I watched The Godfather movies again recently. Its story touches on the gangs’ hidden relationships with elected officials, and how the gangs manipulate the government to achieve their goals. Ironically, at the end of the film’s credits appeared the ubiquitous sentence “This film made under the jurisdiction of the AFL-CIO” under the IATSE logo (pictured here).

Ironic because one could easily replace the character of Michael Corleone with most any modern union kingpin and the story would be the same: how people deal with one another by force, instead of voluntary free trade. Today’s unions have deeply permeated the government and routinely use the government’s monopoly on the use of force (courts, law enforcement, guns) to force individuals to give union members unearned wealth, and more government power.

Mobsters offer people “protection” for fees and allegiance (or else). Unions offer people unearned wealth for fees and allegiance. They obtain that wealth from anyone and everyone who doesn’t join the union (e.g., in the form of artificially expensive automobiles, films, and steel). Like mobsters, unions don’t engage in running businesses, they simply engage in malignantly looting businesses until they collapse (as with the American auto industry).

Since the unions are so embedded in to governments, they no longer need new businesses to loot, they simply convince government officials to tax and/or print more money, thus robbing society at large—particularly the most productive people.

Unions are also deeply embedded in the education and film industries. Because of this, you will almost never hear a disparaging word about unions, their means, or their purposes. Imagine a film-maker trying to produce a film critical about unions. Can you imagine Dom Corleone or any union official “allowing” such a film to get made?

There has been some effort recently to get Ayn Rand’s classic novel Atlas Shrugged adapted to a feature film. Given the novel’s defense of individual rights and voluntary free trade (as opposed to force), I bet that for the unions to allow it to get produced, the screenwriter will have to severely deform its message.

In case you haven’t heard, California in the midst of a state government budget crisis because it cannot finance its current spending levels without forcing more wealth away from Californians (i.e., raising taxes).

The local radio stations are playing advertisements from the California Teachers Association union (CTA) pleading for funding for “our children” to continue. Like modern terrorists who use human shields for cover, the CTA defends its government power and its salaries by purchasing ads featuring children as victims of selfish taxpayers.

The CTA has even spent huge amounts of taxpayer money defending itself against school vouchers to ensure that ALL education tax money goes directly in to the pockets of CTA goons, establishing a monopoly on education.

Unbelievable.

I was wondering what the California state expenses have actually been in recent years. After a difficult search of California state web sites (they are probably pretty ashamed of the figures), I finally found the numbers.

I was astonished that, like a cancer, the California state expenses have DOUBLED in just the last 10 years. I’m sure that there is more than the CTA to blame, but it’s obvious that the state expenses have more than plenty of room to shrink in spite of democratic/union/socialist rhetoric.

Environmentalism is the quasi-religious movement that believes that all that is good is non-human; that humans are a scourge on the planet (to the extent that they don’t live like animals). Even the air that humans exhale is now deemed a poison to be rationed.

It’s not difficult to see how this “ideal” works in practice: mass human suffering and death. Since humans are increasingly not allowed to convert natural elements in to useful products, living as a human is becoming more difficult. (These natural elements are NOT scarce by any measurement.)

Although the media conspicuously avoids this point, years of environmentalist-inspired restrictions have reduced the supply of wealth-creating fuel. In 1995, Klinton vetoed attempts to open any of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil production. For decades, environmental laws have also kept the California coast off limits to any new oil drilling.

Creating vital goods and services costs more because the fuel that runs the wealth-creating machines is being choked off by environmentalist propaganda. Getting to and from the workplace is eating up more wealth. The rising cost of obtaining food has caused a “food crisis.” As the machines of wealth production increasingly slow down, will Al Gore, Greenpeace and their ilk apologize to the starving humans? Will they force more wealth away from the free world while at the same time making that wealth increasingly difficult to create?

You are now officially being affected by bad environmentalist ideas. It’s time to stop supporting them and start speaking up for reason and human prosperity.

So right they are. In California, the political entity Flex Your Power blankets the air waves with propaganda about how all humans are evil in so far as they live, breath and employ some kind of labor-saving device that uses energy (cars, heaters, radios, lights, etc.). This commercial (featuring the phrase “Global Warming Is a Choice”) is paid for by Flex Your Power, which gets its money from the state-controlled public utility monopolies, which gets its money from all Californians who use energy. Hundreds of thousands of people didn’t endorse these ads, but we’re financing them.

These ads attempt to scare the current population with imaginary visions of a future apocalyptic world in which Al Gore’s climate conspiracy theories exist and future humans are indignant at present-day humans for not choosing some form of green dictatorship or socialism.

This scare tactic has been effectively employed through the ages: Hitler warned that the Jews needed to be erased. Preachers of religion warn that your soul will burn in endless fire if you don’t believe in some varying version of an undetectable god.

While some warnings do have merit, the global warming (a.k.a. climate change) political warnings do not. In spite of the overwhelming media attention to every shred of evidence of a warming climate, the real science behind the claims is still wrought with endless conflicting evidence.

