The observations and facts all would fit nicely into an effort to cast Mann's intellectual mission in a negative light. Tying him to russia as the closing paragraph for no discernable reason? Suggesting his ideas were self-aggrandizing? Suggesting that he was trying to induce a system of false-belief through myth-matking? They're all observations thrown together without comment or an assertion of a common thread, and represent a remarkably cherry picked subsample from the book that supposedly forms the core of the article.
It feels like an opening salvo in an ad hominem attempt to dismantle a core figure in anti-Nazi thought? Coming from a journal intimately tied up with the neoconservative movement.
(Yeah, that's also an ad hominem, but the point about the article stands: it's barely coherent and the things it's suggesting form the start of an unsettling attempt to frame a narrative.)