Is it possible to be right winger and a nature lover at the dame time?

i am vegetarian.
i eat mostly mushroom protein fake meat and eggs. i also enjoy tofu sometimes (i didn't fall for the basedboy meme like a stooge).

loving animals and nature is extremely based.
the one thing about white men, is that we have learned to leave our savage habits behind as technology has advanced.

currently the largest (BY FAR) producer of pollution and animal cruelty is the third world.

white men are better than that... we have the power to live peacefully alongside nature if we want...
nature will treat us well in return, the mushroom gods will ensure our lands are fertile forever.

i see the future white ethnostate very similar to how the garden of eden is described in the bible.
the colors will be so vibrant it will feel surreal..

Attached: bambi-750x375.jpg (750x375, 38K)

Sure can

Attached: E0145141-D0A1-4269-BBD6-304D9BD72425.jpg (225x225, 9K)

Best and based movie

Attached: 1556440707601.jpg (1600x909, 603K)

I'm hard right and I think we need to protect the environment from pollution, over-urbanization, and resource mismanagement. It's OUR environment to live in. Nature is beautiful, flora and fauna. Living simpler lives while maintaining a 95% white state with gun rights and women staying at home is the ideal.

>dame time

Attached: 2755C97B-12CF-4ADC-881D-A9DB92BE1B3F.jpg (1280x1024, 208K)

I agree

Attached: 1549689422584.jpg (720x544, 107K)

people on the left don't really love nature they love the idea of nature or rather they love pretending to fight for the idea of nature all the while living in polluted concrete cities

It's a requirement, otherwise you're just a neocon zionist boomer faggot

Sometimes I love this place, brings a tear to my eye and rigidity to my cock

Attached: 1556238171470.jpg (1024x1024, 182K)

yes, most rural conservatives are hunters and fishers. "right hated the earth" is just left wing propaganda to push global warming scams.

Pasta nigger

looks comfy

Posting comfy pics.
Gonna plant me tulips today

Attached: 1552751418979.jpg (2730x1536, 1.75M)

Attached: 1459225756470.jpg (4767x3000, 3.81M)

Saved

Attached: 1459204573686.jpg (1920x1080, 1.17M)

Attached: 1459224905605.jpg (715x476, 183K)

Attached: 1528963794920.jpg (1280x1280, 415K)

Its an obligation, in fact. Pollution and destruction of its nature is yet another danger your country needs to be protected from, even if environmental issues are often abused for the sake of left wing ideology.

Loving Nature is a requirement of being right wing.

Of course. Conservation is at the heart of it. Though it does not mean that man should not use the land and its resources. Things can be done sensibly.

Attached: 1518622968683.jpg (4032x3024, 2.72M)

Right wingers live side by side with nature.
Left wing city people pretend to love nature from their concrete jungles.

Attached: 1530749799064.jpg (5000x1578, 2.25M)

I think it's the natural position of a right winger. I hate this autistic modern "conservatism" of giving zero fucks about conservative values, but going balls to the wall when it comes to something like delivering tax cuts to Amazon.

This short vid was a real interesting thing I saw:
twitter.com/MillennialRx/status/1126264648754507776

Attached: spurdo.gif (478x298, 308K)

Attached: 1531276600082.jpg (3420x1924, 855K)

Attached: 1536969471951.jpg (2048x1365, 658K)

>possible
What? It's necessary

I dont see how its possible to be a "right winger" and not care about nature. Its built into the belief system.

they are one i the same. the only reason the left has picked up that iconology is for vanity appeal purposes. most leftists i know eat like a garbage bin and have never gardened or cared for any land in any way.

Absofuckinglutely.

I love nature.

Attached: Tolerant.jpg (790x820, 88K)

Sometimes you Americans are just really stupid.

Umweltschutz ist Heimatschutz

Attached: 1542562707039.gif (318x239, 1.58M)

Since this seems to be an eco-right thread, i'm curious about your guy's view on man's influence on climate change. Disregard the alarmist rhetoric of certain figures, do you think it's real or not? If it is real how do you think it should be combated? How do you get foreign competing nations to combat it as well?

Attached: 1496517307696.jpg (614x642, 60K)

It's called Ecofascism dumbass.

I think it's highly exaggerated, the effect on man, that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has had. They keep pointing to the weather as proof, whatever the weather. It's mad.

>do you think it's real or not
I thinks it's plausible. The issue I have with the left screaming about it is that their solution is give more of your money to the government. I think the more appropriate method to actually be effective would be encouraging R&D into renewables and "green" tech. We should engineer our way to a better future, not give the gov more power and put more strain on the populace.
>how to get foreign nations to also combat
make the new green tech more appealing than old tech. That's the surest way

It is not impossible to be a right wing nature lover.
youtu.be/VtWGLHOX7yg

Haven't looked in to it too much at the moment and I doubt I will understand much until I start properly studying the sciences, but with a completely uneducated opinion I'd say it seems like something that has been happening throughout the Earth's history and whether man has or hasn't influenced the speed of this process is regardless to the fact that we will adapt to the changes as we've always done. Getting foreign nations to comply is laughable when we can't even get our own to.

