0:00 - Introduction to the Guilt Religion
22:02 - Disease and Its Impact
25:37 - Warfare and Conflict
30:39 - Understanding Genocide
33:57 - The Fight Against Guilt
In this episode, I delve deep into the pervasive narrative surrounding historical interactions between European settlers and Native American populations. My aim is to strip away layers of guilt and misinformation that have been woven into our collective consciousness and challenge the dominant Marxist interpretations that have taken root in modern discourse. This is not merely a historical inquiry; it's a critical examination of the beliefs that influence our understanding of race relationships today.
I begin by addressing the standard narrative taught in many academic circles, often portraying European colonizers as ruthless aggressors who indiscriminately slaughtered peaceful Native populations. This oversimplification feeds into a contemporary guilt culture that condemns modern individuals for actions and events that occurred centuries ago. I argue that this viewpoint not only distorts history but is also damaging to both white individuals, burdened by an unjust legacy, and to the descendants of indigenous peoples, who are portrayed as mere victims with no agency over their own fate.
Utilizing historical census data, I explore demographic trends that challenge the notion of a complete genocide. By examining early population estimates and their trajectories, I illuminate how interactions between races were often much more complex than simple extermination. I discuss the theory of migration patterns from Siberia to the Americas, highlighting how Native Americans adapted to their environment and how significant population shifts occurred long before European contact due to factors such as climate change and disease.
As we analyze these dynamics, I confront the contentious issue of population decline among Native Americans post-contact, primarily attributing it to the rapid spread of diseases introduced by Europeans, not outright violence. I unpack the concept of ìvirgin soil epidemics," drawing attention to how illness ravaged populations who had no immunity against new pathogensónot through malicious intent but through unintended consequences of the New Worldís opening up to European colonization.
Throughout the episode, I emphasize that the narrative of genocide often hinges on fixed numbers designed to provoke emotional responses rather than informed discussions. I present evidence showing that estimates of initial indigenous populations vary widelyósuggesting the need for caution when interpreting these figures. I dissect the implications of these estimates in terms of understanding historical population dynamics and the role of intermarriage in reshaping genetic legacies rather than resulting in obliteration.
I also acknowledge the darker aspects of human interaction such as violence and war, while contrasting these with documented instances of cooperation and coexistence. I emphasize that atrocities were committed on both sides and that history is rife with moments of cruelty and honor alike. Highlighting conflicts such as King Philip's War, I present a nuanced view that recognizes the complexities of warfare and cultural exchanges between European settlers and Native tribes.
As we draw conclusions, I reiterate the importance of reframing the guilt narrative tied to European ancestry. There exists a counter-narrative that suggests the true history of European interactions with Native Americans is a lot more intricate than mere guilt-inducing tales. Instead of embracing self-loathing, I advocate for embracing a factual understanding that recognizes the advancements and morals of Western civilization, including its role in promoting the end of practices like slavery and promoting human rights.
Ultimately, this episode is a clarion call for individuals to awaken to the realities of their history, combat the continued spread of false narratives, and demand a comprehensive view that encompasses both the sufferings of Native Americans and the responsible actions taken by Europeans. It is imperative to recognize who influences the current narrative and why a grounded understanding offers a path toward healing and dialogue, rather than self-destructive guilt.
[0:00] Hi everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio. I hope you're doing well, and I hope you're as sick and tired as I am of being lied to about everything all the time. Your history is lied about in order to control your future. I'm sick and tired of it, and I'm going to help you break out of the matrix of Marxist delusions that have birthed our self-destructive modern culture. So, standard narrative. I took a course on race relations when I was in college, and this is what I was taught, a bunch of nonsense.
[0:31] White Europeans came and slaughtered all of the native populations of the Americas. Said native populations were kumbayaing, living in harmony with nature, peaceful, lovely people, and, oh, by the way, also white people gave blankets laced with smallpox to natives and killed them all that way. So this was the narrative now there is a guilt religion currently infesting and dominating the world it strides over the world like a colossus squishing civilization in its path and it is the provocation of guilt largely in white people that is causing the atomic self-destruction of western civilization which really is the best civilization the world has ever produced and this um guilt ultra-religion you can see coming out of marxism you know racism and race baiting and so on these are all marxist terms invented by leon trotsky and it's it's tragic it's tragic because it's false and because it's false it means that we are bewildered and confused and self-destructive you can't blindfold people set them down in a sandstorm and expect them to find their way to a better future it is insulting to everyone involved in these narratives of every race and ethnicity, so we are going to set the record straight.
