Looks like Fr. Hewko put Greg Taylor back on the payroll (hey, if Greg can make irresponsible yet plausible accusations, why cant I?), and he is stirring the pot with his fake resistance spiel again, to get the Sect lathered up with a rabble-rousing Recusant which dredges up the same old accusations since Fr. Pfeiffer’s English tinfoil hat conference in which this theory was hatched:

“The fake resistance is controlled opposition to get you back to modernist Rome; Bishop Williamson is secretly in collusion with Menzingen and Rome to subvert the Resistance; etc.”

Ol’ Greg even references a 2009 flippant comment by Fr. Jean of Morgan about an alleged “secret meeting” Bishop Williamson attended in Rome!  That’s the smoking gun!  Never mind that Greg admits to not being able to find anymore info about it!

Greg, here’s a bit more for you:  The source of the info appears to be the French Virgo Maria website (which has the same reputation for objectivity and integrity in that country as Traditio or the National Enquirer has in this one).  No matter: They ASSURE us it happened, and Fr. Jean ran with it (with neither Fr. Jean nor VM able to come up with anything more, and Fr. Jean lacking the good sense to inquire before making this statement in his sermon).

So we more or less are going to be treated to another 5 years of the SOS, except centered around Fr Hewko instead of Fr Pfeiffer.

It would be much more efficient for Greg to simply reprint issues 20-45 but change the dates.

Fr. Hewko (who tolerated Ambrose, Pablo, and all the rest which did so much damage to the resistance, discrediting it in the eyes of most) is now the savior of the “true resistance.”

That’s rich, ain’t it?

Which side is the fake resistance, subverting it’s mission, and making sure it never becomes a large movement, again?

With all these accusations and counter accusations, what is a poor soul to think?  It seems to me that actions speak louder than words (as long as those actions can be verified) meaning that one should try to emulate the actions and directions of Our Lord and Saviour and let the Machiavellian schemes of the speculators, promoting either this champion or that champion, just blow past in the wind.

That hyperlink did not work.
http://www.stmaryskssspxmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/The-Recusant-49.pdf

This one does.

For me they both do, oddly enough. 

With all these accusations and counter accusations, what is a poor soul to think?  It seems to me that actions speak louder than words (as long as those actions can be verified) meaning that one should try to emulate the actions and directions of Our Lord and Saviour and let the Machiavellian schemes of the speculators, promoting either this champion or that champion, just blow past in the wind.

Funny you should say, "what is a poor soul to think". Because thinking is the only solution.
I'm sorry if you have to apply your brain and think. As Bishop Williamson famously parodied, "I don't want to have to think. It huuuuuurts."

It's not a mystery that we can't solve (like, "When do the highest-level Freemasons intend to start WW3?"). Unless you have a spy at the Bilderberg meetings, you're not going to know the detailed plans of the Elite. The different Traditional groups, however, you CAN sort out, using common sense, reason, logic, and the virtue of Prudence.

Our Lord gave us advice: judge them by their fruits. He also said NOT to judge according to appearances, but to "judge just judgments". For example, you could walk past 2 men apparently "involved in a fight" but one of them (the one with a black eye) was completely passive and innocent, while the other was the sole instigator of the violence. Would it be a just judgment to accuse the TWO men of "fighting"? No, of course not.

It's not all up for grabs. There is an objective truth. Truth can be known and seized by the human mind, using the faculty of reason. We are not modern philosophers who deny the ability of the human mind to grasp objective truth.

If +Williamson wanted to lure faithful back to Rome then he would have created a formal organization ... and not consecrated additional bishops.

This^^^^

Without bishops, the mortality of the Resistance would have been 100% infallibly guaranteed.

Why play around with all the maneuvers the Sect accuses the bishop of to subvert the Resistance?  

If that was his aim, all the bishop would have had to do is not consecrate.

Why risk the Resistance surviving and possibly growing by consecrating bishops?

This point alone disproves the Sect’s hallucination.

Regarding Bishop Williamson's seeming "inertia" - perhaps he is just staying loosely networked, and helping where he can instead of organizing and beginning an order, etc., because he does not want to appear in schism, he does not want to appear to be beginning his own "church"?  The world media is still watching him.