Attached: Book_jacket.jpg (726x517, 177K)

Interesting question.
>Trash a river with abandoned vehicles and literal tonnes of garbage while protesting a pipeline out of a slim chance there might be spill into the very same river you just trashed, and then force the state to clean it up with taxpayer money because you're a lazy and dirty hippie.

>every time leftist have a global warming rally, they leave piles of garbage behind that the city has yet again have the city it took in have to clean it up on the taxpayer's dime, while right wingers never had such problems because they were taught to be self-suffecient responsible human beings

> Have no problem with letting billions of liters of sewage go in to lakes, rivers, oceans, but if somebody tries to build 1 pipeline, these very same people lose their shit out of fear it "might leak", and also block any attempts to upgrade or replace old 30-50 year old lines that are basically ticking time bombs and forced to keep using them, because the hippies get angry at any attempt to make oil and gas transportation safer, because they are fucking stupid. Ditto for rail.

>Willing to let more lac magantics happen when companies have to ship it by diesel-spewing trains, because "pipelines are bad".

>THE DIRTIEST cities with garbage, fecal matter, used needles,and overall filth are all full of these ecotard leftists.

Fuck off retard
How can you even claim the left wing loves nature when they all almost exclusively live in major cities that are the cause of the pollution they seem to hate so much

So yeah. short anser is not only is it possible, but actual nature lovers are right wingers

Right-wing and nature go together real easy, educating hippies on which countries cause the most environmental damage is also a real easy way to red pill them about shitskins and chinks

Reminder that this type of development is the result of a radical postwar experiment, a rejection of traditional living and is the antithesis of conservatism/traditionalism

Attached: 1535395211343.jpg (1600x1200, 954K)

>Is it possible to be the group that tends to go out hunting, camping, and fishing the most and a nature lover at the same time?
Kill yourself, faggot retard

youtube.com/watch?v=-0qe5xMQSrU

Attached: 1543630690192.jpg (674x960, 207K)

It isn't man that is the problem, instead it is particular groups of what can politely be called sub-humans.

No, the only coherent defense of the enviroment is trough the third position

Yes.

Look at charts of population growth and global industrialization, both since the 1800s. Then look at forecasts of both. With these in mind, we aren't realistically stopping any climate impact we may have had already.

Yes

Thoreau was a leftist though.

idk about any other faggot ideologies on the right, but natsoc is by definition environmentalist

>over-urbanization
Cities take up less space than sprawling suburbs though.

>Is it possible to be right winger and a nature lover at the dame time?

Yes, obviously. Caring for the environment is integral to a coherent nationalism.

>I’m no Jew
Exactly what a Jew would say

>this

The two are not mutually exclusive, however, Big Business has always fucked over the environment, so it's impossible to both side with them and be a "nature lover"

Yes, the left destroys nature while claiming to protect it.

Real nationalists want to protect their country’s environment.

Most Jow Forums kiddies just want to parrot GOP policy, and the GOP is controlled by oil oligarchs.

The left is on the side of “big business,” regulating competition away.

>tfw 27 and was out in the woods all the time since I was like 11
>tfw last summer I saw a giant wolf giant stand up on its hind legs and chase down a moose
>tfw too scared too go out again

I keep trying to tell myself it was something else, but I know what I fucking saw...

The left is controlled by oil oligarchs too, you absolute retard.

I am a big fan of New Urbanism
This Wiki article is a leftist circlejerk tho en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism

Attached: Leon Krier.jpg (1880x1200, 221K)

So, rejection of well-kept, clean neighborhoods with modern infastructure is the rejection of conservatism? we know. the left want the country full of shot-up ghettos with shit, needles, garbage, and crime everywhere, and they don't care if infastructure becomes crumblig messes with pipes that leak or so full of lead that people will die just drinking it.

Attached: 1553356775053.jpg (1080x1891, 170K)

>The two are not mutually exclusive, however, Big Business has always fucked over the environment
To be fair, big business doesn't need to be fully destroyed. Businesses (big or small) just need to respect the environment. There needs to be more pressure on big business from the populace, the state or both.

Given that a billion dollars is already more money than most people can imagine, big business will continue to be big even if it becomes less big. What I'm ultimately saying is that the current power of big business is absurd.

You can generally expect big businesses to do whatever it takes to generate money for their shareholders. Thus, we can expect big business to damage the environment whenever the profit associated with such activity outweighs the cost to the business itself.

>the left destroys nature while claiming to protect it.
This is true of the Democrats and the Canadian Liberal Party ... though there are some left-leaning environmentalists who are consistent.

Attached: 1553355388933.jpg (1500x2247, 1.04M)

Czeched

Hey boomer, you can have well-kept, clean neighborhoods without covering half the country in concrete and plywood. Suburban sprawl has been a disaster for the white race, keeping us isolated and atomized, allowing our historical cities to rot and declaring it as "not our problem". I like how you complain about crumbling infrastructure as if expanding cities out into a 20-mile radius won't make it impossible and extremely expensive to keep all the increased infrastructure up to date.