[1:44] The sources, as always, are below. Please, I look forward to your comments, and like, share, and subscribe. These videos are very, very important. So, this guilt religion currently is a $3 billion annual narrative profit windfall just in the United States. That's the 9,000 employees of various agencies who manage the 1 million natives who are currently on reservations.
[2:10] This doesn't even count the tax-free subsidies and all the other stuff that goes on where basically they've gone from hunter-gatherers of bison to hunter-gatherers of white gamblers on their casinos. So it's a pretty tragic outcome as a whole.
[2:25] Let's ask, of course, first, where did Native Americans come from? Well, the latest theory is, and it seems to be a good theory in my opinion, Siberia. Native Americans descended from ancient Siberians who crossed over a land bridge between Asia and North America, sort of Alaska, between 26,000 and 18,000 years ago. And then when sea levels rose after the last ice age, before they had SUVs to warm the air, the land bridge disappeared. And I guess the genotype got sort of isolated. It's a bit of a tricky thing. I'd heard rumors that there was an original population in the Americas that was decimated by the modern Native Americans. And that's because, according to a researcher, modern Native Americans closely resemble people of China, Korea, and Japan, but the oldest American skeletons do not. Now, this appears to be in some disrepute at the moment, so the theory now is that 18,000 to 26,000 years ago, when the Siberians crossed over the Beringia land bridge, what happened was they simply have evolved since then from their earliest ancestors. So 10,000 years can be a huge amount of time in evolution. The major races have been separated for between 50,000 and 150,000 years, and a lot of evolution has happened to differentiate the species since then.
[3:52] So, with regards to this.
[3:56] Genocide. How are we going to figure out what the truth is? Well, we know somewhat the end population. The question is, what was the beginning population? So you go back to about 1500 before the white people came, figure out how many of the natives lived in North America, and then figure out what happened. Now, the methodology that is often used is population density. So you can find a bunch of ancient settlements, you can figure out how many people lived there, how many people were in the area, and then extrapolate it to land of similar quality with similar characteristics.
[4:28] And in general, this seems to result in sort of an overcounting of settlements. Of course, the natives in America were hunter-gatherers. A lot of them, some were farmers, but most were hunter-gatherers. So they moved around a lot. So they'd have the winter camps, the summer camps, spring camps, and so on, and just move around a lot. So it's sort of like trying to count the average homes in America by trying to figure out how many vacation homes John McCain has. It's a little bit, he's a bit of a nomad. And that can be a little bit hard to figure out. Semi-nomadic tribes, of course, can move from place to place, have multiple settlements. So when you try to correct for all of that, oh, and also, a lot of the fertile land was unoccupied for a variety of reasons. So indigenous population estimates come to about this sort of north, like America and Canada, to come to about 1.5 million. If you take global averages of population density for hunter-gatherers, which is 0.1 persons per square kilometer, and if you include Alaska and Canada, that gives you just under 2 million people in North America before the whites came. And I don't know, right now, like 90% of the population in Canada is huddled down at the 48th parallel. I don't go far north. So I don't know if you want to include Alaska and sort of northern Canada, or at least not much southern Canada in that, but nonetheless, between 1.5 and 2 million people in North America. There are different levels.
[5:57] Numbers which we'll get into in a sec but this is um a good a good place to start now as far as the guilt religion goes if you're on the left right if you're a cultural marxist if you're a socialist if you're on the left in general you want to push these numbers as high as humanly possible so that it makes a stronger case for the population decline which we'll talk about first being recorded uh in the mid-19th century the higher you can get the initial numbers the more you can make the case for genocide so on the left there is an incentive to push these numbers up just by beware as far as caution goes with this narrative so there is um some higher estimates some people have said um oh there were 7 million oh no there were 18 million um but that means 16 million in the united states and they've left very sparse remnants behind it's pretty hard to believe fossils very hard to find from sort of dinosaurs and so on but if there were 16 million million people in the United States, they would have left a pretty significant footprint. Personally, I find that a little hard to believe, and I just put it out there so that you can get a sense of the range. The point, of course, is that nobody has any clear idea, but there are various methodologies which, depending upon what you like to consume, you can find. So 1853, first official census, population of Indians, 400,764.
