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).