But then you cite a diagram with a left/right dichotomy.

The above graph is a spectrum, and it was just an example.

Those are all outside valid political discourse.

To be clear, I do not think that all sections of the above graph are valid political discourse. It’s simply a way to categorize.

I argue that fascism is more at home among those things than among anything you can call left or right. All things that fall on the spectrum somewhere have something in common and I argue that fascism lacks it: it is not valid political speech.

I agree with that, which is why those things you listed, regulatory capture, kleptocracy, genocide, taxation without representation, raiding and pillaging foreign countries, executing children, nuclear terrorism, are all things that are accounted for with the authoritarian part of that spectrum.

Further, I argue that it works against our goals of reaching a fair and safe compromise for everyone when we lump our erstwhile political opponents in with people who are simply doing evil.

There is no such thing as a fair and safe compromise for everyone when fascists exist. There is no compromise for genocide. Somebody is going to have to be unhappy no matter what.

You don’t have to include our political opponents and fascists on the graph if you don’t want. I am simply stating the fact that if all is to be categorized, fascism is an ultra authoritarian, right wing ideology. That is the most accurate it can be described given current definitions.

You don’t have to agree with me, but you haven’t shown that I’m wrong.

That’s not how the burden of proof works.