As a cause, is environmentalism only as good as their supporters allow it to be, or is the truth so ugly that Western Civilization would come under indictment.
By: Vanessa Uy and Ringo Bones
Sometimes, you can gain a unique insight on environmentalism from a unique vantage- point. A few weeks ago Ringo and I have recently read a book by Steve Weston titled “Woodrow Wilson and the Death of John Kennedy.” One of the most interesting part of the book is on why John F. Kennedy’s death was necessary to advance Kennedy’s own policy objectives. Even though Steve Weston’s detractors described him as paranoid and a textbook Bakunin disciple, the subject on his book about the death of John F. Kennedy illustrates a worryingly recurring theme throughout the history of Western Civilization. Do most of us by now ask ourselves; ”If Jesus Christ wasn’t crucified, would mankind be forever ignorant on the virtues of forgiveness and on the unconditional love of our fellowman?” Would Brazil’s hard stance against the destruction of the Amazon rain forest exist at all if environmentalist Chico Mendez, wasn’t murdered.
Ringo and I just hope that nobody does a Lee Harvey Oswald on Al Gore just to boost the legitimacy on extolling the dangers of climate change and of global warming. Al Gore is more interesting alive than dead.
How many lives does it take to raise environmentalism’s bar of legitimacy a notch? Environmentalism is not a cause or movement that’s been looking enough guilt to start its own religion. Environmentalism should also not be viewed as a fashion statement du jour just because Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” now enjoys runaway blockbuster success. The sooner we can escape from this idea that someone has to die for something so that something can be done, the brighter will our planet’s and civilization’s future will be.