[7:23] 1860, 339,421. 1880, 306,453. So that's a pretty precipitous decline. Here we go, 1850 to 1880 is 27 years, down almost 100,000 from only 400,000. So this is where people are getting this. However, here's the reality. Let's take 2 million natives as a starting point.
[7:51] By 1853, the population had dropped by 1.6 million, and by 1880, by 1.7 million. That is a huge drop, and this is where people get this idea of genocide, decimation, and so on, which we're going to unpack as we go forward. So that is an 80% decline in population. However, that is over 360 years. So if you get an 80% decline in population from 2 million over 360 years, That is 4,444 natives per year, or a decline of 0.22% per year of the original population. Sounds a little less catastrophic when put into those terms.
[8:32] Now, hunter-gatherer populations do not have robust population growth, to put it mildly. Once they reach the environmental carrying capacity, which is how much of hunter-gatherers the local ecological environment can support, it's basically zero. So the question then becomes, where cometh the decline? Well, there are generally three possibilities concerning population reduction. Number one, dying off. Number two, low birth rates. Number three, intermarriage, also known as Europe, Europe, and Europe. So, where did they go? Well, in 2014, there were almost 200 million non-Hispanic whites in America, not of course counting Elizabeth Warren, on average they contained 0.18% Native American genes. So if you're going to wipe out a population, you don't breed with them. You don't allow them to breed with you. There's no miscegenation. All that happens is you go wipe them out. So the question is, how did so much Native American genetics get into the non-Hispanic white population? Now this is 2014. A lot of people came over in the 20th century who would not have had nearly as much of a chance to interbreed with the natives. So.
[9:48] If you take the 200 million with 0.18% Native American genes, that is the equivalent of 356,167 full natives, quote, contained inside the genetics of the white population. So there's a transfer there of the genetics. For U.S. blacks, they're the equivalent of 31,143 natives inside the genetics of the black population. That's relatively low, 0.18%, more than 10 times lower than the average American black has 20% white or European genetics or admixture. Now, Latinos in the United States have a Native American admixture of 18%, but most likely those are not from North America. So the 50,477,594 Latinos carry the genetics of a little over 9 million native americans inside their populations this is strong case that a lot of this population decline occurred as a result of uh interbreeding now in 2014 those who directly self-report as native americans number just under 3 million people.
[11:00] So over a few hundred years the european control of north america has increased Native American genetic expression enormously. Diluted, no question, but it has increased. That is not technically, or even allegorically, genocide in any way, shape. Genocide is when the gene pool gets wiped out, not when it flourishes through admixture and spread into the host population.
[11:27] So this is percent of newlyweds in 2013 who married someone of a different race. Again, we're looking for evidence as to why native populations have declined. So, 7% of whites married someone from another race, 16% of blacks, 28% of Asians, and 58% American Indians wished to, or did in fact, marry somebody of a different race. Also, American Indians have the lowest birth rate of ethnicities that are studied in this area in the United States. So, marrying outside the community, having fewer children as a whole, that's not very good for your population, but that's not genocide. All right. Genocide, of course, the wholesale destruction of, in whole or in part, a native population. Now, female Native American mitochondrial DNA were kept largely intact, right? So, this is DNA that passes through only the females. Now, if there's a general wiping out of the population, there should not be a continuation of this mitochondrial DNA. So this means that families remained intact and women were not killed in general, but instead were mated with. Now, when it comes to accounting for the Native American population decline.
[12:47] If only one in 454 Native Americans married a European, that accounts for the entire Native American population decline. If only one in 454 Native Americans married a European. And in the hundreds of years of close contact, in an unregulated frontier, where there often weren't a lot of women around, and also where hypergamy, the woman's desire to marry up, might have triggered the Native American woman's desire to mate with a white who had superior technology and better food and better medicine and all that kind of stuff, is it inconceivable that one in 454 Native Americans married a European? Well, if you can believe that, that accounts for the entire population decline simply through miscegenation.
