Why does the left seem to have a monopoly on environmental issues? The idea of preserving your nation's beauty and health is not inherently leftwing and the left should not be allowed to be only voice on this issue. Just about everyone on the far right knows the dangers of microplastics and runoff, but these issues need to be balanced with economic growth. What policies should we support to protect the environment, /mlpol/?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
8 replies | 7 files | 7 UUIDs | Page 5
I think we should chop down every tree and kill every single bird. We should also breed spiders and release them into the wild to hunt down nigger insects like flies. Mosquitos are okay, however, because they kill negroes en masse, but they all have to be deported to non-White countries. America is not White if that matters, by the way.
>>405118
>Why does the left seem to have a monopoly on environmental issues?
Probably because the American right has largely been dominated by the interests of corporations who are opposed to environmental regulation, in part due to conservatives and libertarians being opposed to the concept of regulation (rightfully so, in many cases), and also in part due right wing constituents living in rural areas who were impacted by deindustrialization and are therefore opposed to environmental regulation.
I think the real split came about when the topic of global-warming/climate-change started to dominate all discussions related to environmentalism, which was often at odds with the interests of industrial workers, creating a cultural rift that led to the concept of environmentalism being associated with pretentious, pearl-clutching liberals, and due to direction-brain conservatives avoided the topic like the plague, and corporations rewarded politicians for doing so. Furthermore, the topic of climate change turn environmentalism into a global issue, which took away focus from local issues that directly impact people. People can argue about the existence of global warming all day, but nobody likes it when corporations dump toxic chemicals in the lake behind their home.
It wasn't always like this. Nixon created the EPA. There was a time when being conservative meant wanting to conserve your homeland.
>The idea of preserving your nation's beauty and health is not inherently leftwing
I agree completely. To conserve your homeland is to conserve your people.
>the left should not be allowed to be only voice on this issue
I think this was partly intentional.
Neocon politicians wanted to drive out anyone who thought being conservative meant anything other than tax cuts for the rich, so they pushed for it to be associated with liberals.
Liberals themselves wanted to shout-down anyone who wasn't 100% on board with globalist climate change policies, so they created an all-or-nothing "trust the science" mentality within environmentalism.
>Just about everyone on the far right knows the dangers of microplastics and runoff, but these issues need to be balanced with economic growth. What policies should we support to protect the environment, /mlpol/?
I think micro plastics are a good starting point, because everyone is concerned about them. Focusing on forms of non-carbon pollution can help to break the left-right dichotomy, because everyone wants clean water and air.
I think paying attention to how AI data centers have been siphoning water from rural communities is worth looking at too.
>Why does the left seem to have a monopoly on environmental issues?
Probably because the American right has largely been dominated by the interests of corporations who are opposed to environmental regulation, in part due to conservatives and libertarians being opposed to the concept of regulation (rightfully so, in many cases), and also in part due right wing constituents living in rural areas who were impacted by deindustrialization and are therefore opposed to environmental regulation.
I think the real split came about when the topic of global-warming/climate-change started to dominate all discussions related to environmentalism, which was often at odds with the interests of industrial workers, creating a cultural rift that led to the concept of environmentalism being associated with pretentious, pearl-clutching liberals, and due to direction-brain conservatives avoided the topic like the plague, and corporations rewarded politicians for doing so. Furthermore, the topic of climate change turn environmentalism into a global issue, which took away focus from local issues that directly impact people. People can argue about the existence of global warming all day, but nobody likes it when corporations dump toxic chemicals in the lake behind their home.
It wasn't always like this. Nixon created the EPA. There was a time when being conservative meant wanting to conserve your homeland.
>The idea of preserving your nation's beauty and health is not inherently leftwing
I agree completely. To conserve your homeland is to conserve your people.
>the left should not be allowed to be only voice on this issue
I think this was partly intentional.
Neocon politicians wanted to drive out anyone who thought being conservative meant anything other than tax cuts for the rich, so they pushed for it to be associated with liberals.
Liberals themselves wanted to shout-down anyone who wasn't 100% on board with globalist climate change policies, so they created an all-or-nothing "trust the science" mentality within environmentalism.
>Just about everyone on the far right knows the dangers of microplastics and runoff, but these issues need to be balanced with economic growth. What policies should we support to protect the environment, /mlpol/?
I think micro plastics are a good starting point, because everyone is concerned about them. Focusing on forms of non-carbon pollution can help to break the left-right dichotomy, because everyone wants clean water and air.
I think paying attention to how AI data centers have been siphoning water from rural communities is worth looking at too.
>>405118
One of the things is that the left has a problem with local farms and farmers in general. Here in Sweden, series and movies about how people on the countryside are a bit daft are common. Ironically, our cities aren't that big. Like, Sweden has a 10.7 million population. If Sweden were a state in America, it would be considered a farmers' state.
They also dislike that cows fart because it adds to global warming.
There are also EU and other regulations that stifle farmers. And generally, it feels like if you aren't a big company, or whatever, you aren't allowed to exist due to all these regulations, but that's just my take.
Anyway, the point is that instead of transporting food and simple products via international trade from developing nations, it would be better for the environment if we produced food locally, and products locally for a multitude of reasons.
One is the exhaust of transports from across the world.
Two is that developing nations where simple manufacturing is made and food, don't follow the same regulations for the well-being of animals (though this might be a more Swedish thing, as we have very high standards for animal well-being, I am told), the safety of workers, and their local environment. Like, in Western nations, they make India out to be some sort of growing superpower, and I guess they are, but they also neglect to show the side of them... Like, they are almost textbook all the problems of the industrial revolution there. They have trash and shit... Uh, in places where it shouldn't be. There is also that example of that politician that drank from a river to prove the river was fine, which then had to go to the emergency as he had gotten parasites.
