Dr. Pertersen mistake in political spectrum definition used.
I need to state clearly, I'm a huge fan of Mr. Petersen, i love the work he has done to attack the anti-liberty collectivist politics, Mr. Petersen use of the right to left political spectrum to define where people stand, is in my opinion incorrect. He uses the common usage definition, a usage that was redefined by Socialist/Marxist at the end of WW2, they are after all expert in language redefinition and cultural redefinition of language and concepts to their advantage.
The right to left spectrum is usually one where Communism has an opposite Fascism, extreme-left to extreme-right. This is incorrect. On an individual liberty level, this makes no sense. You start on the left with collectivism and end at the other end to collectivism. These are both the same philosophy, you subjugate the individual to the group. Fascism and Communism are both on the extreme left, they are competing flavor of socialism, just like Maoism, Trotskyism, etc. etc. are other flavors of socialism. The extreme right should logical be anarcho-capitalism, where the individual is absolute, where any society is based on voluntary adhesion without any usage of force (it is an utopia also, but logical).
The narrative that is always used is that the communists hated fascists, and fought each other. Well if you compete violently (both are violent ideology) you expect them to compete for supremacy. Like Coke and Pepsi which are basically the same product, a brown sugary drink, whith bubbles, they compete for the same customers and would eliminate the other if they could. In the same fashion communist and fascist fought for the same supporters. Friedrich A. Hayek in "road to serfdom" makes the point, the thugs and supporters would constantly change camp between communists and fascists. They were like minded, the difference being what group they would identify with.
To make the point further, socialist in the US saw both option as competing socialist option. The Hitlerian youth were a copy of the socialist communist youth camp created by communist in Germany earlier. The tactics were the same, the political philosophy was the same, they controlled the economy differently, but controlled none the less. They only differed with the nationalist superiority aspect. Remember the Soviet Nazi pact? They saw their enemy as the enlightened western society (individual liberty values found in the western).
How did the fascist get reclassified to the extreme-right?
This occurred at the end of WW2, with the revelation of the horrors of fascism (remember Communist had even worse, but no one knew about it, or ignore it see Walter Duranty)
Socialist in the west had to distance themselves, and what better way to distance itself than to claim it as an ideology at the extreme of your ideological enemy, namely the classical liberal or libertarian in todays term, this trick is similar to what the left does by saying any opponent of the left is racist, islamophobe, transphobe, etc. etc...
How does a position that is collectivist be a logical extension of a philosophy that sees the individual as primary? you can't and using that spectrum plays in the hands of the collectivist.
A better spectrum is this one:
On a scale of individual rights, it makes more sense than placing the fascist as extreme right.