[13:31] Atrocities. Now, of course, there were atrocities, and we'll mention a few, the Trail of Tears and so on, of whites on natives. But what you don't hear is, thanks Graham Green, is the other side of the coin. S.C. Gwynne, the author of Empire of the Summer Moon, has said about the Comanche, no tribe in the history of the Spanish, French, Mexican, Texan, and American occupations of this land had ever caused so much havoc and death. None was even a close second. Gwynne spoke of the demonic immorality of Comanche attacks on white settlers. The Comanche usually tortured, killed, or gang-raped their victims. Now, there was a wide variety of levels of aggression in Native American tribes, but there were some generally ISIS-style bastards among them as well. In South Dakota, a mass grave has been discovered containing the remains of over 500 scalped and mutilated men, women, and children. This has been dated to the 14th century, so that's long before the whites arrived. Later on. So this is what was occurring. Again, is this emblematic of all Native American culture? Of course not. But it was happening, and this was part of what was occurring.
[14:49] Let's get to the big elephant flea in the room, disease. Now, before we start this, understand, disease has rolled back and forth across history many, many, many times. It's a phenomena known by scholars as a virgin soil epidemic. So a new population brings highly contagious diseases for which the local population has little to no immunity. So.
[15:15] That's, in Kyrgyzstan, thought by some to be the origins of the Black Death. Now, the Black Death jumped onto the fleas, which jumped onto the rats, which jumped onto the ships. Trade with the Orient brought the Black Death or the bubonic plague to Europe. And, my goodness, it was unbelievable.
[15:36] Unbelievable. 75 to 200 million people died from this, and it peaked in Europe from 1346 to 1353. And came in waves thereafter. And it was used as a bioweapon. There's reports of people taking armies who were sieging cities, taking corpses, loading them up in their catapults, and flinging them over to hopefully infect the people in the cities and so on. And it was brutal on the Europeans. Does anybody go back to Kyrgyzstan and say, Ah, you genocidal bastards releasing the bioweapons, you must have given blankets infected with blackness. It just happens. It's unbelievably brutal, and it's happening now. We've got the Zika virus. There was Ebola recently and also has resurged a little bit. Right now, 22% of landed Middle Eastern migrants in Minnesota test positive for tuberculosis compared to 4% who test positive for the latent strain in the United States as a whole. So this is one of the great challenges of diversity. Diversity means horrifying pathogens that you are not prepared to deal with. And I mean, smallpox was brutal and devastating on the European population as a whole, even if you survived, you got all these god-awful Brian Adams-style scars and so on.
[16:55] And then the germ theory of disease was not understood at the time. So UCLA professor Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs, and Steel, The Fates of Human Societies, has written, quote, throughout the Americas, diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe, far in advance of the Europeans themselves, killing an estimated 95% of the pre-Columbian Native American population. The most populous and highly organized Native societies of North America, the Mississippian chiefdoms, disappeared in that way between 1492 and the late 1600s, even before the Europeans themselves made their first settlement on the Mississippi River. He goes on to say the main killers were old world germs to which Indians had never been exposed, and against which they therefore had neither immune nor genetic resistance. Smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus ranked top among the killers. As for the most advanced native societies of the North Americas, those of the U.S. Southeast and the Mississippi River system, their destruction was accomplished largely by germs alone, introduced by early European explorers and advancing ahead of them. See, this is really, really important to understand. It wasn't like the sickly Europeans hugged the healthy natives and killed them that way.
[18:15] The bacilli, the germs, the viruses, the pathogens as a whole, raced ahead of the Europeans, destroying the native settlements and villages. And then what happened was, we see here Plymouth colony leader John Whitthrop said that the pilgrims discovered their new territory was virtually empty of people. He said but for the natives in these parts god hath so pursued them as for 300 miles space the greatest part of them are swept away by smallpox which still continues among them so as god hath thereby cleared our title to this place those who remain in these parts being in all not 50 have put themselves under our protection and you know this is one of these sort of inevitable unavoidable tragedies. But nature is the genocidal agent here, not Europeans. Europeans and the natives had initially not too bad a set of relations. Of course, the Europeans wanted to Christianize the natives, as they've wanted to do around the world. The natives were not hugely interested. It's important to remember, technologically speaking, there are arguments to be made that the natives in North America were about 7,000 to 10,000 years behind the Europeans in terms of social, cultural, artistic, and technological development. They had It had very little written language. I mean, it was a very, very primitive culture.
