Haha, I love that I get down-votes for pointing out a factual error. Seriously, who cares about the truth anyway, right?!

Get your facts correct; John Ross does not write for the Riverfront Times.

That doesn't even make sense. Did you even read the original article?

Where exactly does the RFT article condemn him and embrace a prudish ideology? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

You're a dolt.

"In this instance, “left wing” and “right wing” was used to describe a fracture on one side only."

This sentence implicitly reveals the fatal error in this misguided argument. The phrase "in this instance" says it all, i.e. that you're talking about a specific context. However, meanings shift depending on the context. For example, as you pointed out, the phrase meant one thing in the instance of the Ancien Régime and another in the instance of WWI Italy.

Next, you skip over decades and decades of history and try to transplant the WWI meaning of the terminology to contemporary times, which you simply cannot do! I suggest you do a search for "New Right" and look at the development of the phrase "Right Wing" in American political history.

Instead of penning some half-cocked article based on a few quotes from Wikipedia, you should spend more time learning about the full history of what you're talking about.

The term "right" wasn't used "by the left to discredit American conservatism," it was a term embraced by that New Right movement. William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote a syndicated newspaper column entitled, "On the Right." And Buckley wasn't some left-wing idiot or a member of the "liberal press."

He was a powerhouse of conservative ideology and one of the most prominent intellectuals of the last century -- something you are not. So unless you're willing to chastise Buckley and his use of the word "Right" then you should probably stop bloviating about things that are over your head and spend a little more time reading.