That's one long wall of text. Here's a much shorter wall of text addressing a few things, because I'm not going to read all that.

First, it's someone who is obviously versed in (modern) Marxism. That 'fascism is late stage capitalism' or 'fascism is the reserve army of capital' nonsense originates in those circles somewhere around the 1920s or 1930s in response to the fact that Marxists utterly failed to predict fascism's rise. They came up with this nonsense theory (Fascism is ultra-Right on everything, has nothing to do with socialism) to act wise after the fact and attempt to claim that their two enemies were actually one. However, the Communist Manifesto reveals that Marx/Engels saw the interests of 'reactionaries' (us) and 'bourgeois' (capitalist elite) as being antithetical to each-other. It's simply ignorant revisionism.

They write:

The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations … The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature … In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

Above, they make it clear that the 'bourgeoisie' are a globalizing force whose interests 'reactionaries' oppose. The likelihood is that Marx/Engels supported the bourgeoisie against reactionaries, because in 'historical materialism' capitalism and the industrialization/urbanization that resulted from it is viewed as an improvement over 'the idiocy of rural life'. That is, they favoured capitalism over previous systems, but those hypothetical future systems (socialism/communism) over capitalism.

Truth is, the pre-WWI far-Left—who were consolidated in Social Democratic parties (then mostly far-Left rather than left-Liberal)—were in a bind after the proletariat sided with their nations rather than with their class during the war. Marxists expected the proletariat to unite and overthrow the bourgeoisie rather than fight alongside them against working men of other nations. This then radicalized the Bolshevik types who went off and created their own strand of Marxism which became the USSR's blatantly hypocritical governing ideology. Social Democratic parties shifted towards left-Liberalism much later.

As for the whole Evola thing, it's commonplace to see those outsiders who critically study the 'Alt-Right' (e.g. the libertarian Jeffrey Tucker) for the sake of attempting to refute it, attempt to claim that there are numerous 'proto-Nazi' figures who 'Alt-Right' thought can be traced to. Tucker has nothing but venom for Evola (essentially claiming he was an idiotic madman who wrote with 'faux-erudition'). He also derides Fichte (a radical Leftist in his time, Tucker selectively uses a few quotes of his to paint him as far-Right) and Hegel (a careerist liberal-progressive in his time). Others do the same thing with Nietzsche (whose works were banned in Marxist countries because they came to the same conclusion, while American anarchists and some Western Marxists like Foucault instead claimed him as their own), Schopenhauer, Schmitt, Heidegger, etc.

It would be very time-consuming but otherwise easy to write an article refuting his ideological claims. However, I don't know or care about the 'Trump collusion' type of stuff much of his article is dedicated towards 'exposing'. All I would say to such claims, is that Trumpian populism/civic nationalism is practically unconnected to the 'Alt-Right', there was some early enthusiasm from the latter towards the former (exemplified in the 'God Emperor' meme which was largely in jest) that has since ebbed away to almost nothing. There was also a brief time back then when some people embraced the label (put upon them by Leftists) not knowing what it meant, and quickly renounced it (including Trump himself). Remember, these same Leftists claimed that 'Trump is the head of the Alt-Right' and thus that the 'Alt-Right won the 2016 election'... something which we all find laughable and flagrantly untrue. For starters, why the mass deplatforming if we're in 'actually in power'? This guy seems to fall for it; for him, 'MAGA' and 'Alt-Right' are somehow the same.