Michael Shellenberger exposes how governments and think tanks (e.g., Assmann Institute, Five Eyes-linked groups) orchestrate global censorship—from Twitter’s Hunter Biden laptop suppression to Scotland’s and Canada’s anti-free-speech laws—as a "counterpopulist" backlash against 2016’s political shifts. He highlights the Supreme Court’s confusion over Section 230, Elon Musk’s rare resistance on X/Twitter, and WPATH’s alleged medical abuses in transgender healthcare, framing these as part of a woke ideology eroding liberal democracy. Shellenberger warns mainstream media amplifies narratives justifying crackdowns, from climate skepticism to farmer protests, while platforms like Facebook bow to government pressure. His reporting suggests a coordinated assault on dissent, with First Amendment protections under siege. [Automatically generated summary]
Hey, it's Andrew Claven with this week's interview with Michael Schoenberger.
I'm really delighted to have Michael on.
He is a terrific investigative reporter, and I've said this a million times.
So one of the many things that we need more of is good independent investigative reporting.
He has a substack called Public, which is absolutely terrific.
He's the CBR chair of censorship, politics, and free speech at the University of Austin, best-selling author.
He has a book called Apocalypse Never and one called Samfran Sico.
Michael, thank you for coming on.
Thanks so much for having me.
So let's start with the news, with social media.
You were one of the guys that Elon Musk chose to unleash the Twitter files.
And recently this has come before the Supreme Court, a bunch of states suing the Biden administration for trying to shut down voices.
I thought some of the things the court said sounded pretty skeptical of stopping the government from doing this.
How did you feel about the case and where do you feel it's going?
Well, I share your concern.
I think that I was there on Monday.
I got in line bright and early and got in to hear in person the interaction between the attorneys and the Supreme Court justices.
I think that our side didn't argue it as well as we could have.
I think it's a complex issue.
I was disappointed by the reaction, I think, from the justices on two levels.
First, they didn't seem to understand the difference legally between newspapers, traditional media, and social media platforms.
You and your listeners may know that in 1996, there was a law passed as part of the Communications Decency Act called Section 230, which explicitly distinguishes between publishers like the Daily Wire, like public on Substack, and social media platforms like Substack, like X and Facebook.
And they didn't seem to understand the difference.
And so they think it's sort of, they sort of implied that it was the same thing for a politician to talk to a reporter and say, hey, I don't think you should cover that.
That's something politicians do all the time.
And that was something that Brett Kavanaugh in particular expressed some familiarity with, given his time working in the White House.
That's very, very different from what was being discussed in this case, which was a mass censorship effort coordinated by various parties, but one of the worst ones was coordinated by something called Stanford Internet Observatory, where they would literally provide many, many tweets and posts to the social media platforms asking them to be censored without the person's knowledge.
That's very different than talking to a reporter and trying to talk them out of a story.
So that was the first problem.
The second problem is I just don't think they had a very strong commitment to the First Amendment.
And you could hear this with Justice Katangi Brown Jackson's comments.
She said something to the effect of, doesn't the First Amendment get in the way of the government's ability to censor speech?
It was like, yeah, that's exactly why we have the First Amendment.
That's what the First Amendment's four.
She also said something like, well, what if, for example, there's a bunch of videos going around showing people jumping out of windows and then kids start jumping out of windows?
Shouldn't the government stop those videos?
Well, A, no, the government should not stop that.
That's not illegal speech.
There is some illegal speech.
Famous examples include child pornography or lying to you in order to steal your money.
That's fraud or lying, deliberately lying about you in order to ruin your career.
That's defamation.
Very high bar for those things, but nonetheless, those are some very limited, very limited exceptions to fraud.
They don't include jumping out of buildings because if it did, then one of my favorite things in the world to watch on Instagram Reels would be illegal.
And by that, I mean parkour, the wonderful sport of parkour, which includes literally people jumping out of windows.