[19:36] And how often does it work out well when these two kinds of cultures come into you? Contact so let's look at the effects of smallpox on the population so estimates for the pre-columbian before 1492 amerindian population above the rio grande ranged from 900 000 to 12.5, million so it's a bit of a spread so let's say let's take the this upper estimate if 90 percent, of 12.9 the last guy said 95 percent we'll take a lower estimate 90 percent of 12.5 million were wiped out by epidemics, there would be 1.25 million remaining natives, right? So 10% of 12.5 million, 1.25 million. If 90% of the low estimate of 900,000 died, there would only have been 90,000 left. If we take the earlier estimate, let's just say of 2 million, and say 95% of them died from diseases, then we're talking only 100,000 natives left. And these are decimated by germs that are are spreading long before the Europeans arrive. They land on rats, which go along with bats, who knows what, right? But the germs raise ahead of the Europeans, kill off the natives, the Europeans come and say, well, I guess the land might as well be ours because there's nobody here left alive to use it. Now today, there are 6.7 million members of the Aboriginal population above the Rio Grande.
[21:02] So even if we take the very highest possible post-Smallpox estimate, the overall Aboriginal original population has grown five times over since the arrival of Euro-Christians.
[21:15] The original population, like the worst case scenario, most people, most decimated, it's still grown five times, because if 90% of the 12.5 million wiped out by epidemics, 1.25 million left, now it's 6.7 million, so it's five times or so. And it could be hundreds of times if the lower estimates at 100,000 or 200,000 were left, now they're up to 6.7 million, That is not a genocide. That's quite the opposite. That is an increase in the population. And look, we understand this morally. If you are infected with a disease, you don't even know it. No one tells you about it. There's no symptoms. Nobody knows what's going on. And you go and hug some family member and unknowingly, unwittingly infect that family member with your disease. We would consider that a terrible tragedy.
[22:02] We would not charge you with murder. Come on. I mean, this is not that morally complicated.
[22:11] And it wasn't just the direct effects of the disease, right? So often, so many adult natives were incapacitated by disease that the others, right, the pregnant women, the children who relied on their food gathering, died from starvation. Sometimes as many died from hunger as died from disease.
[22:28] Now, these stories, which I was told repeatedly, deliberate infection via smallpox blankets, and I've talked about it in this show, and I apologize for that. I can't research everything all the time, but when I get better information, I will clear the decks and put it forward, so please note, and we'll make notes on all the shows about that when we come across them. So, deliberate infection from smallpox blankets. Well, these are based entirely on two letters from British soldiers in 1763. Not a government program, not a government policy, no evidence that it was actually done. Now, in 1763, this is long after smallpox had actually peaked, and there's no evidence of a significant outbreak as a result of this vaguely theoretical bioweapon. And there's a scientific debate about whether this kind of infection, you know, with blankets, is even biologically possible. And recently, University of Michigan researchers discovered that one of the most prolific slash leftist advocates of the smallpox blanket myth, his name is Ward Churchill, actually created fake sources to invent this story, which I consider that are unbelievably reprehensible. As I said, the natives who were exposed to the pathogens were the ones who brought the pathogens everywhere else to North America, as well as other animals where the pathogens could hide. So a lot of the British explorers and settlers found these empty and abandoned death chambers of settlements greatly reduced populations, and often tried to treat them as kindly as they could.
[23:55] So again, estimates are 75 to 90% of all native deaths resulted from disease. We got 75 to 95, but a huge amount. And of course, there is the starvation. And being too weak to hunt means the disease might not kill you. But being too weak to hunt means that you don't get the nutrition you need to fight off the illness and you die. Now, underreported in the destruction of the Americas, native population of the Americas, is or are seals. Seals, those pathogen-laced bastards. In Peru, bacterial genome sequences harvested from human remains seemed to indicate that it was seals who first brought tuberculosis to humans in the Americas.
