Calling all Catholics - Sedevacantist vs Trads vs Conciliar - WHO's RIGHT?

[trichocereus pachanoi]

Just wondering where any Totsean Catholics stand on the broad spectrum of issues surrounding the wake of the Second Vatican Council; The Council itself, LaFebvre and DeCastro Meyer's reaction, and various Sedevacantists outlooks on the Papacy.
To begin, my own position, is that the Pope IS valid, he is the Vicar of Christ, and occupies rightfully the Chair of Peter. However, I believe that the Second Vatican Council was hijacked by modernist revolutionaries, in a plot which can verifiably be traced back to Freemasons in the late 1800s.
I believe the Novus Ordo Mass to be a valid Mass, when celebrated in accordance with the strictest texts of the Council, as it was still a valid council, however the modernists managed to get things past the council with certain ambiguities in the texts, which has led to later exploitation of the texts, and some things which are not even called for or referred to in the texts, which have been done "in the Spirit of the Council,". However, I do not attend the Novus Ordo Mass, as the Tridentine Mass I have found to be far more nourishing for my soul!
The fact that the inherent modernism which has crept into the Church, is not good, or of benefit to the Faith, can clearly be seen in the fact that it is slowly being removed once more - The Holy Father is reinstituting Canto Gregoriano, and fixing errors in the Mass itself - for instance, during the consecration of the Host, where the Celebrant should say "This is my Blood, of the New and Everlasting Covenant, it will be shed for you and for many, unto the remission of sins," whereas the Novus Ordo says "for you and for all,". The Holy Father has called for a return to the proper wording of the Mass!
I attend SSPX Masses, and hold that the excommunications against MSgr LeFebvre and the auxiliary Bishops, which were supposedly "ipso facto," are not valid, due to the wording of the particular canon involved, which states that if the Archbishop believed the Church to be in crisis, he was permitted to consecrate Bishops without penalty of excommunication - and there's not doubt he believed the Church to be in crisis!

Anyway, what do any other Catholics out there think, or even non-CAtholics?