Most politicians and all other totalitarians (who are not scientists) preach global warming with great certainty. To the extent that they succeed, real-world humans will suffer the real effects of increasing restrictions on productivity. These restrictions (like all environmentalism) work toward their ideal of erasing humans from existence (i.e., to attempt to eliminate the human footprint or any impact that humans have on anything else).

Capitalism Magazine has a good online article summarizing the current list of blatant contradictions in the anthropogenic climate change myth. It’s a must read for anyone temped to support the climate change hysteria.

This has been in my camera for a little while and I thought it so revealing when I saw it again that I had to post it for all to witness.

In Sunday’s Los Angeles Times (3/30/2008), the front page of the Business section (!) was a featured essay about how guilty we should all feel about our hopeless addiction to oil (in every way that improves the quality of human life). Particularly ominous was the large image of a woman with her hand covering her bowed head in shame.

This is the human condition that the environmentalists are seeking to achieve:

The self-hating human.

The people of Indonesia’s government have chosen to not allow Indonesian people to watch the online movie “Fitna” which shows how international Muslim terrorists and killers use the Koran to inspire their murders.

The Associated Press published a story about how these people have blocked access to YouTube and MySpace for all Indonesians because the film “could disturb relations between the faiths.” Such kid-gloves are only necessary for present-day Islam because of it’s leaders’ constant incitement of holy-wars against the west and promises of murder for those who speak poorly of their faith-based god.

Instead of significant groups of “peaceful” Muslims denouncing such acts of violence in the name of Islam, they continue to voice anger over such movies, and thus effectively continue to defend those who use the Koran to murder others. With equal if not greater culpability, non Muslims and western leaders continue to preach forgiveness and surrender to irrational Islamic demands to force others to obey Allah (as interpreted by Imam thugs).

While the broader problem has to do with the concept of faith as such, Fitna shows the nature and goals of the growing radical Islamic movement. If those government individuals in Indonesia want a future of peace and freedom, they should be watching and learning, not censoring out of fear and/or support.

The folks over at the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) published a insightful analysis of the recent earth hour in which all humans were asked to turn off lights (at night) for an hour as a symbolic demonstration of their hatred of human activity.

The ARI article identifies the actual meaning of Earth Hour (the premises that go in to its purpose), and asks whether most people could or would support an “Earth Month” in which all electricity is extinguished for 30 days.

Food would spoil and food production would all but halt, criminals would achieve stealth, tap water would not be treated, hospitals would completely close at dusk, etc. In short, the horrific occurrence would perhaps allow people to renew their appreciation for modern technology and the existence of fuels to power it.

This idea of extending Earth Hour to Earth Month further exposes the blatant hypocrisy and contradictions of those giving lip service to Earth Hour, and the nightmarish “utopia” envisioned by the environmentalist movement at large.

Check it out here: The Real Meaning of Earth Hour.

I saw a hard-to-watch video which summarizes the overt motives and behavior of the Islamic fundamentalist movement. While all religions and departures from reason have the potential to bring mass death and destruction to the world, today’s biggest threat comes from Iran and the middle east.

In spite of countless historic examples of slaughtering regimes (Nazis, communism, Japanese Shintoism, etc.), the western governments and the supposed peaceful Muslims are still doing next to nothing to end this hate-group’s growing threat to the civilized world.

To further punctuate the issue, this video is constantly being removed from web sites under direct death threats from Islamic totalitarians. This video should be spread by anyone and everyone who values human freedom, individual rights, and the ability to criticize others without being murdered for one’s words. Or to put it another way, simply ask yourself: What would my life be like if these Muslims get what they want?

Tell your politicians that waiting and wishing only leads to a larger slaughter in the future.

(Note: This video may be removed due to ongoing death threats, so simply search for “Fitna movie” to find a working link.)

Much like the church’s raid of science (Christian Science) and the environmentalists’ assault on the method (humans are ruining everything), the socialists now want a piece of the action.

Endorsed/reviewed by The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) for publication in their journal “Science,” social psychologist Elizabeth Dunn of the University of British Columbia has concluded that altruistic spending leads to happiness.

Based on her survey of 632 Americans, another survey of 16 bonus recipients in Boston, and handing out $5 or $20 spots to 155 University of British Columbia students (!), she concluded that those who gave their money away rather than spent it on themselves were happier at the end of the day.

Her conclusion is not supported by the experiments/surveys. Not only are the samples small, but also she confuses these correlations with cause-effect relationships. Regardless of income levels, those who spend more than they make are constantly under stress, and simply don’t have surplus wealth to give away.

Perhaps being submerged in the morass of socialism that is Canada, she goes on to use her “science” as a reason for increased socialism. From a report in ScienceNOW Daily News by Elsa Youngsteadt, “She hopes the finding might someday spur policymakers to promote widespread philanthropy that could make for a more altruistic–and happier–population.”

So-called policymakers are in the business of deciding where government force is used. I wonder if altruism still makes people happier at the point of a gun?

With the help of AAAS, this “scientific study” will be likely be put in to sound-bite format and fed to the public. Just like Hitler used science to help convince the masses that the Jews must be murdered, she’s using science to convince the masses that we must force each other in to a lifetime of altruism and slavery—for our own well being!

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.