you don't even know what "leftist" or "rightist" means. "Right wing" doesn't mean libertarianism. "Right wing" means traditionalism. The first right wingers were not libertarians they were the monarchists of France. Its why a theocracy would be considered right wing. By your retarded logic of what "right wing" is you think a person who wants to ban LGBT is left wing whilst the person who wants it legal is right wing because banning LGBT would be "authoritarian"
You define the wings by subjective cultural elements. Because you are a deluded propaganda victim, or a delusional propagandist. I define them by objective measurement standards. The correct definition for ANY measurement must be objective.
Your goblinoid tactic here is to try to claim my view is wrong through claiming a moral argument against a right wing position. It does not work.
I do not pretend that left and right are the sole arbiters of moral standards. Yes, a right wing government would tolerate fags in theory. I do not advocate for anarchism, nor am I a libertarian. I am a constitutionalist and a nationalist. I argue for limited government. You are a hitler humping clown who argues for authoritarian government but "your guys" because like every retarded commie faggot, you think you or your friends will be in power, and you lack the capacity to look beyond the immediate and see the consequences of trying to surrender all responsibility to the state.
The moral superiority of right wing positions doesn't come from individual elements of modern cultural conflicts. It comes from an understanding of history and human nature. No matter how based the ideal benevolent king is, he will be replaced. No leftist system is tolerable because it is infinitely more vulnerable to corruption and will inevitably be turned against the people. Political power attracts sociopaths, who are skilled at manipulating people and systems - they don't care what dogma they need to spout, only that they can use it to gain power. It is objectively better to have systems with minimal power that can be corrected by the people, instead of massive oppressive regimes that are extremely difficult to fight when they become corrupt.this is one of the most BASIC lessons from the founders of the US. All actual AMERICAN NATIONALISTS know this. Subversive goblins and anti-american commie fags should all be deported to Europe. Leave my country, faggot (if you aren't actually some basement shitpost goblin from some inferior country).
You have your own ideal of what you think things should be. That's fine. But you don't get to claim that whatever you think is ideal is what "right wing" is.
You cannot change the fact that "right wing" does not mean "libertarianism"(you claim you are not a libertarian but yet you define the "right wing" by libertarian definitions) . Read a fucking history book. Where do you think the concept of "right wing and left wing" even came from? The very first right wingers were the monarchists of France(you understand what monarchists means right? it means they were loyal to the royal family, loyal to the king), but you can't seem to accept that because you are a retard or you know nothing about history.
You define the wings by subjective cultural elements
Morality is not "subjective" if you believe in God.
You are operating off a worthless definition and a worthless, low IQ base understanding of what "right and left" are supposed to be.
The extreme ends of the political scale are totalitarian and ANARCHIST, not totalitarian and libertarian. Libertarian ideology has strong points and failures. An actual objective political scale is not a figment of libertatian ideology, though. It is a tool, like any other measuring tool. Your nonsense is like trying to tell me a ruler is a vessel meant to hold water. It's nonsense. You try to pervert a tool meant to make clear definitions into a worthless thing.
It's you who doesn't know history, because you've absorbed the "horseshoe theory" propaganda. The purpose of that vomit is to deliberately destroy objective measurement and comparison. Monarchists and anarchists are not on the same side of a scale. Socialists and anarchists are not on the same side of a scale. There is no world where ideologies based on reduced and decentralized power wrap around to totalitarianism. What a term was used for in France does not change how it is used correctly in english political discussion.
You are engaging in typical communist activity by attempting to destroy objective measurement. Take your redditor political compass retardation out back and shoot it. It is a tool of subversive goblins.
Empires are by nature authoritarian. Authoritarianism is leftist. You dimwit.
you don't even know what "leftist" or "rightist" means. "Right wing" doesn't mean libertarianism. "Right wing" means traditionalism. The first right wingers were not libertarians they were the monarchists of France. Its why a theocracy would be considered right wing. By your retarded logic of what "right wing" is you think a person who wants to ban LGBT is left wing whilst the person who wants it legal is right wing because banning LGBT would be "authoritarian"
You define the wings by subjective cultural elements. Because you are a deluded propaganda victim, or a delusional propagandist. I define them by objective measurement standards. The correct definition for ANY measurement must be objective.
Your goblinoid tactic here is to try to claim my view is wrong through claiming a moral argument against a right wing position. It does not work.
I do not pretend that left and right are the sole arbiters of moral standards. Yes, a right wing government would tolerate fags in theory. I do not advocate for anarchism, nor am I a libertarian. I am a constitutionalist and a nationalist. I argue for limited government. You are a hitler humping clown who argues for authoritarian government but "your guys" because like every retarded commie faggot, you think you or your friends will be in power, and you lack the capacity to look beyond the immediate and see the consequences of trying to surrender all responsibility to the state.
The moral superiority of right wing positions doesn't come from individual elements of modern cultural conflicts. It comes from an understanding of history and human nature. No matter how based the ideal benevolent king is, he will be replaced. No leftist system is tolerable because it is infinitely more vulnerable to corruption and will inevitably be turned against the people. Political power attracts sociopaths, who are skilled at manipulating people and systems - they don't care what dogma they need to spout, only that they can use it to gain power. It is objectively better to have systems with minimal power that can be corrected by the people, instead of massive oppressive regimes that are extremely difficult to fight when they become corrupt.this is one of the most BASIC lessons from the founders of the US. All actual AMERICAN NATIONALISTS know this. Subversive goblins and anti-american commie fags should all be deported to Europe. Leave my country, faggot (if you aren't actually some basement shitpost goblin from some inferior country).
You have your own ideal of what you think things should be. That's fine. But you don't get to claim that whatever you think is ideal is what "right wing" is.
You cannot change the fact that "right wing" does not mean "libertarianism"(you claim you are not a libertarian but yet you define the "right wing" by libertarian definitions) . Read a fucking history book. Where do you think the concept of "right wing and left wing" even came from? The very first right wingers were the monarchists of France(you understand what monarchists means right? it means they were loyal to the royal family, loyal to the king), but you can't seem to accept that because you are a retard or you know nothing about history.
Morality is not "subjective" if you believe in God.
You are operating off a worthless definition and a worthless, low IQ base understanding of what "right and left" are supposed to be.
The extreme ends of the political scale are totalitarian and ANARCHIST, not totalitarian and libertarian. Libertarian ideology has strong points and failures. An actual objective political scale is not a figment of libertatian ideology, though. It is a tool, like any other measuring tool. Your nonsense is like trying to tell me a ruler is a vessel meant to hold water. It's nonsense. You try to pervert a tool meant to make clear definitions into a worthless thing.
It's you who doesn't know history, because you've absorbed the "horseshoe theory" propaganda. The purpose of that vomit is to deliberately destroy objective measurement and comparison. Monarchists and anarchists are not on the same side of a scale. Socialists and anarchists are not on the same side of a scale. There is no world where ideologies based on reduced and decentralized power wrap around to totalitarianism. What a term was used for in France does not change how it is used correctly in english political discussion.
You are engaging in typical communist activity by attempting to destroy objective measurement. Take your redditor political compass retardation out back and shoot it. It is a tool of subversive goblins.