I personally thought his writing was among the best of traditionalists, like if you read his last dotcom post: http://pope-michael.com/2021/07/19/thoughts-on-the-recent-motu-proprio-of-francis-pope-of-the-conciliar-church/

I notice as I reread it that there were a bunch of spelling errors, but I think the substance still shines.

Yrs I am aware of the communists becoming "clergy". So we think that at Vatican 2, a communist or anti-Catholic " pope" was elected. But he could not actually become pope in spite of being recognized as such. Then he went about making changes we believe are incompatible with Catholicism with the Second Vatican Council. It is like red flag laws, which violate the U.S. Constitution. Although here the unjust changes cannot be accepted as they would make Catholicism no longer Catholic (so it is argued).

yes so "pope" Michael I think correctly reasoned the Church's institutions were taken over, therefore made not Catholic. So his simple reasoning was that Catholics should separate from this non-Catholic entity and elect a pope for themselves and act as a separate institution, which sounds reasonable to me, it's just a question of if the arguments hold about the ability to do so (I argue for sedevacantism or belief in avoiding the Vatican 2 church, but not conclavism or then electing a pope, although I still consider conclavism to be a bit of an "open" and unresolved question and discussion).