Good points. Just out of interest, why in your opinion did Paul VI promulgate the new mass? Did he know it'd be an evil rite or was he just a useful idiot liberal?
I don't know.
But here is a thought that nags at me:
Under St. Pius X, there were no successful pressure attempts by the modernists to get him to "ease up" in the battle against modernism.
Where he found them, he scotched them.
They were underground in survival mode.
But under Benedict XV, things lightened up quite a bit.
Whether this was because of some overzealous mistakes that had been made, or because he had other priorities, the modernists were able to regather under his command.
Their new tactic was to organize and pressure bishops, cardinals, and even Popes.
If you read the book "The Liturgical Movement" by Fr. Diddier Bonneterre (Angelus Press) he goes into this a bit.
In the seminary (Liturgy I class), Fr. Iscara read to us from the memoirs of Dom Lambert Beauduin (proto-modernist liturgist), who goes into considerably more detail about how the modernists sought out liberal bishops to extend to them indults to experiment way back in the 19-teens. Then the liberal bishops would organize conferences, retreats, seminars, etc to spread their ideas, and pressure Rome for more indults.
These methods resulted in the grotesque Dialogue Mass (all the principles of the Novus Ordo, way back in the 19-teens).
Of course they gathered steam, and the Popes -all lacking the resolve of Pius X- consistently gave in to the pressure.
I come back to your question now: Did Paul VI know the rite was evil, or was he just an idiot liberal?
I think two things:
1) I think he was weak.
2) I think he was liberal.
He was around when the Dialogue Mass came about; he lived through the Pius XII reform.
Most likely, he thought the trend in liturgical modernism was the Holy Sprit (stupid, but hey: He was a liberal.). After all, he could look back to Pius XI celebrating the Dialogue Mass, Pius XII destroying Holy Week, and was not the Novus Ordo simply the logical conclusion to all those same pre-conciliar principles?
The Church needed 5 strong Pope St. Pius X's
Instead it got those who were susceptible to being influenced by pressure which, combined with a liberalism which robbed them of solidity in their faith, ended in Vatican II (and the post-conciliar deforms).
This, anyway, is what I think I am inclined to believe.
It could be way off.