Michael Schellenberger

Rank 43 of 47
|
Score -94
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
9d
@vonderleyen I will be speaking on December 17 to the EU parliament about the clear and present danger to the EU and the West by the totalitarian policies of @vonderleyen. She and her bosses, @EmmanuelMacron & @_FriedrichMerz , are threatening the security of Europe.
12/10/2025, 2:04:09 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
13d
The EU says it wants "transparency." In reality, its agenda requires secrecy. The EU demonizes the West for colonialism and climate change; it thus seeks to destroy it through de-industrialization and mass migration. Free speech on X stands in the way of civilization suicide.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
13d
Europe’s €140M fine on X isn’t censorship, it claims. But it is. Europe is pursuing the same censorship-by-proxy strategy used in the US from 2020 - 22. The reason is that free speech on X, particularly around mass migration, has exposed Europe’s civilizational suicide.

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing issues of censorship, transparency, and migration policies in the EU. It presents a critical view of the EU's actions, suggesting they are harmful to Western civilization.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language that could be seen as inflammatory, potentially causing harm by escalating tensions. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It accuses the EU of secrecy and censorship, which could be seen as disrespectful and lacking in empathy. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or compassion, instead framing the EU's actions as a threat. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in criticism but does so in a way that could be perceived as personal attacks rather than constructive dialogue. [-2]