A, it's a very that safetyism that Jonathan Haidt and others have talked about, where this idea that somehow we have to protect people from things that they might blindly copy, which is, I think, absurd.
But second, I think the more broader point is that there's counter speech.
So the government is welcome, if there's an epidemic of children jumping out of windows, to go and do, you know, PSAs to say, please, parents, don't let your kids jump out of windows.
Really, what's at risk is something quite the opposite, which is that there was censorship to prevent discussion of things that really needed to be talked about.
Like, should we lock down the schools and prevent kids from going to school because of COVID?
Should we refer to trans-identified people by the pronouns they wish to be identified by?
These things were being censored by Facebook and Twitter and other parties, and they were done so secretly behind the scenes.
This is not jawboning in the famous examples that people think of of a politician simply urging a reporter not to write about something.
So, when you look at social media, you look at X or you look at Facebook, is there anything?
Are they like the phone company?
I can call up my friend on the phone and say anything I want, but nobody else can hear it, and the phone company can't censor me.
Should they just allow anybody to say anything, or do they have the right to put certain standards in place?
Well, let me tell you what my view is of what should be the situation, and then we can work backwards from there to where we actually are.
I think that adults should be able to decide how we consume all legal content.
Meaning, if as an adult user, getting legal content, now, again, legal content, I'm not talking about child exploitation.
I'm not talking about incitement, immediate incitement to violence, which again is a very high bar, but things that would immediately say go and kill or cause violence, these people, that's not legal.
Things that are fraudulent, those things are already well governed.
We don't need any moral laws.
So, adults, in my view, should be able to decide our own legal content.
That means if I sign up for Twitter or Facebook or X or LinkedIn or anybody else, I could just choose a bunch of filters.
I could choose the Andrew Clavin filter.
I could choose the Michael Schellenberger filter.
I could choose the Elon Musk filter.
I could choose the ADL filter.
I could choose the Joe Biden filter, the Greta Tunberg filter, whatever.
I could say, I don't want these things and I want them in that way.
That's how I think it should be.
If you want Section 230 protections, which are these sweeping liability protections allowed for in this 1996 law, then you should let adult users decide their own legal content.
That's my view.
If you're a publisher like the Daily Wire or Public at Substack or the New York Times, you publish whatever you want and you don't have sweeping liability, but you can, you can, that's how I think it should be.
What we're having right now is we're actually seeing in real time the social media companies basically getting treated like traditional publishers.
And in fact, you see a war going on between X and really the entire news media, save the conservative media or some more radical media that don't want the restrictions, where they're basically competing for advertisers.
And X is basically, and Facebook are basically going to be free to censor whoever they want, including under pressure from the government.
I think that's what the Supreme Court will ultimately permit.
And so, you're basically back to what's the difference then between a publisher and a social media platform.
As far as I could tell, the only difference is that one of them is much more powerful than the other.
I think we happen to be in a situation where we're very lucky to have someone that controls the most important social media platform who happens to have a very high free speech standard.
I don't know that it's possible to have an absolute free speech standard.
And Elon sometimes says he wants to comply with the local laws of the country.
I think it's clear that he goes beyond that in many cases to censor content that I think a lot of people would find offensive, including anti-Semitic content, for example. or really bullying content that under my scenario would probably still be legal, although I'd want it, people would have the right to filter it.
But that's kind of where we are now.
In other words, there's my ideal platonic reality that I would like to have.
And then there's the kluj, messy reality that we live in.
And I don't know quite how we get from here to there, if we ever do, but honestly, I walked away out of that Monday Supreme Court hearing thinking the First Amendment depends a lot more on Elon Musk than on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, I feel the same way.
And I feel like Musk is, you know, he's a kind of volatile guy.
So you don't always know where he's going to come down.
But it is interesting that he went from being the hero of the nation for having electric cars.
And suddenly his shoe size is under investigation by the FBI.
