraud).

So based on my two hypothesized premises --
1) God would not work miracles surrounding the NOM lest people should construe it as His endorsement of the NOM
2) God would not allow demons to tamper with valid Sacraments

I conclude that the hosts at NO Masses where such "miracles" that cannot be explained by natural means are not in fact validly consecrated.  Of course, one cannot logically extrapolate from there whether ALL NO Masses are invalid, just these particular ones.

In any case, when Bishop Williamson refers people to "miracles that cannot be disputed" (just check the internet, says His Excellency), why does he make no account of the possibility of diabolical or demonic activity?  Demons can simulate nearly any type of "miracle".

Why would demons simulate such miracles?  Well, we see right there with Bishop Williamson being led on account of said "miracles" to where he's becoming softer on the NOM, concluding not only that it's at least potentially valid (using the miracles as "proof") but even taking the next step in holding that it cannot be totally condemned because it "nourishes" souls.

Not a few Trads here look at these "miracles" and conclude therefrom that the NOM is intrinsically valid, and many conclude that it "can't be all that bad" if God works miracles around it ... precisely the diabolical intent here.

Think about it.  If you were the devil and had succeeded in replacing the Catholic Mass with the NOM (dubiously valid, sacrilegious, etc.) what better way to get people who might be on the fence to buy into it than fake some "Eucharistic miracles" tied to the NOM?  That would have been my first course of action after succeeding to get the NOM in.

I'm honestly confused about why Bishop Williamson continues to promote all manner of dubious private revelation ... including Garabandal, which has been thoroughly discredited (failed prophecies, seers backing away from endorsing it, etc. ... not to mention diabolical phenomena that took place at the time).

Garabandal was clearly not humanly-explainable (vs. Medjugorje ... which was just plain fraud), but diabolical.  Why would the devil perpetrate a Garabandal hoax.  Well, the best explanation came from the Dimond Brothers.  At the time, the Third Secret was supposed to have been revealed, and the Third Secret deals primarily with a SPIRITUAL chastisement (i.e. Vatican II, the NOM, likely the imposter popes, etc.), but Garabandal and Akita (another favorite of Bishop Williamson) deal almost exclusively with a physical chastisement, fire from the sky and the like.

So while the actual chastisement of the Third Secret was well underway right before the eyes of all, as would be made "clearer" in 1960, and dealing with an "apostasy beginning at the top" (Cardinal Ciappi, who read the Secret), all eyes and minds are redirected to the expectation of some future PHYSICAL chastisement.  In addition, the notable silence of Heaven regarding V2, the NOM, etc. can give people the impression that God does not reject this revolution in the Church.  Both these speak of "bishop vs. bishop" etc. ... making it seem that the battle is between good factions within the Conciliar Church vs. bad factions, rather than an imposter Church set up to eclipse the True Church founded by Christ.

My issue is not that people don’t believe in this or that (or any) alleged Eucharistic miracle, but that they are arbitrarily dogmatizing their own subjective impressions by mandating a certain interpretation about what it MUST mean or imply if true, despite not having any compelling reason (eg., Church teaching) for doing so, particularly when there are equally compelling narratives and possibilities which contradict it.

Is Fr. Hewko really the arbiter and oracle of what and why God can and must do something? 

When an argument begins with “If God performed a miracle, it means He is endorsing the Novus Ordo,” and condemns interpretations which say God could intervene to instill the very faith in His real presence which the Montinian rite attacks, then He’d better be able to show some evidence:

Are there good or bad fruits associated with the alleged miracle (eg., How has faith, morals, spiritual life, belief in the real presence, etc. been effected locally)?

But he never attempts to do so, because quite frankly, this is all just another stick to beat +Williamson with.  Therefore, God is squished into the narrative, and orthodoxy made to depend upon its acceptance.

One arbitrary opinion is as good as another, and mine is that there’s eminent sense in believing God would manifest such a miracle where one could do the most good for the most souls (whether He actually did or not being another matter).

My issue is not that people don’t believe in this or that (or any) alleged Eucharistic miracle, but that they are arbitrarily dogmatizing their own subjective impressions by mandating a certain interpretation about what it MUST mean or imply if true, despite not having any compelling reason (eg., Church teaching) for doing so, particularly when there are equally compelling narratives and possibilities which contradict it.

I wondered about this.  If the NO has "miracles" because it is valid, then why don't the Orthodox liturgies...which we know are certainly valid?

No, the problem is that you are ignorant, and don’t know it (as Plenus Ventor explained above).

Enlighten me, please, oh Great One. 

Which of the 3 citations didn't you agree with?

Sure the intent is presumed, if it's a Catholic rite, but the Bastardo isn't a Catholic rite.  It's basically a Protestant rite with a little Nestorian heresy thrown in for icing on the cake.

Why are you still babbling about the rite?