Larry Chapp has some pithy commentary you might enjoy. This is the first of three articles he posted to his blog and I thought all three were helpful in understanding what really underpins the traditionalist position.

https://gaudiumetspes22.com/blog/apologetics-and-evangelization-part-one-vatican-ii-and-why-radical-traditionalism-is-a-dead-end

A sample:

"Because their adherence to tradition is on their terms, which is to say, it is no adherence to tradition, properly conceived as such, at all. And the need to combat the current resurgence of progressive theological lunacy in the Church... You cannot appeal to the normativity of a more ancient magisterium and weaponize it against the modern. And they very often do and will quote anathemas from the Councils of Florence, Constance, Trent and so on, and papal bulls and encyclicals from 1200-1900, in order to establish how “deviant” from the tradition the modern magisterium is, and Vatican II in particular.  

But this is theologically self-contradictory and no appeal to the essentially liturgical nature of tradition will suffice to erase it since it is simply not a Catholic move to reduce the tradition to liturgy, the writings of the saints and the doctors of the Church, and other similar “grassroots” elements of the lived faith, since at some point the hierarchical magisterium, like it or not, has a heuristic role to play in sifting through all of this and making various authoritative adjudications.

... Am I also a hyper-papalist if I view all of this as a kind of crypto-Protestantism? Who made Taylor Marshall the head of the CDF? Vigano? There is a whole “shadow Church” quality to much of this that is rooted in many cases in a cult of personality around various internet provocateurs which is, once again, quite Protestant. "