I mean, everything he does is under investigation suddenly, simply because he's letting people who disagree with the Biden administration speak.
So, you know, it's a threat.
And speaking of which, I mean, there is this thing going on in Ireland that kind of fascinating.
We're not hearing a lot about it here, but your reaction sort of startled me.
I have to admit, it kind of woke me up because your reaction to this was that this is a four, five alarm fire.
Can you explain what's going on over there and why you think it matters to us?
Well, it's a five-alarm fire, not just in Ireland, but in countries around the world.
I mean, it's very shocking.
I mean, you saw the Scottish police.
This is the front page story in the Scotland Herald, is that the Scottish police have been given instructions on enforcing a hate speech law, including against stand-up comedians.
Now, the response from the police in Scotland was to say, well, we're not targeting stand-up comedians.
But the point of the article was accurate, which is that this is a hate speech law that could be applied to stand-up comedians.
I mean, just think of Ricky Gervais or Dave Chappelle or Louis C.K. or Joe Rogan.
Think about them potentially being prosecuted for things they said.
That's the reality right now in Scotland.
In Ireland, the proposal is that the police be allowed to invade your home, confiscate your phones and your computers to search for hate speech.
In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau's party has proposed legislation that would allow up to life in prison sentences for hate speech, particularly genocide denial.
We're seeing in Brazil a huge push by the government to criminalize particular forms of speech.
And so for me, and the United Kingdom last year passed its online safety bill.
It's always the same name.
It's a hate speech law, online safety.
And whenever we have, we have a bunch of, we've done a bunch of reports on the investigative reports on each of these countries.
People can go to public.substack.com and look at them, but we've done them on Brazil, on Germany, on Canada, on the UK, on Ireland.
And what you see is the same set of actors in all of these countries.
Think tanks with very clear ties to governments and probably the intelligence community, groups like Assman Institute, which are heavily funded by the U.S. State Department, groups like the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, heavily funded by NATO and the Atlantic Council.
And you see them pushing for these laws alongside basically left or center left parties and political coalitions.
And then you see the same philanthropic actors, George Soros, Piero Midiar, Craig Newmark.
And you might think, well, maybe this is just cultural, maybe it's just political, but there is clearly an undercurrent in all these places of involvement by the state and particularly intelligence and security agencies.
It's very alarming.
And it clearly, all of the other research that we had been doing on censorship, we would see initiatives that came out of 2016, witnesses, trustworthy sources telling us that there were conversations, including at the Obama White House in early 2017, talking about they don't want a repeat of 2016, by which they meant first and foremost the election of Donald Trump, but also the Brexit.
So it is very clear to us that there was a counterpopulist reaction to the events of 2016, and that you started to see the various abuses of power, including to get censorship, but also to spread disinformation.
The case I worked on at Twitter was the Hunter Biden laptop and the way that both foreign and current FBI officials worked together inside the social media companies where some of them had worked from FBI, going to them and saying, hey, there might be some sort of Russian disinformation relating to Hunter Biden, doing that at the moment that FBI had the Hunter Biden laptop and were monitoring Rudy Giuliani, who was selling that story to the news media.
Those kinds of events should absolutely give you the creeps.
It appears to be part of a broader abuse of power, a broader weaponization of the government that we've seen, including around events of January 6th, the mysterious disappearance and deletion of all Secret Service text messages on January 6th, the mysterious appearance of two pipe bombs planted on January 5th, supposedly for January 6th, with a 60-minute kitchen timer, which meant there's no way they would have been planted on the 5th of the 6th.
FBI whistleblowers who talk about the entrapment of people to do a fake kidnapping hoax in Michigan.
These things are all proven.
These are not theories.
These are proven abuses of power of fitting a pattern of a counterpopulist backlash aimed at censorship, electoral interference, and even at greater extremes, the incarceration of political enemies of the state being proposed in places like Canada, Ireland, and Brazil.
