Right Wing

Right Wing in politics is usually a term of abuse. It is the same with Left Wing. The Wiki puts a position which is wrong albeit with some good background. Consider the Fascists who are said to be right wing while Nazis are said to be very right wing. Contrast them with the Communists, who are said to be somewhat left wing. Which produced the most murderous regimes? Which did not rob, kill & main? In fact all of them were Socialist, all were murderous. Their governments were not very different for their populations. The significant difference between them is that the Communists were international socialists while the 'right wingers' were national socialists.

Notice further that the Russian Revolution in 1917 was in fact the February Revolution carried out by Russians. It was then taken over by the  Bolsheviks, by Lenin,  Stalin, Trotsky & many Jews with the October Revolution, a coup d'état, that destroyed what might have become Democracy.

Usually the accusation of being 'far right' means nationalist or patriotic. It has a distinct feeling of Conservatism, which has nothing to do with the Conservative Party but is a reasonable approach to stability & to life. Now science has got involved. Being one or the other is genetic apparently. You doubt? Look at Right Or Left or try The Myth of the Right-Wing Extremist. Read for yourself. Think for yourself. Decide for yourself.

Far Right
Is a propaganda term; it is also a lie used by Propagandists of the Left Wing to demean Patriots.

 

Right Wing Politics ex Wiki
QUOTE
The Right has gone through five distinct historical stages: (i) the reactionary right, which sought a return to aristocracy and established religion; (ii) the moderate right, who sought limited government and distrusted intellectuals; (iii) the radical right, who favored a romantic and aggressive nationalism; (iv) the extreme(?) right, who proposed anti-immigration policies and implicit racism; and (v) the neo-liberal right, who sought to combine a belief in a market economy and economic deregulation with the traditional Right-wing beliefs in patriotism, élitism, and law and order.
UNQUOTE
This part of the Wiki's article makes a certain amount of sense. It leaves one to wonder why any decent Englishman is not 'right wing' or a believer in Conservatism; something which has nothing to do with the Conservative Party in this foul Year of Our Lord 2014.

 

Who Was The Most Right Wing Man In History?
Paul Johnson Is Splendidly Right About The Right  

 

Far-right Politics ex Wiki
Read what the Wiki has to say, but be sceptical. Reading matters when you are dealing with matters political. Reading gets called Deconstruction when Marxists are at it. We need to look truth in the eye, to see where it leads. The reality is that those accused of being far right are usually patriotic nationalists.

 

Gefira Explains     
A slightly odd outfit puts views that make sense. It tells us e.g. about Population Dynamics, about the dying of Western Civilizations as Third World parasites flood in.

 

Left Wing  Politics ex Wiki
QUOTE
In left-right politics, left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.^[1][2][3][4] It typically involves a concern for those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.^[3]

The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization,^[5] while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents".^[6]

The term was later applied to a number of movements, especially republicanism during the French Revolution, socialism,^[7] communism, and anarchism.^[8] Beginning in the last half of the Twentieth Century, the phrase left-wing has been used to describe an ever widening family of movements,^[9] including the civil rights movement, anti-war movements, and environmental movements,^[10][11] and finally being extended to entire parties, including the Democratic Party in the United States and the Labour Party in the United Kingdom.^[12][13][14] In two party systems, the terms "left" and "right" are now sometimes used as labels for the two parties, with one party designated as the "left" and the other "right", even when neither party is "left-wing" in the original sense of being opposed to the ruling class.
UNQUOTE
Left wing parties are much more enemies of the people than those on the right.

 

The Myth of the Right-Wing Extremist
It is not just a myth; it is a major Propaganda tool used by Marxists in the Main Stream Media & Education industry. We are being lied to by criminals with an agenda.

 

New Left ex Rational Wiki       
The New Left^[2] was a collection of leftist groups in the US and UK that sprang up in the early 1960s as a reaction to, on the one hand, the perceived timidity of liberalism on such issues as racial equality and the Vietnam War; and, on the other, the thoroughly discredited and powerless "Old Left" of the Communist Party USA and its various Trotskyist enemies.

While the Old Left adhered to a thoroughly materialistic philosophy and aimed toward political revolutions along broadly communist lines, particularly by infiltrating labor unions and otherwise drumming up blue-collar workers, the "New Left" focused on young people of all classes (particularly college students) and brought in various religious and spiritual perspectives, as well as a variety of dope-fueled wackiness, in an effort to bring a revolution not only to the political and social systems, but also to age-old Western modes of thinking.

