Because the guiding moral of environmentalism seeks the removal of humans from existence, it follows that any living environmentalist is a hypocrite. According to the environmentalist credo, the most moral thing a human can do is to end his life immediately so as to: (a) stop emitting carbon dioxide, (b) stop exploiting the earth (i.e., manipulate anything for his use), (c) stop procreating new humans, and (d) stop occupying a natural habitat of any non-human species.

It’s likely that the environmentalists’ public relations departments do not recommend that their published organizational goals include the elimination of humanity, but consider today’s issues that their current manpower gives them time to pursue.

Whether it is global warming, climate change, endangered species, nature preserves, etc., it’s always some variant of attacking human activity as such. No human (or living organism) can exist without “exploiting” the earth or creating waste material, so the final solution to the environmentalist contradictions is to eliminate all the humans. An environmentalist web site spells this out quite clearly (even though the site’s creators are, of course, hypocrites for still breathing).

Short of achieving the final solution of eradicating humanity, environmentalists continue to successfully inject this poison in to the culture under the guise of helping future generations. They continue to use unscientific scare tactics: e.g., depicting an imaginary apocalyptic future world. We suffer an increasing array of laws and restrictions aimed at making human life and prosperity more and more difficult. To the extent that people continue to accept the environmentalists’ doctrine unchecked, future generations will only inherit the slavery and squalor of totalitarian socialism.

It’s important for humans to identify the poison of environmentalism and label environmentalists as the hypocritical monsters they are. We owe this to our children.

The current writer’s strike is no different than any other union mob extortion scheme that I wrote about before. However, you won’t find any criticism of the writer’s union in the media or in Hollywood: either because they’re sympathetic or afraid to offend those that they must work with.

But I believe that there are a few important points to be made about the writer’s union shutting down much of the production in the entertainment industry.

• Union members pen nearly all of the entertainment you consume. This means that their fictional stories, characters, and jokes generally champion Marxist socialism and the tyranny of the mobs (sold as democracy) while stomping on individual rights, and scoffing at anyone who creates more than their “fair share” of wealth. So turning on the television certainly does not reveal an objective assessment or reflection of American ideals. It’s mostly socialist propaganda set to various plots.

• They are demanding a larger share of the income from profitable productions while absolving themselves of any risk from the majority of productions that lose money: they get paid either way, plus a share of the income IF the show succeeds. I’m sure anyone who invests time and wealth in a new business or product wishes for such a fairy-tale scenario.

I sincerely wish those who employ striking writer’s guild members would have some courage and foresight to fire these goons immediately, and to hire INDIVIDUAL writers who seek to write for whatever the market and their individual skills will earn them. Negotiating with unions today will simply reset the timer to the next extorting strike scheme.