How much of a conspiracy are you talking about?
Just so I'm clear, when you say that intelligence agencies are involved, you're talking about different countries.
You're talking about the English-speaking world, basically.
Are they in contact with each other?
Are they saying we have to stop this kind of thing from happening?
Well, the first thing to understand is that we know that the so-called Five Eyes nations, which are the English-speaking nations of the U.S., the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, who have been working.
We know they've been working together since World War II to spy for each other.
We know that with the Edward Snowden revelations of 2013, we know that they've been working together to engage in mass surveillance across countries.
And then we recently reported that John Brennan, the former director of the CIA under Obama, targeted 26 members that were 26 Trump associates for what they call, for appealing the intelligence community, call reverse targeting, where they would quote unquote bump a Trump associate.
Usually these were young and inexperienced guys.
George Papadopoulos is the most famous one, where somebody working for a foreign intelligence agency, an asset, you would say, would bump into them and say, hey, let's have a drink.
And they would report then back to the CIA that something was told to them about Trump campaign collusion with the Russians.
This, our story advanced on other stories that had come out until then, but we have good sources that tell us that there was a weaponization effectively of the Five Eyes spy network by John Brennan under the Obama administration in order to basically create the Russia collusion hoax.
Lesser Known Cyber Initiative00:02:18
That it wasn't just the steel memo, the famous PP memo that instigated the FBI involvement, but there was something else going on with the weaponization of the five eyes.
And then you've got another lesser known in the censorship research we've done, a lesser known initiative that we were given a whole trove.
So when we talk about the conspiracies, these are not theories.
All of this is based on documents and whistleblowers.
There was something called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League that was created, and it was created by two people, Pablo Brewer, who worked for the U.S. military at the time, and Sarah J. Terp, who worked for the British military at the time, working on an initiative that would basically engage in, that was looking to early initiative on censorship in 2017 through 2020 that was basically trying to hide censorship initiatives as cybersecurity.
And this was something we keep seeing over and over again, including tucking a major censorship initiative into the Department of Homeland Security's cybersecurity and infrastructure security administration and a CISA, tucking a kind of anti-misinformation or censorship initiative into cybersecurity.
So when we say how much of this is coordinated a lot across borders, it appears.
We also see coordination with the same philanthropies.
The two big ones are Soros and Amidiar, but also Craig Newmark.
We see similar think tanks involved, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, Atlantic Council.
And then we see similar tactics like hiding these things, claiming these things are cybersecurity, but also using the censorship.
This is an important and subtle distinction, often using the censorship as a way to spread disinformation.
I, for example, in 2020, I didn't give much credence to the Hunter Bayon laptop because it had been censored.
And I had thought, well, if it was evaluated by Twitter staff and they said that it was hacked materials, then it really looked fishy.
Turned out that Twitter's own staff had evaluated the Hunter Bayon laptop, found that it had not violated their terms of service.
And then because of pressure from the former general counselor from FBI inside Twitter, they reversed their decision and censored the Hunter Bayon laptop anyway.
Paint Your Life00:02:11
So I think you have to view it the way they view it.
The people involved in these influence operations, these disinformation operations, they view themselves as trying to get control of the information environment in general, and in particular to stomp out narratives that they're against.
Narratives meaning climate skepticism, COVID skepticism, vaccine hesitancy.
You know, they're trying to control the information environment and control how people think about the information, not just do censorship.
Censorship is sort of a crude tool for a bunch of very sophisticated people that are thinking next level and actually actively spreading disinformation in some cases.
You know, I sent a portrait to Paint Your Life a few years ago.
It was really fun.
The process was quick and easy, and I thought their work was great.
I held it up on the air.
It was really good.
It really looked like a portrait.
And I'm confident you'll like it too.
With Mother's Day and Father's Day around the corner, Paint Your Life is the perfect gift for someone you love.
