Deciphering the Progressive Religion: Environmentalism, Trans, & Anti-Semitism

Join us in an engaging conversation as we delve into the mysterious roots of modern leftist beliefs. We explore the perceived borderline theological nature of these beliefs and address three main areas: environmentalism, trans politics, and genetics. The discussion highlights the urban monoculture's tendency to ascribe moral value to perceived weakness, creating a 'noble obligation' that diverges from traditional self-preservation instincts. We also touch on the inherent mistrust of advancement, the industrial revolution, and the anti-human sentiment among progressives, drawing comparisons with historical and cultural contexts. This episode provides valuable insights into the cultural and ideational forces shaping present-day ideological dynamics.

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Hello Simone. I am excited to be here with you today. Today we are going to be tackling and, and trying to work our way through something that I see as particularly an interesting mystery that I don't know if I have a formal thesis on what's causing it yet but it is when I look at you know, the urban monoculture from which, you know, modern leftist culture derives itself.

Where it holds beliefs that I would say appear to an outsider to be borderline theological. And, and it is a sin to go against these particular beliefs. Most frequently these beliefs fall into a few categories. Environmentalism is a really big one. Another one is trans politics is a really big one.

And then another one is genetics is a really big one. And I'm, I'm like actually like, sort of [00:01:00] surprised because not all of these things are like intrinsic to a leftist worldview. How they arrived and consolidated around these particular areas. Where they most frequently say things that just like on face value or was like the littlest bit of research are not true.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: You know, this can be, you know, in genetics it's like, well, everyone has exactly the same capabilities. And it's like they, they very obviously don't, like if you, if you do even the basis look at science, some of our. Proclivities and traits have a her component. Like that's a weird thing to claim.

And people can be like, oh, well this is like downstream of like fears about like nazim and eugenics and stuff like that. And I'm like. Maybe, but it's weird that it's so core to the way they see the world. And Min was environmentalism. There's this form of not real environmentalism, but aesthetic environmentalism.

I persistently see them retreat to mm-hmm. You know, where like they're taking [00:02:00] down like nuclear power plants in Germany. Despite their only other source of energy being like Russian oil, which is like obviously dirtier, but like as environmentalists we're anti-nuclear. Like, and, and it's not just that, it's also like when I mention something like this is like reporters frequently have like a visceral reaction when I tell them fertility collapse will affect people's lives more in the next hundred years than global warming will.

And they're like, are you sure you don't wanna restate that? Like, they see this as like an absolutely insane thing to say. Like I'm saying the sky is red. When I say global, it's not the most important thing. Or they're like, well, don't you care about like a, a, a huge. Collapse in the number of species you know, like a mass extinction.

And I'm like, a mass extinction is bad. Like it's not awesome. There are consequences of a mass extinction. They're not existential consequences. Like it's, it's, it's, it's [00:03:00] bad. Like it's not great. I'm not aiming for it, but it's not, you know, threatening to human survival or even the existing way that we structured our civilizations.

Simone Collins: Mm-hmm.

Malcolm Collins: In the way that they seem to be like implying it is. And I don't think that they really believe it is either. They're not afraid of a mass extinction because of humans. They're afraid of a mass extinction because the mass extinction matters. So as somebody who used to, I think you maybe used to genuinely hold some of these beliefs, maybe you can explain to me sort of how they work and, and where they're coming from.

Simone Collins: I think maybe a lot of people steeped in the urban monoculture, super progressive modern religion have this modern version of noble abl in that they're indoctrinated in. That leads them to believe that their purpose is to protect anything that is perceived as less [00:04:00] capable of defending itself than they are that the last person for them to defend is anything close to them because they come from this position of privilege.

So it's different from the old concept of noble obl, which I think had a little bit more of a self preservation instinct. This one's a more like suicidal form of noble obl, if that makes sense. That's just like, I don't matter. I am wretched. And I must protect all that, which is. Relatively more defenseless.

Malcolm Collins: That's a really interesting point. So essentially they ascribe automatic moral value to whatever they perceive to be the weaker party.

Simone Collins: Greater victimhood holds higher moral val value. And that is indeed, I think why oppression Olympics kind of went out of hand because I think some people have a deeper instinct to still want to be at the top of a dominance hierarchy.

And they realized intuitively. That they could only be at the top of the dom hierarchy by being more of a victim. And that's why you get every, everything from people playing oppression [00:05:00] Olympics to wealthy to middle class teenage girls becoming spoons and playing, yeah. Oppression Olympics by getting sick.

Well, this

Malcolm Collins: explains a lot. It, is it, yeah. That, that part explains where you get this like invented trans identity and I think that the, like the, the, the, yeah. Well, it also

Simone Collins: explains why. In those heat maps, for example. And sort of research of the, yeah, progressive versus conservative brain. Progressives hold more things as having moral weight that are not their family, their immediate community in themselves.

That makes

Malcolm Collins: sense. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense actually. But there's

Simone Collins: more than just that. I think there's an inherent distrust of advancement. I. And the concept of manifest destiny or conquering the natural world. And I think this is why among progressive circles, the book Sapiens took on so much.

I've never heard a conservative, I. Talk about Sapiens. Yes. And, and be like, oh, sapiens, my dad. [00:06:00] And like a big, a big aspect or thesis of Sapiens. So it's admittedly been almost 10 years since I've first read it. Is that hated, hated I made me so angry. It's just wrong. It's like just sort of talks about how.

Everything kind of went downhill after agriculture and our teeth got horrible and we'd lived in stressful environments and we'd lived in diseased cities, and it was just always so bad and like, oh, somehow our hunting gathering period was so wonderful. And I think the reason why that resonated so much with educated, progressive audiences is that there is this inherent mistrust of modernity and of conquering.

For example, nature. And I think this is also seen in the contrast between the way that conservatives have historically engaged with the environment and conservation. Versus how progressives have engaged with the environment. So conservatives are all like, yes, conservation. Like, let's go out hunting. Like let's go out camping.

Let's enjoy conquering [00:07:00] nature and protect it so we can keep conquering it. Yeah. Aga