The failures of conservatism

[Izad]

Despite their grand promises, liberals will never succeed in solving the environmental crisis because their philosophy is what created and continues to destroy our natural world.
But worse are the conservatives who have completely abandoned the fundamental that is conserving our natural world. What use is fighting about every political issue whilst the natural world around us withers away.
Some 'conservatives' are honest and admit that they believe a good economy is more important than protecting nature and the environment. They admit that oil spills are bad but worse are high oil prices which risks putting people out of work. I disagree, but I at the very least respect the honesty. Others are either stupid and or have been outright successfully brainwashed to deny the obvious, claiming that the environment crisis is a hoax.

The farce of modern day conservatism has simply become a we support everything you hate movement. Conservatives for a century were the biggest proponents of defending nature, then liberals came in the 70s and 80s with Greenpeace and what not, so automatically the usual knee-jerk nature of modern day conservatives they began to oppose and deny climate change.

 

[Papaya]

Youre vaxxed arent you? Be honest

 

[inthefade]

There is no environmental crisis. There are only regular cyclical changes.

 

[Towgunner]

Um, maybe so. It depends on where you fall on the idea that there is a crisis. There's also a difference, conservatives have looked at the environment in terms of conservation and also defending things like clean drinking water and air etc. "liberals", on the other hand, come at this issue from an apocalyptic point of view demanding we radically change every aspect of our lives in order to "save" the planet. This has devolved into a cult-like following with an all-or-nothing attitude. By now it's obvious, at least to enough people, that this is actually just another Hegelian tactic to grab more power.

Honestly, I'm not sure there is a crisis, in fact, I don't think it exists. Here in the Northeast, we've had a pretty mild winter so far (but that can change in a heartbeat), so, a couple or more of these in a row and you might think global warming is a thing. But then the anomaly corrects and we're back to Nor-easters and perpetual 3 feet of snow and freezing windchills. That said, knowing what I know about the "credibility" of the radical left, plus their various claims that have proven to be fraudulent, such as the world ending in "x" years, makes me think twice. Another giveaway is how the "environmental crisis" isn't a standalone issue, which if it were that severe you'd think it would be. But, being "green" always comes with attachments to a whole host of other radical political items, such as homosexualism or "trans" or feminism - what's that got to do with CO2 or the environment? Basically, if you're a "greenie" you're also a radical leftist too. This alone keeps me from taking them seriously.

Be careful what you wish for. Optically, I appreciate your position that it would be better if the conservatives got ahead of this issue and owed it. But owned in what manner? Because the left may optically "own" the environment, but, it's full of extremists that block ambulances and pour soup on priceless artwork or recommend killing off most of the human population. I think there's growing resentment against these people and their movement.

Let's also consider how big of a failure "green" initiatives have been so far, namely, in Europe where all this insanity has come to a head. I think this issue is losing steam. It's very much attached to the 2030 Global initiative, which is NOT a plan to save the environment, but rather, the installation of a global dystopian technocracy. Revolting farmers in the Netherlands in addition to the absurdity of making Germany (a relatively sun-deprived country) reliant on solar, among other things, makes me think we're starting to see something shift here.

 

[Stoiam]

There is no environmental crisis. There are only regular cyclical changes.

Let's see ... microplastics, glyphosate, pesticides, herbicides, artificial fertilizers, fungicides, GMOs, pollution from oil refineries, synthia, hormones, asphalt dust, and tons and tons of poisons, all of which is causing the extinction of many species of animals and plants, and the slow extinction of humans too. Why can't you see that capitalists are destroying the biosphere of the plant Earth?

 

[Towgunner]

Let's see ... microplastics, glyphosate, pesticides, herbicides, artificial fertilizers, fungicides, GMOs, pollution from oil refineries, synthia, hormones, asphalt dust, and tons and tons of poisons, all of which is causing the extinction of many species of animals and plants, and the slow extinction of humans too. Why can't you see that capitalists are destroying the biosphere of the plant Earth?

