Green conservatives

We are out-of-the-closet green conservatives here at Amerika.

We have no wish to hide that fact. Unfortunately, most people don’t understand it. Here we clarify.

Why conservatives aren’t “green”

In our modern political spectrum, we’re pulling apart to two extremes. This happens because no one wants to overlap, and they want this because overlap is inevitable because the two political “extremes” are based in a common ancestor, classical liberalism.

For this reason, most right-wing or conservative sources will not touch environmentalism with a ten-foot pole.

They are further alienated by most “greens” and “environmentalists” being trivial, useless people who think replacing lightbulbs and recycling condoms will solve a far greater problem.

Even more they are driven back because governments, never shy to cash in on disaster, are using “global warming” as an excuse to gain more power.

Rubbing salt into the wound, our news/entertainment media is using “global warming” as an excuse to keep us in constant terror and suspense, both things that sell ads on blogs.

Finally, and possibly most importantly, being “green” makes about as much sense as being “libertarian”: both are partial solutions because they address only part of our needs.

If we are to govern people, we need whole solutions. Conservatism is a whole solution, and so it should incorporate environmental preservation, but not be taken over by it. Tail should not wag the dog.

What is green conservatism?

Conservatives have had an environmental perspective for several centuries now. We call it “conservation.”

Our take on things is that human society acts first for itself, and regulation doesn’t work because it cannot catch every violation and imposes an insane overhead. Rather, we should face the truth: human society replaces nature wherever it goes.

So a conservative solution is simple: set aside natural lands in their natural state and keep people from settling there. People can visit parts of those lands, called National Parks, but they need to leave them alone and not settle there.

This does not mean we rule out other solutions.

We do rule out certain methods. For example, we prefer market forces to regulation whenever possible. This is because bureaucracies screw up whatever they touch, and add a layer of hassle and inefficiency that makes society unpleasant and alienates people from working toward solutions.

So a conservative is more likely to favor a market stimulus blast to LED manufacturers, usually through the military or NASA, to jump-start the market. Once LED bulbs hit the magic $1.50 each that incandescents have locked down, they’ll take off and by natural mechanism, replace the old incandescents.

Conservatism is the only ultimate solution

But no one is fooled into thinking that forcing people to change lightbulbs will fix the environmental situation.

Wherever people go, they take up land. Natural species also need land, to breed and to frolic, to hunt and to nest.

Not only do people take up land for housing, but for each person there’s another few acres of roads, hospitals, factories, schools, water treatment plants, airports, stores, post offices, phone COs, churches, jails and restaurants.

For us to preserve natural species, we need to cut down on this land use, and since each person needs land resources beyond their housing, the best way to do that is population reduction.

While liberalism is the political viewpoint of the people, conservatism is more cynical. We know that poverty is the result of less developed cognitive function and that evolution favored the smarter nations. Although we may be religious, conservatives are the true Darwinists in that we want evolution to continue making better humans, not more humans.

But if you want to be popular with the masses, you need to instead insist that everyone is equally precious, important and gifted. We’re all equal, they say, and that’s more important than the consequences of us all being equal.

So we cut down another few acres for each new equal person, and then consider ourselves progressive. Our intent was innocent, but we have destroyed nature through our good intentions.

So even more than being conservationists, and setting aside natural land, we need to find a way of constraining our population, and we need to do it in a way that avoids both regulation (inefficient) and tyranny (corrupt).

One way to do it is a massive cultural shift toward harmony with nature, one that suspiciously resembles social conservative views and traditional religious and ethnic-national cultures.

Why might these resemble it, rather than the other way around? Over centuries these cultures have evolved for maximal compatibility with their environment. To do that really well requires that we have reverence for our environment, and treat it as an equal player at the table with human needs.

In that view, we humans need to solve our human problems, and then come negotiate with nature for our solutions. Even more, we must look to nature for elegant solutions that have worked for far longer than centuries.

These are the underlying ideas of green conservatives.

How to put these into action

You have been taught by the leftist/liberal establishment that most of these solutions are bad or immoral; that’s not surprising, since the left wants to hold on to power, too, and so will demonize any solutions other than its own.

Here are some green conservative solutions:

• No entitlements. Welfare encourages reckless breeding; job insurance encourages responsibility and family-oriented reproduction. End the social spending binge that has increased poverty, crime and despair.
• No equality. Let the smartest and best rise to the top, and breed more; elite populations always check their own breeding, while lower-IQ and impoverished populations do not.
• No immigration. We have enough, and letting more in encourages more breeding here, and in the source countries that are trying to replace lost population.
• Consumption taxes. Don’t tax wealth, tax spending. Someone who drives a 1.5l Honda should pay less than someone driving a 6.7l SUV.
• Set aside land. Use our government funds to buy up vast swathes of land and set them aside as conserved natural territory. This will enhance the value of our remaining already-developed lands, forcing us to gentrify “bad areas” into functional city again.
• Increase R&D. Funnel money into military and NASA research and development to find better products that market forces will then use to replace inefficient ones.
• No foreign aid, affirmative action or subsidies. Let natural selection and the market regulate our populations, which will result in a reduced but more competent human species.

These ideas can immediately put into action at a lesser cost than that of our current government policies and, while they will initially create outcries from the entitlement caste of the electorate, will over time reduce the influence of that destructive group and replace them with people concerned less about personal benefit from government and more about sane governance for all.