Influences      
Generational change marked by the predisposition of youth to challenge authority on moral terms was exacerbated by the large numbers of youth at the time (due to the 1950s baby boom) and the large proportion of these youths entering institutions of higher education.^[3] (The rebellion even began to spread to high schools.^[4]) There they encountered both older conservative and more recent liberal accounts of history and social science that, in their assessment, did not adequately explain national and world events. The plodding nature of the liberal response to racial oppression and imperialist violence motivated a search for explanation in the heady post-war fusion of Marxism and Freudianism favored by leftist intellectuals in the West. It also led to a preference for action over reflection. Consider the following rant by Yippie leader Abbie Hoffman:

“”Once one has experienced LSD, existential revolution, fought the intellectual game-playing of the individual in society, of one's identity, one realizes that action is the only reality; not only reality but morality as well. It exists in the head. I am the Revolution.[5]

Orthodox Soviet-style Marxism-Leninism held no attraction for most Western radicals. The Soviet Union had lost its moral legitimacy in the advanced industrial countries, even among lefties, after the crimes of Stalin had been published and denounced by the new regime of Nikita Khrushchev, so some in the New Left were looking for a more "pure" form of Communism. The Soviets' repression of Hungary in 1956 to crush an anti-Soviet uprising, and their invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 that put an end to the "Prague Spring", reinforced the alienation from Moscow.

Inspiration, or at least the imagery of mass rebellion, was found in the work of the new, non-Western Marxists such as Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, and Ho Chi Minh.^[6] As leaders who had thrown off the shackles of Western colonialism, their images would become icons for those who opposed capitalism and imperialism in general.^[7]

On a more philosophical level, the works of Herbert Marcuse, especially One Dimensional Man, were particularly important. Marcuse criticized the socially alienating effects of modern capitalism, incorporating Marxism with Freud and critical theory in a way which the Old Left had not done. He extended this critique also to identifying the same social alienation under Soviet communism, and in the place of the stodgy "industrial proletariat" he championed an oppositional culture led by youth, minorities and the intelligentsia. Another important influence was Growing Up Absurd by Paul Goodman, a 1960 book about the alienation of growing up in a society geared mainly toward consumerism and preparing people for a life of meaningless and unfulfilling jobs. Goodman attributed the rise of both juvenile delinquency and the Beat Generation to a youthful rebellion against this. Also influential were Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. Both had been part of the resistance against the Nazi occupation of France, Camus as an anarchist, while Sartre was considered a "fellow traveler" with the French Communist Party but did not join. Both continued to support left-wing causes but turned toward developing the philosophy which would come to be labeled existentialism (although Camus rejected the label in favor of calling himself an absurdist).

While the New Left amalgamated political philosophies ranging from left-liberal to socialist to anarchist, for a brief period it formed a cultural identity as well. A semi-personal, semi-political embrace of non-mainstream cultural identities and a socially libertarian questioning of institutions, restrictions, and traditional roles were hallmarks of the 1960s youth counterculture that intersected with the milieu of the New Left. Those tendencies fertilized the fields that the early gay rights movement grew in. Rock & roll had morphed from a youth subculture to a core expression of a full-blown social movement. That confluence of political and cultural identity turned out to be short-lived, as more revanchist and authoritarian tendencies gained ascendancy in the New Left as the decade drew towards its close. The increasingly rigid ideas on what was required to be a good leftist, culminating in the imperatives of "politically correct" cultural conformity, conflicted with socially libertarian ideals. By the mid-1970s, social libertarianism itself was seen as oppressive by advocates of the identity politics that arose from the New Left.

 

Who Was The Most Right Wing Man In History?
QUOTE
The recent death of Michael Wharton, aged 92, raises the interesting question: who was the most right-wing person who ever lived? Many thought he was. I am not sure he did himself. The last time I saw him, when he was already very old, I asked him how he saw himself and he replied, ‘Moving to the right.’ He said this as if regretting a life of obstinate radicalism, though as the honorary editor-in-chief of the Feudal Times and Reactionary Herald for more than half a century it was always difficult to get to the right of him (I tried) in any issue on the political agenda. On other matters he resembled Gilbert Pinfold (or his creator, Evelyn Waugh) and ‘abhorred ... everything that had happened in his lifetime’.

Wharton’s own hero was Colonel Charles de Laet Waldo Sibthorpe (1783–1855), MP for many years for Lincoln, a borough represented previously by his elder brother, father, great-uncle, great-great-uncle, and after his death by his eldest son. He served in the Peninsular war, in the 4th Dragoon Guards, and inherited Canwick Hall and the family estate in Lincolnshire; by his wife, Maria, heiress of Ponsonby Tottenham, he acquired another estate in Ireland. The DNB says, ‘He belonged to the ultra-Tory and ultra-protestant party, and was the embodiment of old-fashioned prejudice.’ He was one of the diehard group of 53 Tories who censured free trade in 1852. His one parliamentary success was to get the proposed grant to Prince Albert reduced by half on the grounds that he promoted ‘foreign influence’, and he opposed the Great Exhibition for the same reasons. Otherwise he sounds pretty tame, though one would like to know what was meant by the statement, ‘His appearance was extraordinary and his dress attracted attention.’

