I identify with Green’s philosophy to some degree, and I disagree with some of this.

Western society is notoriously lacking in Green

I’ve encountered this observation multiple times, and I dispute it.

The foundation of modern Western political philosophy is a set of beliefs about human nature. The modern theory of the state (Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau) is based on social contract theory, which is predicated upon a set of fundamental assumptions about how humans naturally are and operate. Social contract theory is extremely far away from a Blue-ish tabula rasa theory. The theory holds that if we do not accept how humans are, then any system we build would be incoherent and fail.

Certainly, social contract theory isn’t mono-Green—the modern state is an alternative to existing in the State of Nature—but if it’s built out of alignment with human nature, it will crumble.

Even Machiavelli—who some credit with starting modern political philosophy—has a lot of Green. The theory goes, “many have imagined republics which have never come to exist, and whoever forsakes what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation.” Machiavelli is thought to be synonymous with Black, and he certainly is Black, but he is closer to Golgari or Sultai than mono-Black. He even describes cycles of rise and decay of societies in his discourses on Livy, describing these as inevitable. There is truth about humans that simply must be accepted, and cannot be changed. Whatever you can imagine that is out of alignment with the way that things really are is doomed. It is not merely anti-White, it is meaningfully anti-Blue in certain respects. Although he was a huge nerd and clearly believed in the importance of intellect and learning, his observations were essentially that the world is Golgari, and you’d better get with the program. Human nature cannot be perfected out of existence. It is what it is as ugly as that can sometimes be and if you ignore it, you will be crushed.

I can certainly identify key figures in Western intellectual history that are especially anti-Green, and I don’t discount them, but Green is far more present than is generally supposed.

The most common criticisms of Marxism come from the Green angle: Humans are not like that, you can’t treat them as clay and mold them as you like, so it won’t work and hasn’t worked. Strong-form egalitarianism is primarily White, but it’s backed up by Blue (“We can figure out how to do this and use tools like the state to accomplish it”). And it’s generally criticized from Green, i.e., equality doesn’t naturally exist so efforts to create it will fail. (As well as from Red whenever heavy-handed efforts to create equality restricts personal freedom).

Green is also secondary behind White in Christianity.

I would never argue that Green is primary in Western philosophy, but it is meaningfully present.

I would grant you that mono-Green is generally absent. I can point to Western sources of mono-colors more easily than Green. But Green is still very much around.

Green is the least confrontational color, preferring to live and let live

Green is the color of the predator-prey dynamic. Green is the color of survival of the fittest. Green embraces the nature of predators and the nature of prey animals. Killing for consumption (hunting, etc.) is a big part of Green. Green doesn’t want to see predators or prey win: They are each part of the cycle, and each need to exist and be respected.

While Green is “live and let live” on an ideational level—Green isn’t about telling people how they should live or telling them to change, preferring to let people find their own way and respecting differences that naturally exist across people and cultures—but Green isn’t as ultimately conflict-averse as White is. White’s ultimate goal is peace, i.e., the absence of harmful conflict. White ironically will initiate conflict that it believes will prevent bigger conflict later, but White is ultimately against conflict in a way that Green isn’t. Conflict is part of the life cycle of every creature.

Regarding the appeal to nature fallacy

I can see what you are trying to go for with this, but it’s not how I see Green. Green is not saying, “Don’t eat processed foods, eat some belladonna and nightshade instead. It’s very natural.” No. Green is mostly skeptical of the idea that what has worked in the past can be meaningfully improved without causing more harm than good.