Okay, well that's a crisis. But, show me the mainstream emphasis on the whole chemical castration or poisoning issue. Extinction Rebellion or Green New Deal does not address this. And conservatives do! Its more of the Alex Jones conservative, but, we are all-over this one.

 

[Stoiam]

But, being "green" always comes with attachments to a whole host of other radical political items, such as homosexualism or "trans" or feminism - what's that got to do with CO2 or the environment? Basically, if you're a "greenie" you're also a radical leftist too. This alone keeps me from taking them seriously.

It was a psyop to discredit the green/environmentalist movement. By silencing Orthodox and patriotic environmentalists such as Lyudmila Fionova. And instead they promoted the liberusts to take over the green/environmentalist movement and destroy it from the inside. Very cleverly done, those reptiloids. Along with the silencing of Tesla technology to maintain the Big Petroleum oligarchy.

"liberals", on the other hand, come at this issue from an apocalyptic point of view demanding we radically change every aspect of our lives in order to "save" the planet

And radically changing society is exactly what needs to be done. But they are steering it in the opposite direction. They want to radically change society for the worse, instead of for the best.

This is what we need to go towards:

Not this:

 

[Papaya]

^ The uninformed are easily tricked into conflating conservation with "climate change" activism.

They are not the same thing

" Pollution" is bad. Clean water/ air/ land is better than dirty. You dont need a scientific consensus for common sense and logic

"Man made climate change" is geo political demagoguery plied on the gullible masses for political ie economic purposes and gain by the a subsect of the usual suspects.

This horse has long ago been beaten to a molecular pulp here on RVF .

 

[Stoiam]

Along with the silencing of Tesla technology to maintain the Big Petroleum oligarchy.

There is literally no valid reason to still be using hydrocarbons for fuel in the 21st century, at the civilizational level.
The Russian Empire, literally over 100 years ago, used free energy technologies, or devices enabling one to draw atmospheric electricity, for literally nothing. This electricity was not restricted to the nobility, but every major town had electrification via free energy devices. The Russian Empire was nothing like you thought. The technology was much more advanced, steampunk. And the Bolsheviks actually destroyed a lot of this Russian Empire technology and paved road for wide scale use of hydrocarbons all around the planet. If the Russian Empire would have been preserved, with Tesla technologies, we wouldn't have wide spread pollution, global warming, and what have you, consequences of burning hydrocarbons.

 

[ed pluribus unum]

The liberal/progressive approach to the so-called "environmental crisis" is anti-human.

It is right and correct to oppose the solution to their made-up dilemma.

 

[Stoiam]

I believe that electricity should be provided as a free service from the government, for people who pay taxes. If people pay taxes, then the government has to provide them with free public utilities. This is possible with magnetic based free energy technologies of atmospheric electricity. Conversely, hydrocarbons industry is the only way that robber baron capitalism can be maintained. Now do you understand why these technologies were banned?

 

[king bast]

I am dealing with the "environmental crisis" by moving to an off-grid rural property, where we grow our own vegetables and raise/slaughter our own meat, effectively reducing our so-called carbon footprint to a mere fraction of the most soy-immersed bugman.

Of course, I could have taken the well-worn leftist path of dealing with the crisis through hectoring people to buy a tesla, turn homosexual and subsist on bugs, but my way is objectively much better. The difference being I actually have to do something with no fanfare, as opposed to making a lot of noise for no actual benefit.

 

[get2choppaaa]

I believe that electricity should be provided as a free service from the government, for people who pay taxes. If people pay taxes, then the government has to provide them with free public utilities. This is possible with magnetic based free energy technologies of atmospheric electricity. Conversely, hydrocarbons industry is the only way that robber baron capitalism can be maintained. Now do you understand why these technologies were banned?

What?

Why would soviets destroy advanced technologies.

You've been watching too much sci Fi homie.

 

[Stoiam]

I am dealing with the "environmental crisis" by moving to an off-grid rural property, where we grow our own vegetables and raise/slaughter our own meat, effectively reducing our so-called carbon footprint to a mere fraction of the most soy-immersed bugman.

Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Off grid electricity. Being self sufficient. In short, it is the lifestyle that Russian Old Believers have had for generations.

Relying on technocratic or societal solutions to the environmental problem is pure madness, especially since these are the same people who have caused the problem in the first place, who are they that they allegedly can fix the problem?

Why would soviets destroy advanced technologies.

The reason is twofold.

First, it was the deindustrialization of the Russian Empire, destroying Russia as a civilization, destroying their religious, cultural, as well as scientific/technological heritage. The Soviets and Kerensky were a liberal western occupation force. Just as India was destroyed by the British Empire. Destruction of everything that makes a country really independent, and turning it into a colony.

Second, the deeper reason, was to prevent Russia from dominating the world in a good way. If trends would have continued, the Russian Empire would have become the dominant civilization in the world, providing the world with free energy technologies. The handlers of the Soviet pawns wanted to bring about a Liberal World Order, and they had to get rid of Russia and it's technologies. This enabled the establishment of the hydrocarbons industry. To get rid of an alternative possible path of development for humanity, to steer humanity into a timeline where you eat the bugz!

 

[king bast]

What?

Why would soviets destroy advanced technologies.

You've been watching too much sci Fi homie.

(((Soviets)))

 

[budoslavic]

Let's see ... microplastics, glyphosate, pesticides, herbicides, artificial fertilizers, fungicides, GMOs, pollution from oil refineries, synthia, hormones, asphalt dust, and tons and tons of poisons, all of which is causing the extinction of many species of animals and plants, and the slow extinction of humans too. Why can't you see that capitalists are destroying the biosphere of the plant Earth?

Why are you only showing a map of the USA? Show a map of the whole world.

First map shows global hotspots of glyphosate contamination

Agricultural scientists and engineers have produced the world’s first map detailing global “hot spots” of soil contaminated with glyphosate, a herbicide widely known as Roundup. The map is published as the world’s eyes fall on glyphosate and concerns about its potential impact on environmental...

non-gmoreport.com

 

[Thomas More]

I would say the last 100 years has seen a tremendous loss of wild habitat, and a huge reduction in animal populations generally, but particularly for lions, tigers, elephants, gorillas, and the like.

I would say the level of pollution is quite high. Deforestation is severe. The oceans are fished out, but it hardly matters because the mercury levels are so high its not safe to eat too much fish anyway.

I would love to be an environmentalist, but all the environmentalists are commies, and worse still, they don't give a damn about the environment.

All they care about are trillion dollar environmental programs that allow them to find jobs when they're young, and achieve maximum power at the peak of their careers.

They generally are granola crunching hippies, which is to say airy fairy new age suckers. Or, they are hard core atheists. Basically Satanic in both cases.

If environmentalism were based in Christian stewardship, it would be right and true. However, in this current reality, environmentalists are our enemies. Too bad about the actual natural environment.

 

[Blade Runner]

It seems that being politically "pro environment" in the ways discussed here, is the lowest yield "position" of all. We can barely convince our fellow man (or at least 40-50% of them) that an experimental jab that is literally killing people is and was bad. Climate change is a total hoax and that alone disallows legitimate discussions and arguments with anyone who actually is pro-environment and preserving of lands, livestock and proper food production.

 

[Aboulia]

What?

Why would soviets destroy advanced technologies.

You've been watching too much sci Fi homie.

Call it a hunch, but I don't think his posts are going to make sense if he's the Russophile cloth on bicycle handle enthusiast that I think he is.

 

[inthefade]

Let's see ... microplastics, glyphosate, pesticides, herbicides, artificial fertilizers, fungicides, GMOs, pollution from oil refineries, synthia, hormones, asphalt dust, and tons and tons of poisons, all of which is causing the extinction of many species of animals and plants, and the slow extinction of humans too. Why can't you see that capitalists are destroying the biosphere of the plant Earth?

I thought you were talking about "climate change".

Are you that dude that is obsessed with blaming everything on capitalists and was banned?