Non-sense. Plenty of interviews with both him and Majel confirm that they wanted to use star trek as a vehicle to portray a humanity that is better than it is now. This is further evidenced by his involvement in TNG as executive producer, up until his passing. He really wanted to perfect his vision, so in some ways TNG can be seen as a furtherance of his vision.
This is essentially non-sense. Star Trek
was a vehicle for Roddenberry to make money. TNG was not his endeavor alone as D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold and Tracy Torme all sued to get their names added to the 'Created by' credit and later settled for an undisclosed amount, to protect Roddenberry's 'legacy'. Rumor has it many of the first and second season scripts were being rewritten by Roddenberry's attorney which led to dysfunction in the writer's room.
TNG essentially succeeded in spite of Roddenberry, who was pretty much delusional by the time it rolled around.
In addition, Roddenberry only got the job to lead a new Star Trek
series after people like Leonard Nimoy and Greg Strangis turned down the opportunity.
Sure, to idolize The Rodd is wrong and people like Fontana, Coon and Justman deserve more credit. But I doubt anybody would deny that the vision is Roddenberry's brainchild. The actual writing and producing of episodes on the other hand has been the work of many people.
Let's phrase it like this, Roddenberry set some parameters for the franchise, it is about a future which is a bit better than our present. Even somebody like Meyer who clashed with Roddenberry returned to Roddenberryian vibes at the end of both his movies. They are woven into the basic fabric of Trek, you can't get them out.
PS: We had virtually the same idea. Now the question is, who is the telepath?