To start with, I should briefly explain what a traditional Catholic is.
First, we must leave aside those who call themselves traditional Catholic because they are nostalgic for the 1950's as well as those who think that Vatican II's aftermath was a horrible mistake (a misinterpretation of Vatican II's true intentions). The latter are usually called "conservative" Catholics, not traditional.
Traditional Catholics see that a major rupture happened in the Catholic Church around 1970. Not only was a new Mass created (out of nothing, having no continuity with the previous Mass used for centuries), but a new kind of priest, new sacraments, new role for the people, new architecture, new music, new official Catechism, new theology, new outlook on "the world" ('it's our great teacher', vs. the old 'it's a naughty, wayward child') new governmental structure (democratic vs. the old hierarchical), etc. In short, the Catholic Church became an almost unrecognizable religion from what it used to be.
Many well-informed traditional Catholics are aware of things like the "Alta Vendita", which was a docuмent of the Freemasons which professed the desire to have a Pope elected who would be FULL OF THEIR IDEAS without being one of them. This would allow him to be more sincere, and would cause less trouble for them. They would have the best of both worlds. To make a long story short, they succeeded. God only knows how many Cardinals and bishops are Freemasons, and even worse, how many are heavily influenced by their doctrines (liberty, equality, fraternity).
Only a fool would deny that the modern world lives by the principles of the French Revolution -- which was (and is) Freemasonic. The fact that the Catholic Church habitually condemned Communism, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and other errors -- while TODAY SHE DOES NOT -- tells me a lot. One can only conclude that the formerly condemned enemy has infiltrated the organization in sufficient numbers to influence her official policy.
(The subject of the "Crisis in the Church" is a huge one, and I could write a book. Don't worry, I won't!)
In conclusion, a traditional Catholic is someone who holds to the complete teachings of the Catholic Church, as they were taught around 1962. They attend the old Mass in Latin, which was used from the early days of the Church up to 1962. They read classic Catholic works, written by great men and women of the Church in the past 19 1/2 centuries. They avoid modern philosophers (except, perhaps, for academic reasons) and follow the Church's own advice to use St. Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologica as the main authority to solve questions of Theology and Philosophy.
I read the article in question, and here is my critique of it:
First, I must confess that it reminded me of Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code". Nevertheless, I will not get hung up on that point, and will treat the author seriously.
I know that the Jesuits started out as a great religious order, specializing in study and missionary work. I also know that there was a book written centuries ago by a Protestant called "the Black Legend" which, though utterly false, spread countless lies about the Jesuits. I don't have the author's name, date, or ISBN number (if it even has one), but my mind specializes in the big picture, not memorizing every person and date. I can look up an individual fact if I need it. But Google CANNOT give someone wisdom or the big picture. But I digress.
The Jesuits were highly educated, and plenty of them would have qualified as "intellectuals". That very strength would have put them at risk around 1900, when the greatest system of errors arose, called "Modernism". Modernism was called "the sewer of all heresies" by Pope Pius X, and he wrote 2 encyclicals exposing and condemning the error. The Pope did such a good job of hammering the new heresy, that it went underground, and didn't re-emerge until around 1940, when many professors in Catholic universities were infected with Modernism. It was new and exciting, and many people took to it. Many bishops who attended the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) had professors who taught them modernist ideas when they were younger.
I am not sure exactly when the Jesuits "fell from grace" as a whole, but by 1970 they were not very Catholic, if "Catholic" is defined as teaching what the Catholic Church always taught, which is the Deposit of Faith received from the Apostles. That being said, I would not attribute massive cօռspιʀαcιҽs to them.
It is true that there is a massive worldwide conspiracy going on right now, so if a person rejects my assertion of who is behind it, if they are intelligent they will look for another culprit, not deny the conspiracy altogether. So in this sense, the article is logical. At least the author sees that things never happen by accident, etc. But I would suggest he look elsewhere than the Jesuits to find the puppetmasters. They are a once-glorious, though currently fruitless branch of the Catholic Church, but nothing more. There might be conspirators in their midst, since I am sure many of them are Freemasons. Since the Jesuits are drastically different than they were 150 years ago, and they are basically useless as a religious order today (given that a religious order is supposed to promote holiness and the salvation of souls), I would not be surprised if the Freemasons took over the Order's direction to use it for their own purposes. But then the conspiracy is essentially Freemasonic, not Jesuitic.
I notice the author said, "When fear and superstition rule..." I would guess that he is not a devout Catholic, since he considers Catholicism to be "superstition" -- just a huge scam, part of "organized religion" which is out for money and power. If that is what you think of the Catholic Church, then attributing cօռspιʀαcιҽs to it is just another baby step.
I know how much I DON'T know, but I can put things together. Some things simply do not fit.
Matthew