[24:45] Just things that blow my mind. Seals! Those sealy bastards. Now, if it's a genocide, we should want to keep medicine as far away from the people we're trying to kill off, right? But the American government tried to inoculate the natives against smallpox. It was in the late 1700s that the smallpox vaccine was first developed. Under President Thomas Jefferson in 1801, the American government tried to inoculate natives against smallpox. Ah, well, they tried for three decades, AIDS, but some indifference from local authorities combined with fears of the natives that it was some kind of trick meant that it was slow going, considerably, but the program did eventually help to reduce mortality from smallpox. Again, that's not genocide if you're trying to help the people not get sick from what is killing them.
[25:37] Now, warfare, diversity plus proximity equals war. It's one of the iron rules of history. When ethnic groups collide, in particular when race groups collide, there is inevitably conflict. So in the 400-year history of white-native interactions and conflicts, there are, of course, countless examples of vicious cruelty on both sides. Now, again, the history is more than 400 years in total, but not been a lot of wars for the last while. Did you know there was a native attack in 1675 that slaughtered 25% of the entire white population of Connecticut? Let me say that again. Slaughtered 25% of the entire white population of Connecticut. So, that's not great. One captured white man in a conflict was tied to a stake inside of his comrades who were huddled in a fort and brutally tortured for three whole days. He only finally died after his native captors flayed his skin with hot tempers and hacked off his fingers and toes. Another prisoner was roasted alive. So again...
[26:49] It's pretty extreme, to put it mildly. Because many of the natives valued bravery above everything else, and they had great contempt for anyone who surrendered, so they often just killed them, particularly if they couldn't handle the difficulties of the highly mobile society. Some of the rest of the captives were tortured, and sometimes they were even eaten as part of a ceremonial meal. So I would not put one in the love-to-be-captured column with that situation. Now, have you heard of King Philip's War? No, of course not. Doesn't fit the leftist narrative of why it's bad. So, 1675 to 76. King Philip's War was the costliest of all American wars proportionately to population. The costliest of all American wars. It killed one in every 16 men of military age in the colonies, as well as large numbers of women and children who who were killed or enslaved. Out of New England's 90 towns in this war, 52 were attacked by the natives, 17 burned to the ground, and 25 pillaged.
[28:00] Now, the war started with clear rules, at least on the colonial side, but it kind of devolved after that with massive atrocities on both sides. However, you couldn't just be a white person going around killing the natives with impunity. In the summer of 1676, four men were tried in Boston for the brutal murder of three female natives and three children. And all of these three men were found guilty and two of them were in fact executed. So, that's not genocide either.
[28:32] Now, in 1689, some of the stronger native tribes allied with the French against the British. and, you know, you've now picked a side, you're part of the war, and you're going to be subject to the brutalities of war. In 1754, encouraged by perfidious French spies, the natives started the Seven Years' War Against Whites, killing and capturing thousands. In 1862, the Sioux tribe revolted, killing, raping, and pillaging all over the countryside. In 1864, in Colorado, Cheyenne and Arapaho tribesmen cut off Denver from all supplies surrounding it, and murdered entire families. In one case, all the victims were scalped, the throats of the two children were cut, and the mother's body was torn open and her intestines and innards were pulled over her face. So here we're talking, I mean, these are white farmers in South Africa levels of brutality.
[29:28] Now, the discovery of gold in California exacerbated tensions. Natives were pushed into less fertile lands and began to starve and attack settlers. Native women turned to prostitution just to feed their families, which exacerbated the demographic decline because it kind of took them out of being a mom pool. Now, whites who were unable to beat the natives on the plains would wait till they went to ground for the winter and then would destroy the food stores during the winter. And this was, in fact, the impetus for the initial reservation system. Now, say what you like, these actions were almost certainly in conformity with the laws of the war that were accepted at the time. The villages of warring natives who refused to surrender were viewed as legitimate military targets and could be acted against. And this, of course, occurred significantly later when Churchill bombed the Germans and so on. So, like it or not, those were part of the rules of war at the time, and considerably thereafter. January 15th, 1891, the last Sioux warriors surrendered, and except for a few skirmishes, that's basically been it.
[30:39] So, let's draw a few conclusions here, shall we?