Twentieth-century equivalents of Sibthorpe are increasingly rare. An undergraduate friend of mine who made lists of them used to award the prize to Sir Waldron Smithers, an eccentric traditionalist who sat for seats in Kent from 1924 to his death in 1954. His place was taken by Captain Waterhouse MP, who for some years led a cave of diehards called ‘the Suez Group’. But I heard it said that Waterhouse, though ‘splendid’ on the Middle East, was ‘unreliable’ on some issues, being ‘not sound’ on animal rights. Julian Amery, indeed, told me he was ‘well to the right’ of the captain. But then he himself was ‘unsound’ on capital punishment, since his brother John had been shot in the Tower in 1945. Few people have ever been ‘sound’ across the whole spectrum. Even the Duke of Cambridge was not, by his own admission, a last-ditcher. As he put it, ‘They say I am against reform. I am not against reform. There is a time for everything. And the time for reform is when it can no longer be resisted.’ Ramrod-straight and unflinchingly regimental, did he not harbour a cosy, sentimental streak? He was once heard to observe, ‘fists on his knees’, that ‘family prayers are a damned fine institution, by God!’

There is always a weak spot in every reactionary. C.S. Lewis told me, when ambling through Addison’s Walk at Magdalen, that Joseph de Maistre was the ideal right-winger. He thought the most important official in the state was le bourreau, the executioner, ultimate guarantor of order. There were three divine laws of society: monarchy is a necessity; the monarch must be absolute; his duty is to uphold papal supremacy. De Maistre is the only political philosopher who is consistently shrewd. He coined the axiom, ‘Every country has the government it deserves.’ But Lewis thought de Maistre’s wit was his weakness: ‘A true reactionary has no sense of humour. You must be able to propose the impossible with a straight face.’ Michael Wharton, of course, would not have agreed with that. He took the Chestertonian line that all truth was encoded in a joke, a view shared by Ronald Reagan, the most successful right-winger of modern times, who communicated entirely through one-liners and had over 5,000 of them, by heart, for every conceivable occasion.

Most historical right-wing figures, on close examination, prove inconsistent. Charles X, the last Bourbon, invited Victor Hugo to his coronation, the bloody fool. Ferdinand of Naples, supposedly the touchstone of reactionary purity in the Congress of Vienna era, had himself sculpted by Canova, on a colossal scale, dressed as a woman: Minerva the Goddess of Wisdom. You can still see this extraordinary piece of work in the Capodimonte Museum, though they do tuck it away rather. Then again, Ferdinand VII of Spain never had a bodyguard and escaped assassination. He can’t have been that reactionary.

One of the great errors of political taxonomy is to classify Hitler as right-wing. He, and still more his closest colleague, Goebbels, were socialists, and the fact they were nationalists first did not orient them more to the right. There are six indispensable hallmarks of a conservative. First, firm belief in one, beneficent and omnipotent God. Second, absolute morality as the basis of public law. Third, strict limits on the size of the state. Fourth, respect for a multiplicity of traditional power centres. Fifth, restraint and self-restraint in all things. Sixth, search for the right balance between the individual and the traditional units of society. Hitler broke all these rules: he was an atheistic pagan, a moral relativist, a totalitarian, an ultra-centralist, an uninhibited exhibitionist and a collectivist. In many ways Stalin was to the right of him. There is a seventh point. A conservative is not afraid of force, or of using it thoroughly. But always as a last resort. With Hitler it was the first.

This brings me to another puzzle of ideological classification. The phrase is often used by thoughtless people, TV interviewers, tabloid columnists, etc. ‘He is even to the right of Genghis Khan.’ The implication is that Genghis Khan is on the extreme right of the political spectrum. What is the origin of this belief? And when did the phrase come into use? I believe it is hardly more than half a century old. Hitler, again, is to blame. He is seen, falsely, as the epitome of ‘the Right’. He is also seen, more accurately, as a mass killer on an unprecedented scale. Before the 20th century, the classical perpetrator of terrorist massacre, pillage and the destruction of cities was Genghis Khan. He was not, however, seen as a political figure of either left or right — just as a savage barbarian. Hitler, however, was linked with him as a mass killer, and therefore Genghis took on Hitler’s political colouration. In fact, Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and Mao twice as many again, 70 million at the latest count. So logically, Genghis should have taken on this political colouration, and the phrase should run, ‘He’s even to the left of Genghis Khan.’

I have been doing some work on Genghis recently, to see if he is a suitable subject for a biographical essay in my next book, Monsters. On a personal level he is badly documented, and no interesting person emerges. He did two unusual things: he codified tribal customs in a written system of law, and he devised a fast and efficient messenger service. Both are (as a rule) desirable things but not particularly conservative, let alone ultra-right-wing. However, Genghis was philoprogenitive to perhaps a unique degree. In 2003 a DNA survey suggested that 16 million men can probably claim descent from Genghis Khan. That is a remarkable fact, if true. But what does it prove about the Khan’s political affiliations?
UNQUOTE
Paul Johnson is on the ball.