Attached: calexico.png (1919x937, 1.57M)

Uhm yeah? Isnt right wingers about true nature?

Not talking about capitalist neocon republicucks, that is not right wing.

Newfag

>isolated and atomized
>in large neighborhoods
wut

nope
republishits are anti environment, anti labor, and only have christcuck delusions and and hate as their selling point

It's absolutely real and to a large extent human driven. I doubt that almost every climate scientist from all over the globe is in a vast conspiracy to defraud people into giving them grant money and, in any case, regardless of whether or not they're right, green reforms a la clean air, environmental protection, protecting species from overexploitation/extinction et al. are very obviously beneficial and desirable.

My own views on environmental protection reflects my views of society as a whole. It's a compact between our ancestors, the present, and our future progeny. We have a duty to our ancestors to maintain what has been built before and we have a duty to the future to improve on things and leave them in as good a state as possible. Raping and permanently damaging the environment is accordingly morally wrong in my view.

As for how it should be combated/how to enlist foreign nations, I think we need to clamp down on immigration hardcore, other than student visas. This is because the immigrants we take into the West, "refugees", family reunification migrants etc. aside, are often the most energetic and talented people of their respective countries. Given that population growth has a strong negative correlation with economic growth, I think we'd do best to improve the economies of developing nations as quickly as possible to try to avoid massive overpopulation, which would put more pressure on the environment. At the same time, I think we should be heavily investing in Biochar, both as a form of non-phosphate fertilizer and also a carbon capture and storage system, and seriously looking into iron seeding the oceans to stimulate phytoplankton and algae growth. I would also like us eventually turning away from fossil fuels entirely, for health reasons and political reasons (it's the only influence the Arabs have on the West. Absent their ability to pull oil out of the ground, they produce nothing of value).

Attached: 1552952104911.jpg (1280x1614, 466K)

I think our view of nature is the fundamental difference between right and left wing. Right wing views nature as a challenge to be overcome and utilized. Left wing views nature as weak and needs protected from the rape of man.

The truth is in the middle. We should be good stewards of resources so that we may prosper for many generations to come.

Of course. Liberals tend to have a strange lovey dovey interpretation of the animal kingdom in particular to the point that I'm not sure they actually like it outside of domesticated pets. Animals kill for fun, they rape, many species will kill/eat their own, intelligent species like corvids and dolphins intentionally use drugs to get drunk/high (eating rotting fruit for corvids, and bumping puffer fish for dolphins).

My point is if you have a rational head on your shoulders you will understand that nature isn't nice and it does not care about your feels. As far as I'm concerned, this in no way conflicts with conservative values. Legal game hunting is fine, I go out once or twice a year for inexpensive meat.

Attached: ICM_Galapagos_tortoise_eating_ChristianZeigler.jpg (1000x667, 477K)

>shilling for the most ecologically destructive development pattern known to mankind
>still larping as a right-winger who respects nature

>can't explain his reasoning when presented with the smallest amount of questioning.
this doesn't do you any favors

I agree with you. If you love your country and your people you must also care for your soil and nature that allows your people to exist and thrive.

Oil companies control GOP policy.
When you see Republicans in Florida building highways no one’s projected to use, that’s a handout to oil (especially the Kochs, who are Anerica’s Largest sellers of asphalt).
When you see Republicans in North Carolina charging you $400 a year for owning a hybrid car, that’s a handout to oil.
When you see Americans for Prosperity campaigning door-to-door to stop a transit bill, that’s the Kochs at work.

Recently Trump got rid of safety regulations around oil drilling in the Gulf.

Attached: 93F33333-9ADA-4EBA-A39E-A332FCD78AFC.jpg (750x997, 471K)

Suburbs, as we have in the US, are part of urbanization.

Is this bait or are you genuinely retarded

Having to have a driver's license to go anywhere and having little to no public space to interact with other people usually leads to isolation, dummy. It doesn't matter how large your cookie-cutter suburbia hellscape is.

Attached: 1556416423221.jpg (1200x638, 322K)

>Recently Trump got rid of safety regulations around oil drilling in the Gulf.
Saying it like this is blatant misinformation. His goal was to simplify regulations, and so he stipulated thag for every new rule, you had to remove 2.

Unless there some specific event you're referring to?

Forgot to mention, Trump appointed an ExxonMobil exec as Secretary of State for some reason.

Then appointed Mike Pompeo, who used to work for the Kochs.

Entire cities are being built outside of all major cities in America by whites fleeing blacks.

Based and greenpilled

Attached: 8C030408-F53F-4F54-82B5-B3DAC715CCAD.jpg (720x685, 28K)

>to no public space to interact with other people u
Thrtes a community pool and a pond in that pic. Looks unfished so they're likely adding walking trails etc around it.
>you need a car
I'm shit your pic is from TX, you need a car period. The majority of the US is like that too

Keep running away, goy.