Another good aspect of having local manufacturing of simple products and local production of food, is that it provides simple jobs for the populace. Like, before we had simple jobs, but now these jobs have been outsourced elsewhere outside of our countries, at least here in Sweden.
"The North Atlantic Garbage Patch" is an example on why (sure, it is good to care about your local enviroment) one should never be tricked by the rhetoric that "WE" as in humanity, have caused this environmental damage. "We" aren't ruining Earth. The biggest impact on the ocean, as an example, comes from huge ships carrying junk over the oceans because... idk. Somehow that's more economical... idk. That didn't clear up for me. I will have to look into that so that might be wrong.
Point is, I heard from someone who recently been in Egypt as a tourist. If you walk off the beaten path where the tourists go, it's a slum, where people just throw trash on the street, and on the beach, the lifeguards apparently only rake the junk that washed up on the shore to the side so that tourist could bath.
Anyway, good thread.
>Unrelated image
One of the things is that the left has a problem with local farms and farmers in general. Here in Sweden, series and movies about how people on the countryside are a bit daft are common. Ironically, our cities aren't that big. Like, Sweden has a 10.7 million population. If Sweden were a state in America, it would be considered a farmers' state.
They also dislike that cows fart because it adds to global warming.
There are also EU and other regulations that stifle farmers. And generally, it feels like if you aren't a big company, or whatever, you aren't allowed to exist due to all these regulations, but that's just my take.
Anyway, the point is that instead of transporting food and simple products via international trade from developing nations, it would be better for the environment if we produced food locally, and products locally for a multitude of reasons.
One is the exhaust of transports from across the world.
Two is that developing nations where simple manufacturing is made and food, don't follow the same regulations for the well-being of animals (though this might be a more Swedish thing, as we have very high standards for animal well-being, I am told), the safety of workers, and their local environment. Like, in Western nations, they make India out to be some sort of growing superpower, and I guess they are, but they also neglect to show the side of them... Like, they are almost textbook all the problems of the industrial revolution there. They have trash and shit... Uh, in places where it shouldn't be. There is also that example of that politician that drank from a river to prove the river was fine, which then had to go to the emergency as he had gotten parasites.
Another good aspect of having local manufacturing of simple products and local production of food, is that it provides simple jobs for the populace. Like, before we had simple jobs, but now these jobs have been outsourced elsewhere outside of our countries, at least here in Sweden.
"The North Atlantic Garbage Patch" is an example on why (sure, it is good to care about your local enviroment) one should never be tricked by the rhetoric that "WE" as in humanity, have caused this environmental damage. "We" aren't ruining Earth. The biggest impact on the ocean, as an example, comes from huge ships carrying junk over the oceans because... idk. Somehow that's more economical... idk. That didn't clear up for me. I will have to look into that so that might be wrong.
Point is, I heard from someone who recently been in Egypt as a tourist. If you walk off the beaten path where the tourists go, it's a slum, where people just throw trash on the street, and on the beach, the lifeguards apparently only rake the junk that washed up on the shore to the side so that tourist could bath.
Anyway, good thread.
>Unrelated image
Biggest problem threatening the environment is human overpopulation, and most of the excess numbers come from the third world. It's where most of the pollution and garbage is coming from as well. The best environmentalist policy is therefore any policy that discourages third world reproduction. Stop sending them aid, stop letting them into our countries, deport the ones that are here, and stop trading with shithole countries except where absolutely necessary. Be willing to pay more for domestically-produced goods instead of crap made in China and India and wherever, it will create more white jobs anyway. Let the brownoids starve en masse and most environmental problems will sort themselves out naturally. Then do the same with the street junkie population domestically and watch all of our cities get cleaner and safer.
>>405126
Better idea: let's just deport all of the niggers and all of the spiders to Finland and turn that country into the set for a giant reality show: Niggers vs. Spiders. The whole premise is about throwing niggers into a country infested with millions and millions of spiders and seeing who survives
Better idea: let's just deport all of the niggers and all of the spiders to Finland and turn that country into the set for a giant reality show: Niggers vs. Spiders. The whole premise is about throwing niggers into a country infested with millions and millions of spiders and seeing who survives
>>405139
All in for it if they are dumped in either Lapland, Tampere, or Helsinki. The latter two are already nigger cities anyway, and they would probaly support it, too. Moreover, stranding goyim in desolate wastelands is a valid disposal method.
Spiders kill nuisance insects and don't bother larger animals. My dwelling has a myriad of spiders, and they harmlessly crawl over me every now and then. I take care not to crush them, and I let them outside whenever possible. They're Aryan creatures.
There should be a spider breeding programme for selecting the largest ones with the most antipathy towards non-Whites so that gigantic nigger-hating spiders may be produced in the future.
All in for it if they are dumped in either Lapland, Tampere, or Helsinki. The latter two are already nigger cities anyway, and they would probaly support it, too. Moreover, stranding goyim in desolate wastelands is a valid disposal method.
Spiders kill nuisance insects and don't bother larger animals. My dwelling has a myriad of spiders, and they harmlessly crawl over me every now and then. I take care not to crush them, and I let them outside whenever possible. They're Aryan creatures.
There should be a spider breeding programme for selecting the largest ones with the most antipathy towards non-Whites so that gigantic nigger-hating spiders may be produced in the future.