[30:45] Now, first of all, genocide is kind of a technical term, outlawing the destruction of a group in whole or in part. percentages are not defined so nobody knows exactly what it means. Now the law regarding genocide was ratified by the U.S. in 1986. Now that's close to a century after the close of the settler and native wars. Genocide of the natives was never official U.S. government policy. Occasionally people would call for it but never as part of general policy. Massacres were inflicted by local volunteer groups, no regular U.S. Army unit was ever charged with similar atrocities. Now, when it comes to blaming white people for all of this later, it's completely illogical, immoral, and not even remotely in accordance with international law. In fact, it's very much against it. There's no such thing in international law as collective guilt. The Genocide Convention has explicitly ruled that only individual people can be charged with genocide, not an entire group, not an entire race. And when native infant mortality goes down significantly, when life expectancy goes up enormously, when there are many more natives arguably now than there were certainly after the smallpox epidemic, and certainly after the entire population if some of the lower estimates are to be believed, that's not genocide when there are more people left at at the end than at the beginning, that's not it.
[32:14] There is, of course, an inevitability to this kind of stuff. There was an overspill, right? The agricultural revolution in Europe allowed for the production of much more food. I mean, food production went up 5 to 10 to 15, sometimes even 20 times. You've got winter crops, like turnips being introduced at better harnesses, which didn't choke the animals, allowed for better plowing. Huge amounts of food increases that went on. This caused a huge population explosion in Europe, and a lot of them went to the New World because it was overcrowded, it was filthy, dirty, dangerous, and tyrannical in many ways. There was freedom on the frontier. So the waves of migration spilling out from the overpopulation in Europe to the New World created this series of expansions into what seemed like pretty unlimited and empty land. It didn't go and kill the natives. The natives were already dead or driven off by disease. And there was no way for the tiny US government at the time to prevent or control this westward push. People just come pouring in and they just go and spread. So even if the US government wanted to, it couldn't have stopped it. This is going to happen one way or another. And sooner or later, someone was going to come in contact with the natives in the Americas. It was going to happen. The Renaissance created a kind of global economy. Global economy, yay.
[33:35] Global global transmission of horrible pathogens, not so yay, but this is what happened in history. Someone was going to end up getting to North America if it was the Chinese or Kyrgyzstan, for heaven's sakes, or whatever. I mean, if they had brought the Black Death over, it might have been even worse. So this was going to happen.
[33:50] Isolated populations, eventually there's going to be contact, and the pathogens are going to spread, and that is horrendous.
[33:57] So my particular thought is, it's incredibly enraging for me, the degree to which which accurate, truthful, honest history has simply been stolen. We don't live in facts. We live in a generally Marxist, leftist, indoctrinated matrix fantasy of the provocation of guilt and the extraction of money in return for alleviating that guilt from white people all the time. It's a push the guilt button on Whitey, and Whitey coughs up gold, and everyone goes home and feels like they've virtue-signaled themselves into the arms of the angels. So I'm a little goddamn tired of examining every question and this particular research project came out of a great conversation I had with somebody who self-classifies as part of the indigenous population of Canada recently a call-in show I'm really really sick and tired of being told how bad white people are and then finding some facts and finding out that if it's not neutral it's often quite the exact opposite. So please, please, stop feeling guilty. Stop feeling guilty. White people should not feel bad for slavery. White people ended slavery pretty much around the world and was the only group to do so.
[35:13] White people have treated minorities the best of any civilization throughout history, and you've got to stop feeling guilty about all of this stuff. It's destructive. It creates the soft bigotry of low expectations from minorities. It is incredibly destructive to grow up with their self-loathing towards some of the glories of your own culture. It is incredibly destructive, and it's one of the things that hacks at the base, as it's designed to do, of European civilization, which treats women and minorities the best and always has, at least over recent history. And if this collapses it's going to take, massive peaks of civilization with it and it's going to fall on whites and minorities equally and things are going to get very bad so you know they say history is written by the winners so who has won? The cultural Marxists have won and they're the ones infesting you with the true pathogens of self-hating falsehoods about your true history and the history of your ancestors so stop feeling guilty, recognize who won and fight back with facts This is Stefan Molyneux for Freedomain Radio. Thank you so much for watching. Freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