They create hand-painted portraits that fit almost any budget and are a great gift idea for your mother, your father, or both.
Paint Your Life seriously transforms your photos into one-of-a-kind, beautiful hand-painted portraits by professional artists.
What I really love is how they can create anything you imagine, put yourself in a location you've always wanted to go to, or add a lost loved one to a special occasion to create the portrait of your dreams.
You can choose the artist, an art medium, whether that's oil, acrylic, watercolor, or charcoal.
They even have a great selection of quality frames.
Their user-friendly platform lets you order a custom-made hand-painted portrait in less than five minutes.
You'll get your professional hand-painted portrait in as little as two weeks.
Give the most meaningful gift with paintyourlife.com.
There's no risk.
If you don't love the final painting, your money's refunded, guaranteed.
And right now is a limited time offer.
You get 20% off your painting and free shipping.
To get this special offer, text the word Andrew to 87204.
That's Andrew to 87204.
Paint your life, celebrate the moments that matter most.
Message and data rates may apply.
See terms for details.
Fundamental Civil Rights Under Threat00:12:34
When you look at the normal media, the, you know, what they call the mainstream media for some reason, and you see, just, for instance, the thing that happened recently with Donald Trump talking about a bloodbath, which then became his war rate.
I mean, it was hilarious, but it was also kind of terrifying.
Are they consciously part of this?
Are they just useful idiots?
Well, that is an extremely interesting question.
And I don't have the full answer for it.
I mean, there's definitely a set of journalists who keep showing up, who are, I consider, very suspicious characters.
I think they're people at most innocently, you could say they're very close to the intelligence community.
You know, people like Brandy Zedrozny, for example, shows up a lot from NBC as somebody that kind of feeds a lot of the same narratives that you see coming out of the, you know, but they're also similar narratives that come out of the Democratic Party.
So sometimes you think is the Democratic Party, is the intelligence community who's feeding this stuff.
The bloodbath for me, I mean, I also think these journalists are all so well trained now.
I mean, they certainly look to each other.
There's a herd quality to it.
But the bloodbath thing did scare me a little bit in the sense that I see the way the media tries to twist the meaning of these things as ways of creating justifications for crackdowns that would violate fundamental civil rights and constitutional freedoms, including freedom of speech.
But we saw, for example, January 6th, you know, you see this whole thing was constructed as though it was a coup.
I mean, it was a, at best, it was a failure, an accidental failure of security.
At worst, it was a deliberate reduction of security in order to create chaos.
But the over-prosecution, the persecution of people who frankly were not, I mean, they shouldn't, I don't think they should have violated, they shouldn't have trespassed, they shouldn't have gone in there sure.
But these ridiculously long sentences, that appears to us to be part of a strategy to frame January 6th as a coup attempt.
I mean, many of my progressive friends and family think January 6th was a genuine coup attempt.
And I explained, I said, you know, I mean, I've done work in Latin America.
I'm familiar with the history of coups.
That's you, coups, you have tanks attacking the Congress to take over the media.
It's not a bunch of guys hanging from, you know, trying to kind of clamber in and then walking through.
It's just a real confusion.
But I do think a lot of Americans were, they had been, they had been, I mean, we're looking at basically a disinformation effort that went from 2016 until today, aimed at framing Trump supporters as a threat to democracy, as violent extremists.
And that's the same playbook then they use all over the world.
The German farmers are being portrayed as violent extremists.
The Canadian truckers, violent extremists.
As a reporter, you know, you go out and you, I did interview the Dutch farmers.
They're very similar characters as the German farmers.
They're farmers.
They're mad because the energy prices are high.
They're actually not, I mean, sure, there's conspiracy theories everywhere.
And maybe there's some German, maybe there's some German farmers that are like sympathetic to Putin, but the framing of the farmers as though they're Russian agents, that they're committing, that they're at risk of violence, that's very creepy and totalitarian.
And I really should chill you.
