If you want to understand fascism... I think there are better sources.
Read people like:
Robert O' Paxton - The anatomy of fascism
Roger Griffin - Fascism
Karel Mann - Fascism
A. James Gregor - The Ideology of Fascism
Zeev Sternhell - The Birth of Fascist Ideologies
Emilio Gentile - Fascist Ideology (and other books)
Also required reading imo:
Zeev Sternhell - The Anti-Enlightenment
Hannah Arend - Totalitarianism
Ruth Bhen Ghiat - Strongmen
Or just read Fascists.
Mussolini & Gentille - The doctrine of Fascism
Giovanni Gentile - The Philosophical basis of Fascism
Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf
Joseph Goebbels - Diary
Oswald Mosley - My Answer
Oswald Mosley - Fascism for the Millions
Alfred Rosenberg - Myth of the 20th century
Or read people that have a huge influence on far-right movements in modern times.
Carl Schmitt - The Concept of the Political
Carl Schmitt - Political Theology
Carl Schmitt - The Crisis of Parliamentary democracy
Julius Evola - Revolt against the modern world
Tomislav Sunic - Against Democracy and Equality
Alain de Benoist - European Renaisance
Alain de Benoist - View from the right Part I, II & III
Guillaume Faye - Why we Fight
Alexander Dugin - The Fourth Political Theory
Imo, Carl Schmitt and those French guys from G.R.E.C.E. (De Groupement de recherche et d'études pour la civilisation européenne) that spawned "La Nouvelle Droite". Did more for the modern day far-right then fascists did.
... also, the oversimplification of Umberto Eccos' list, is worst then the original. Yeah, Umberto says some smart things, but too use the word "fascism" here, still feels a bit like a marketing stunt. He also isn't really talking about "fascism", more of an "eternal fascism" ... what ever that means. Saying that Fascism rejects modernism, is just wrong though. Even in Umbertos' original piece, that point is seriously wishy washy. If someone wants to oversimplify it, it's way more correct that Fascism rejects the enlightenment. It still has to pay some dues to the periode, because it's a reaction and rejection of it. But that's way more correct then saying that it rejects modernism... which it didn't unless you define modernism only in the enlightenment tradition. Which would be unfair to the fascists.
The fact that he takes a weirdo like Julius Evola as a guru for fascists... is just weird. Sure he was invited by fascist movements to speak, but he wasn't a fascist. At his trial he joked and said that he was a "superfascist" when being blamed of being a fascist. He delivered criticisms of Fascism and National-Socialism. And the fascists tolerated him but didn't embrace him for as far as I'm aware. But he's just a weirdo... I think he's more read in modern times then back in the day.
