Excellent article. But....

To me, the notions of a "collectivist Right" or a "liberal Left" are contradictions that only obfuscate any useful analysis.

The linked article is excellent, but the only reason I bring up this one point, is because... while I kinda get the terms in their common use, I don't think it's useful to "kinda get" what's being discussed. In any analysis; terms matter. And, in arguably the most important and ubiquitous on-going, epic conversation of our era... they matter a lot; especially the very terms that define the topic itself.
The way that "Left" and "Right" are thrown about routinely is ambiguous and arbitrary. Everybody "kinda gets it", but nobody can convey an explicit, unambiguous defining characteristic to differentiate the two; which only impedes, if not completely derails, further discussion toward conclusive and mutually-undeniable assertions.

For that reason, I contend that it's necessary, as well as sufficient, consistent, and accurate; to describe them this way: Collectivist (Left) vs Individualist (Right).
Simple. Clear. Unambiguous.
The "Far Right" or "Alt Right" or what-have-you... are just meaningless terms that obscure the defining characteristic of the Actual Right: that of Individualism, the diametrical antithesis of Collectivism; not to mention the indispensable cornerstone of Western Civilization.

The Left... Collectivists, have their own differences among them about where sovereignty lies: in the proletariat, in the State, in the racial group, whatever... But they all deny the primal sovereignty of the Individual.
Communists, Fascists, Nazis, White Nationalists, Black Nationalists, La Raza, Socialists, "Democratic" Socialists... they are all simply different branches of "the Left".
The subordination of the Individual is precisely where they go wrong; and all the rest of the details, while interesting, are utterly non-germane to that question.

Gramsci, Marcuse and the Frankfort school did much to give us political correctness and identity politics, which I believe was a point the author made.

The error that most everyone makes is thinking that there are indeed left and right collective ideologies. The individual is lost in all collective ideologies. Collective socialist ideologies should all be placed on the far left of the contemporary left/right political spectrum. They are all authoritarian, totalitarian ideologies in their final objective. There are differences between them but it is not the differences that cause them to battle each other. The single similarity that places them in opposition to each other is the fact that they are totalitarian and no two totalitarian governments can exist in the same space. They will always consume one another. This is probably the reason they are viewed politically as dichotomies. This placement as opposites may be accidental but the theory it is intentional is not that far-fetched considering dialectical materialism. The far right and the far left could be cleverly placed as opposites in order to create a synthesis from this manufactured thesis/antithesis. Accidental or intentional, it appears that the far left and far right will battle toward that synthesis. If we wish to avoid the struggle and the carnage of it all we should see that they are similar so if you are going to support one it means you ahave a proclivity to support the other. Under the contemporary spectrum, those that dislike big government are forgotten in the equation and generally drift to either one or the other of the ideological forces.

I did like the point the author made regarding Gramsci's idea "that before there could be any proletarian revolution, a difficult battle for power over mass culture had to be waged." This is where identity politics and the state-sanctioned victim status becomes a valuable tool.

We really have to fight versus all forms of collective ideas, left or right.