And we have to push back against it right away.
So when I hear the bloodbath thing, I go, well, there they go again.
They're going to try to suggest that Trump and his supporters are dangerous violent extremists.
And I say this, by the way, as an independent, never voted for Trump.
I'm not going to vote this year.
I like being an independent journalist, but I am very disturbed by this.
It's not just demonization.
It is, but I worry that they're trying to create a predicate, a justification for violating civil liberties and interfering in the election.
You recently, and another great coup, by the way, I really appreciate any investigative reporting that's going on.
You recently released a catch-up documents from the World Professional Association of Transgender Health, WPATH, I think they call it, and that showed immense abuses and actually seems to have moved the British government to curtail the national health's use of hormone blockers on children.
Can you explain what was in that catch of documents to begin with?
Well, sure.
And I think, you know, and probably most of your listeners and a lot of Daily Wire readers and supporters know that they are giving puberty blockers to kids at very young ages to stop their puberty.
They're giving testosterone to girls, estrogen to boys who think that they're the opposite sex, and they're even performing surgeries on children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults.
The documents that we received, which included written discussions from a discussion board that's part of this transgender health organization called WPATH and a video, what was so damning about it, I think there was a lot about it, but it showed extreme medical mistreatment, extreme mistreatment of children, adolescents, people with schizophrenia, people that were homeless, people that were in psychotic states,
people that were clearly not in a state of mind.
And you could, I mean, even if you think there are people who were born into the wrong body, it's not something I believe.
I think we're all born out of the right body, but nonetheless, even if you did believe that, they're not even attempting to disentangle it from schizophrenia or multiple personalities now known as dissociative identity disorder or from or from anxiety or from autism or just being gay.
So that was one of the first shocking things.
The second shocking thing is that particularly in the video, these WPATH members admit that they are not getting what is known as informed consent from either the children or their parents.
And that's up there with do no harm.
You can't do things to people without them understanding what you're doing to them.
Like that's a violation, a fundamental violation of medical ethics.
And yet there they are having a Zoom conversation talking about how the 14 year old doesn't understand that they will be sterile and what the implications of sterility are for them.
And instead, and there they are having that conversation.
And instead of saying, well, therefore, we shouldn't perform these surgeries on the 14-year-old or give them puberty blockers, they say, yeah, it's a real gap.
They say a real lacuna, a gap in our research.
Well, it's not a gap.
It's a fundamental problem.
These children cannot consent.
Look, my view is, well, anyway, that's what they say.
I walk away from it and I was like, puberty is a fundamental human right and that nobody has the right to take away anybody's puberty and their ability to grow up into an adult.
We say these things should not be occurring to children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults.
Maybe there's some adults, you know, who, you know, they go through a whole set of things to be sure that this is not some other mental illness.
I'm open to that.
But this is really people that are clearly, they don't know what's happening to them.
I think it's probably the biggest medical mistreatment scandal in modern history.
It's certainly as bad as Tuskegee and lobotomies, but it might be worse because there's just so many more people that have been impacted and it's been going on for such a long time.
No, I frequently say that if Mengele had explained this stuff to Hitler, Hitler would have recoiled in horror.
I think that, I mean, it's just amazing that it's going on in a country of this level of sophistication.
Is there some and I don't want to get, I'm not trying to get, you know, crazy conspiratorial, but is there some connection between this transgender ideology, which seems to me literally psychotic, the environmental panic, which just seems ill-informed to me and completely unbased in any science?
You know, there is some kind of climate change, but there always is.
And the censorship effort, are these things related?
I mean, is there something, some connection there, thread there that helps the is there some reason you keep coming back to the same organizations, finding them all supporting the same thing?
Yeah, I think so.
I think they have a lot to do with each other.
And I would say the first thing you would notice is that on each of those issues, you see liberal elites in particular, who are in some ways the most civilized members of your civilization.
They're the best educated.
