Home - by BigFurHat - February 3, 2013 - 18:34 America/New_York - 23 Comments
Via Rickey G
Do you see any mention of the right-wing?
When and why did the definition become this-
February 3rd, 2013
If we return to the original meaning of right-wing, which is: Monarchist – the Fascisti may be construed as ‘right-wing’ because Mussolini did allow King Victor-Emmanuel to remain on the throne – and did leave (fairly) quietly when the King relieved him.
But Fascism was certainly NOT anti-socialist, as Mussolini’s own words testify.
The Fascisti were also a purely Italian political party.
Liberals are rewriting books of all kinds.
“[I}nsistence on obedience to a powerful leader.”
Now all you skeeters will pay the price!
Skeeter, what a cool nickname.
I have a Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (copyright 1961).
I looked up the definition of ‘fascism’ just now since you made me curious about when this ‘right-wing’ nonsense may have been slipped in to the definition.
Nope. Nada. Nothing. No mention of ‘right-wing’ anything in all the definitions revolving around ‘fascism’.
I would like to see if other people can look at various printings of dictionaries between 1961 and now to find what year this ‘right-wing’ lie was slipped in. Let us know. I am curious too.
I have a Funk & Wagnalls/College dictionary whose most recent printing was 1975. Fascism is defined as a totalitarian one-party state with the individual subjugated to the government, which rules by fiat, secret police, and other assorted evils.
I’m paraphrasing, but it doesn’t mention left-wing, right-wing, whatever. It just gives the plain definition.
I found that dictionary at a yard sale. I still want to find one from pre-WW II to see what the definition was, especially before the Nazi-Soviet treaty.
Got my 1960 Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language here. No mention of right wing, although it does mention forcible suppression of leftist opposition parties.
The second definition of Fascism (being right-wing) is easily explained:
Garbage in – Garbage out.
Tim is correct. Mussolini was a self-proclaimed socialist until the day they hung him and his mistress by their heels from a lamppost. Fascism was his form of socialism.
Don’t forget that Hitler’s party was the National Socialist German Workers Workers Party. Their flag had a red base, just like the Communist flag of the Soviet Union. The Nazis and Commies battled one another in Germany before WWII because they were striving to recruit the same left-wing dirtbags. Nothing “right-wing” about the Nazis! Somebody somewhere lied through their teeth!
Another lie – The difference between unalienable and inalienable have been morphed into the same meaning. Unalienable: The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
Most Modern Dictionaries will TRY to convince you there is no difference in the meanings of the words Unalienable vs Inalienable.
Beware, there is a Vast Difference in these terms used in the application of the Law!
Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are Unalienable.
–Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition
“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.”
–Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals, as One of “We the People” in the United States of America, have Unalienable Rights by “Declaration of Independence” charter document at the founding of this nation.
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.
–Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. “Persons have inalienable rights”. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.
People “Natural Born Sovereign”, you being “One of We the People” possess Unalienable Rights!
If I see that Communist Martin Niemöller’s ‘and then they came for me’ garbage posted by an idiot American Patriot again… GAHHHH!!!!
I can explain the evolution in the definition.
When your perspective is already Communist totalitarian (absolute extreme left) then any form of government that provides at least some space between the government and the individual looks right wing.
Nazis were just one of many socialist thug-unions battling for supremacy over other socialist unions.
Nazis were NOT anti-union…they were just anti OTHER unions.
the fascist party was coined by benito suarez mussolini a leftists whose father founded italy’s socialist party and named his son benito after the socialist leader of mexico.
benito got the term from the latin word fasci – a bundle of straws that is much tougher the break than a single straw. it’s on our dimes.
the term corporatism meant at the time the control of the economy and limitation of individual liberty by a triumverate of the state, the business owners and labor unions. it did not mean a state run by big corporations.
mussolini, like hitler, was a leftist.
their was with stalin was internecine – like stalin’s with trotsky – just on a bigger scale with much more collateral damage. ie ww2.
when hitler broke his pact with stalin – and we became allied to stalin, it became necessary to portray stalin as an opposite to hitler and mussolini.
the leftists in the west begin to portray fascism as rightwing and anti-worker.
actually, fdr and his aides were fans of mussolini’s until the war broke out. harry hopkins wrote admiringly about mussolini.
obama and bloomberg and the new democrats resemble mussolini more than any other leftists of the last century.
the political spetrummost of us were raised on is pure propaganda and irrational on its face.
it place communism on the extreme left and fascism on the extreme right.
in this spectrum thee is no logical or coherent place to put anarchism.
which proves it’s bullshit.
a true depiction of the political spectrum p;laces communism on the extreme left, and the fascism and then socialism and then fdr-obamunism and then gop-ism and ten conservatism and then libertarianism and then anarchism on the extreme right.
in other words: statism om the left and anarchism on the right and republican constitutionalism – with limited government – in the middle.
sorry biut the typos. too much beer wtahcing th agme.
It drives me wild how similar-sounding / similar-looking words are used interchangeably.
Back in the late 1950′s, when I was 11, a local gas truck carried this caveat: “Caution, inflammable.” This did not make sense to me and I looked it up. The danger message this was attempting to convey should have been “caution, flammable” (capable of burning). I remember telling the gas station owner that and he said he would look into it. Several months later, his tank wagon went in for a repaint and sure enough, it then read “Caution, flammable.”
Others that set my teeth on edge are “disinterested” and “uninterested.” The former means unbiased, while the latter is a lack of interest. News anchors report “The potential candidate is disinterested in a run for Senate.”
February 4th, 2013
I see my iMac dashboard has the same definition for Fascism as above, which it pulls from the “New Oxford American Dictionary.” My printed Oxford dictionary is similar (“right-wing”). Our 1975 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary says nothing of the kind.
Try looking up “liberal” in the same dictionary that the “right-wing” definition came from. It will make you want to barf. It’s political until definition 4, when it gets around to generosity, or open-handedness.
It made me look up “liberal” in my old dictionary, which starts with generosity and open-handedness, then secondly says “lacking moral restraint.” I think they were telling people the truth back then.
Historical Progressive Revisionism is rampant today.. They’ve done the same thing with the Nazis being described as “a center – right government” which is total BS.
When one simply looks at the policies of the Nazi regime they’re virtually identical to today’s uber-leftists with their only difference being immigration policy. Otherwise it’s blantantly obvious Hitler was a liberal..
That brings me to my point…Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Progressivism… All the totalitarian ‘isms’ that make the state “God” are leftist. The free market – capitalism – limited (small) gov’t – self governance – individual liberty crowd is the right wing.
But the left will always project their own historical fails onto the right. It’s what they do best! How else can it be that Republicans are seen as the ‘racist party’ with the NRA as the new ‘KKK’, when we know the historical facts show the truth is actually the exact opposite?
Here’s an OOOOLD Front Page article (stored in their archives), from when this lie really started picking up steam (2002), proving Fascism is Leftist.
Probably from Merriam-Webster dictionary. POCO edition
Carlos The Jackal
Did you take a look at the new definition for “Racism?”
My2Cents, My pet peeve is the use of Can’t and Can. It drives me nuts. People just don’t hear themselves in these expressions. On subject tho’ is Wordspeak.
Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1971:
“a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation or race and stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of opposition.”
Snail Mail- BigFurHat / PO BOX 150 Southfields, NY 10975-0150
Want an Avatar? Find out how here.
--SUBSCRIBE by Email FREE