I think OP's questions are in good faith-- for those who lived "in the Resistance" as it was happening, the events probably seem closer, but it's been more than ten years and there are a lot of people who are analyzing the events after the fact, as part of traditionalist history.

While it is true that the SSPX did not reach an open and formal agreement with modernist Rome, it is equally true that the SSPX has slid leftward, and continues to slide leftward, since ~2012 (I agree with Britpapist that this leftward slide actually dates to ABL's death-- but it's accelerated over the last 10-15 years).  The Resistance as originally formulated was motivated by resistance to and rejection of any deal, but the spirit of it was also opposed to increased liberalization of the SSPX whether or not a deal was struck.

Of course, one can point to lots of good priests within the SSPX who are not liberal and who have resisted liberalization. But considered corporately, the SSPX as measured by its messaging, its priestly formation, its politicking, what it will and won't criticize, has become largely indistinguishable from the Indult groups. It (the SSPX) maintains one very significant difference from the Indult groups which is that the lion's share of its priests are still validly ordained.  Aside from that (which is no small issue), it's hard to tell the difference between the SSPX and the FSSP.

I've spent some time thinking about the nature of the term/label "SSPX Resistance" as a descriptor for a specific group, and I think the label has expired. The label came about as a way of describing a rather significant exodus of priests all leaving the SSPX (or being expelled) at around the same time, for the same reason: they were opposed to Fellay's intention of striking a deal with modernist Rome. And at the beginning, the label made sense. As time went on and the deal was not made, and as priests had a chance to reconsider various things (like whether they wanted to be part of a group at all, or whether they wanted to maintain an R&R position, or if they did want a group whether it should be headed by Bishop Williamson or someone else, etc.), the label basically became a catch-all for any priest that was left/was expelled from the SSPX due to its liberalization. But that's a label so stretchy it starts to lose its usefulness, since it's referring to priests who are sedes and non-sedes, priests who want an organization and priests who want a loose affiliation, priests who "red light" the SSPX and priests who don't, etc.

The more and more time passed, the more clear it became that there really was no corporate body that could be called "the Resistance" because there was just too much diversity of opinion and no real corporate unity among them.  This, of course, does not stop people from still talking about "the Resistance" as though it is some corporate body, but I personally don't think it's any more useful than referring to "The (Oyster Bay) Nine" as though that is some corporate body. Like The Nine, the Resistance is really an historical artifact. Some people who belonged to it are still alive, some aren't, some still think exactly what they thought at the time the group existed in corporate unity while some have changed their mind. 

But in present day, there is no "The Nine"-- there's MHTS, SGG, the SSPV, and a few independent priests. Likewise in present day there is no "SSPX Resistance"-- there's the SJAM, Dom Tomas Aquinas's group, +Williamson's independent bishops, a variety of independent priests, etc. Mind you I am only making a claim about the usefulness of the label as a descriptor of a corporate body.  If you can do a "where are they now?" retrospective on the majority of the members of a group, that's proof that the group just doesn't exist in any meaningful way.

I think this is indeed coming down the line. But first, I think they wanted Huonder involved to potentially ordain seminarians, casting doubt on the validity of orders.
What I find particularly interesting is the prevalence of free-standing altars in many of the neo-SSPX's new "monuments". Are these rather impressive new chapels being designed to potentially accommodate  Novus Ordo priests? Or perhaps something resembling the 1965 Mass?

Ragebait?

.

I've never heard the term before, but yes, I think you are correct.

I think the best example of the SSPX sliding leftwards was moving Bp Williamson from Winona to La Reja, to hide him from the public eye of the Western Journalists (Of course that didn't stop the great Bishop). Let us not forget the SSPX breaking it's own founders ethos of not having Superior General being one of the SSPX Bishops after 1988 yet we got Bp Fellay in 1994!

While I also somewhat agree that "the messaging, its priestly formation, its politicking, what it will and won't criticize, has become largely indistinguishable from the Indult groups", I do not think the main anecdote of Priest size is true to a large extent as while the SSPX Clerics do have the largest non-tainted line of Priests (Indult uses Post '69 Ordained Bishops so thats tainted), I do think what makes the SSPX stand out is that when they get it right they get it right and actually stands up to conciliarism or modernism hence why they are in a state of "canonical Irregularity". I do think it's by in large also on the Corporate level the SSPX does seem to still use the Facade that they are still the last bastions of the Church and "the only good guys"

Also while I don't think my knowledge on what to label the SSPX Resistance as,your analogy on the the SSPX Resistance label it reminds me of the idea of conservativism and how many Enlightenment fanatics have not labelled conservativism as not an Ideology per se rather a culture/state of being in a reaction chain. I do think however the late BP Williamson told me he never wanted a corporate SSPX Resistance of an official grouping for himself

Finally, you have to be "on the lookout" constantly in terms of whether the neo-SSPX might send you some Novus Ordo presider who has not been conditionally ordained in the Traditional Rite and could be subjected to doubtful Sacraments.

In defense of Fr. Jahir and his priesthood

We would like to record here our vehement disapproval of those who, among the sedevacantists, attack the Rev. Father Jahir Britto and deny his priesthood.

It is lighthearted, an act of pride to call into question the priesthood of those who, within Tradition, have always done a great job, like Fr. Jahir, who founded a religious congregation that served and serves countless souls, and whose priesthood was received from a bishop of traditional spirit.

Dom Lefebvre did not question the ordinations in the new rite. The only thing he said can be questioned is the bishop's intention, and there is no reason to doubt the intention of the bishop who ordained Father Jahir, as he was an old-fashioned bishop, a bishop that Fr. Jahir chose it for its more traditional spirit. So, calling into question the priesthood of the Rev. Padre is disturbing the faithful in an undignified and irresponsible way.

We rise, therefore, vehemently to defend the priestly honor of Fr. Jahir and remember all the good he did to souls in Bahia and outside Bahia, as well as the good done by his community and in particular by Fr. Joaquim, who was trained by Fr. Jahir and who has assisted souls in many states of Brazil. For the honor of Fr Jahir, his monastery and his faithful, we make this protest, and more than a protest, a condemnation of those who disturb souls by questioning the priesthood of Fr. Jahir Britto.

May Our Lady bless us and protect us from all error and all groundless disturbance. So be it.

+ Thomas Aquinas, OSB