They're the wealthiest.
They're the most informed.
They are directly attacking fundamental pillars of liberal democratic civilization.
So if you just kind of go down the list, you go, what does a civilization require at a minimum?
It requires cheap energy, law and order, and meritocracy.
If you want the civilization to be a liberal democracy, then you need free speech, free and fair elections, and equal justice under the law.
If you would like the civilization to continue, then you need to have reproduction and you need to produce more human beings and have more children.
So you kind of go, there's seven fundamental pillars of liberal democratic civilization, and they're all under attack.
And the attack is basically focused on treating those pillars as obstacles to taking care of people or taking care of the natural environment.
And I think that there was these, Jonathan Haidt, the psychologist, talks about how traditional cultures and conservatives all hold a set of core values around things like freedom, tradition, loyalty, sanctity, purity.
But that what characterizes progressives, liberals, is that they really opt out of them and they focus on a single one, which is care and compassion.
In San Francisco, I amend his theory to say that progressives still use those, have those other values, but they're only for the victims.
And so you've got something called victimhood ideology that divides the world into victims and oppressors.
And to victims, everything should be given and nothing required.
They're actually made sacred.
The victims are viewed as sacred and special nature.
Everything should be given.
And so they can have, so they, all of those things, freedom, you know, the freedom to use drugs publicly, camp anywhere you want, you know, do whatever you want.
Those are extended to people that have been categorized as victims.
And of course, in the case of people that are suffering psychiatric disorders, whether it's addiction or gender dysphoria or anxiety, it's the worst thing in the world to affirm those disorders.
You want to actually talk back to them through what you might call cognitive behavioral therapy or stoicism or just keeping a stiff upper lip in the British tradition.
And so what progressives are doing is they're affirming psychiatric disorders.
They're undermining these core pillars of civilization.
And they're really doing it because they're in the grip of a religion.
You might call it wokeism.
And it has a kind of different organizing principle.
We used to want to be right by God.
Now you want to be right by nature and climate change.
So the entire economy has to get reorganized for climate change.
You used to have an idea of meritocracy.
Now we're going to reintroduce a racialist hierarchy.
It wasn't even good enough to have people of color.
They had to have BIPOC, Black, Indigenous over everybody else.
And then on gender, you're really talking the idea, the big idea is that there are some people who are born into the wrong bodies, meaning they have gendered souls that are different from their body.
So this is, I think, a consequence of nihilism, the secularization of the society.
You have people that don't believe in traditional religions.
Some people are able to maintain a commitment to liberal democratic civilization while being atheists.
Steve Pinker, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, these are the famous kind of anti-woke liberals who are also atheists.
But I just think a lot of other woke people, they end up, other progressive people, they end up needing to create a new religion and that's what they've done.
And so you've got these kind of a woke religion that's created this fanaticism and this dogmatism that then ends up undermining those fundamentals of civilization, including free speech.
They don't want free speech.
They just want to impose this orthodoxy on the society.
That was as concise and complete an answer to a very complicated question as I think I've ever gotten.
Nihilism's New Religion00:00:51
Michael Schellenberger, thank you so much.
Where do you want people to start looking for your stuff if they're trying to find you?
Well, people can certainly find me on X at Schellenberger or on the substack, which is public.substack.com.
Yeah, I recommend the Substack highly.
It's really great.
Michael, I hope you come back again.
I really enjoyed talking to you.
Thank you.
I'd love that.
I'd love to come back.
Thanks, Andrew.
Appreciate you.
That was terrific.
And I really do recommend his substack.
I think that along with culture and art and entertainment, what conservatives, if I may call them that, people trying to conserve freedom and conserve the liberal world order, what they need is investigative reporting, reporting power.
We don't have enough of it.
That is, Michael Schellenberger is an excellent reporter.
And if you want to get more wonderful satire, entertainment, and commentary, you want to come to the Andrew Clavin Show on Fridays.