Notice that point from "The Hill" has no examples or evidence. It's not relevant; they were citing the examples given not the author's out-of-the-blue conclusion (which can be chalked up to the counter-bias that was the reason it was cited). I have another comment on this post proving that the far-right is not "still on the fringe."

Quoting Internationalist 360° as a reliable source isn't going to win anyone over.

Oh, I see the issue: you don't understand how sources work. They're not citing Internationalist 360° as a reliable source by itself—if you would've read until the end of the article you would've seen that the author provided a list of sources used. The article is simply a summary of the history using those sources.

Please tell me about "Chinese imperialism." I'd love to hear about how Chinese investment in Africa, the only FDI with a positive impact on development, is "imperialism." I'd love to hear how the PRC's claim to Taiwan, despite being accepted by nearly every country on earth and recognized by the UN (and favored upon by the majority of Taiwanese despite no clear support for total reunification, hence its not happening yet when China could conceivably force it upon the population), the US admitting that their cynical support for separatism is only to keep the PRC down, is "imperialism," and in fact Taiwan is an independent state with no relation to China (despite its constitution being the Constitution of the Republic of China, and its president the president of the Republic of China, with the so-called ROC claiming sovereignty over all of the mainland of China, Outer Mongolia, and Russia—see the emblem of the ROC Marine Corps).