He had me for a while, until I got to the last statement, which sent a shiver down my back.
Personally, the liturgical movement in place before V2 was accomplishing a lot of good. I also believe that the TLM, as it exists today, is the real fruit of what V2 called for (i.e. liturgical participation, singing in Latin, etc.)
If a new liturgical movement is needed, and I believe it is, it already exists in the various liturgically rich ceremonies being carried out in TLM churches. This goes beyond Sunday Mass. We're talking about daily Mass, sometimes High Weekday Masses, public and fully chanted Divine Offices such as Vespers and Tenebrae, 40 hours, all the outside of Mass ceremonies (e,g. Processions)of the liturgical year being observed in full splendor, etc.
One of the things that always amazes me is how everybody, even people as powerful as Cdl. Ratzinger, has to pay lip-service to VatII, even though its effects were clearly disastrous and there is so much about it that must be undone that this will probably be the task of the Church for the next hundred years.
Not only was there probably a plot before VatII to use it as an opening through which to shove radical changes and completely deform the Church, there is still somehow a reluctance or fear of naming the problem and perhaps drawing some kind of retribution from people who must still be very influential in the heirarchy.
Also, I think people who are trying to find the "real" (and supposedly good) VatII behind the actual disastrous one are motivated by a desire to protect or defend the motives of some of the people who were involved, such as Paul VI (and in all fairness, I don't think he wanted or intended to destroy the Church, but was simply weak and confused).