Aboriginal Australian History and ‘White Guilt’ – Response to Stefan Molyneux

Hello everyone. This video is a response to a video called
‘The Death of White Guilt’ by Stefan Molyneux. That means it’s going to contain footage of
Stefan Molyneux, a racist, being racist. Just letting you know in case you’d rather
not see that. So in the video, Mr. Molyneux gives us his
lovely interpretation of Aboriginal Australian History. And if you’re not Australian, don’t worry. I’ll make sure to explain things when an explanation
is needed so that you can follow along. So, the video has about 185,000 views on YouTube
since August last year. So quite a few. His overall thesis in this video is that historians
lie about Aboriginal Australian History in order to make white people feel guilty. As to why they do this according to Stefan
Molyneux, it’s apparently because they want to guilt trip white people into giving Aboriginal
people money. That’s not a joke, that’s actually his thesis. (Molyneux) You did terrible things. Your ancestors did terrible things. Feel guilty. Give money. (B.E.) So yeah, it’s the whole thing where conservatives
accuse leftists of feeling ‘white guilt’ for caring about people of colour because they
cannot imagine ever doing unless being guilt tripped. There’s also a bit of a subplot going on in
this video where he goes off on bizarre tangents about, for example, the Islamic slave trade
for some reason. But I’m going to focus on the parts about
Australian history. And if you want to make sure that I’m not
misrepresenting him, I suggest you check out his video, which is linked in the description. So, Australia has a problem. A fair few Australians have many very wrong
ideas about Indigenous people. Ideas that have been picked up basically just
through social osmosis. So they’ve just accepted these ideas as fact,
and are absolutely adamant that they’re right, without ever having put in any real effort
to find out if that’s really the case. In the words of our good friend, Stefan Molyneux:
(Molyneux) That’s really frustrating. You ever have people in your life, they’re
absolutely certain, and they’re totally wrong. (B.E.) Thanks Stefan, very cool! So, whenever something is discussed that’s
related to Indigenous people, anything really, and I mean anything, these people get very
uncomfortable, and they perceive the discussion as some sort of personal attack against them. Then they immediately react negatively, and
they start throwing out the aforementioned wrong ideas, which often includes a lot of
historical denialism. So, I was planning to make a video on this
topic anyway. But then, I happened upon this talk while
browsing YouTube. I quickly noticed that Stefan, despite being
a Canadian who was only in Australia to make money off selling tickets to people who I’m
sure are… Exemplary individuals, sounds exactly like
just about any random Australian historical denialist. So that was… Convenient. So, let’s see what the, and I quote, “Master
of the Argument”, has to say. (Molyneux) So, I did want to look into the aborigine
culture. [breathes out] (B.E.) Okay, so firstly, the word ‘Aborigine’ is considered a racial slur, due to connotations that it
picked up during colonisation. Which explains why Stefan is using it. Nonetheless, it’s a noun, not an adjective. You can’t say ‘aborigine culture’, that’s
two consecutive nouns. He’s going to say it for the entire video,
though, so get used to it. More importantly, there’s no one Aboriginal
culture. There’s over 500 different Indigenous nations,
spread across a massive continent and a whole lot of islands. Yes, there are some similarities, but obviously
people on opposite sides of a huge continent wouldn’t have the same culture. (Molyneux) So, they look at the sun and they say, “well
what is the sun?” So, I found that there’s this fairly common
myth in the aborigine culture. So, the story is that there was a crane and
an emu, and they were fighting over an egg. And the crane took the emu egg, [throwing
sound] threw it into the sky. Where it exploded into fire. And stayed, as fire, and everyone was like
“wow, this is cool. Because before, you see, we had to live by
the light of the moon.” See, there’s your first clue. The moon has no light. So without the sun, you don’t get the moonlight. And then the gods saw the ancient ones, the
up there guys. “They were like, wow, that’s really cool,
we should do this every day.” So they decided they would gather their wood
in heaven, or up in the sky. They’d gather their wood and they’d set fire
to it, and light it, and then you’d get the sun. They would do that because they saw the morning
star. Now the problem is, if it’s cloudy, apparently,
the gods can’t see the morning star. So, what happened was, the kookaburra bird,
had to call out. (B.E.) So, this part of the story is correct. There is a myth that roughly does go like
that. (Molyneux) So the kookaburra bird would remind the gods, wake them up. So then, you see, the Aborigines said, it
is now forbidden, forbidden, to imitate the call of the kookaburra bird. You’re in trouble. I just drew you into a blasphemy, because
you see, if you imitate the call of the kookaburra bird, the kookaburra bird will become offended,
will not call out, and then it’s eternal darkness forever, and ever, and ever. (B.E.) This last part, however, is extremely wrong. As most Australians learn in primary school,
the word ‘kookaburra’ comes from an Aboriginal word which itself is an imitation of the kookaburra’s
call. There’s other dozens more words in other Aboriginal
languages, where the bird’s name is also an imitation of its call. To name a few, ‘akkaburra’, ‘arrangangg’,
and ‘gugurraga’. Every time they say these words, they’d be
imitating its call. I don’t think it’s possible for Steffy here
to be any more wrong. But hey, I’m actually just gonna let that
slide, because the argument that he bases off this is just kind of ridiculous anyway. (Molyneux) So, no free speech, as far as that goes. Okay, so let’s look at how he got from point
A to point B. Imitating the call of the kookaburra was taboo, therefore Aboriginal culture didn’t
allow free speech. What? That obviously doesn’t follow at all. He nonetheless seems very confident that he’s
proven his conclusion, when all that he’s done is just kind of make a massive logical
leap, from ‘people couldn’t imitate the call of one bird’ to ‘there was no free speech.’ I remind you, this is a guy who calls himself
a philosopher, and who the right wing venerates as some sort of god of arguments. Here’s a bit of a spoiler here: he uses this
conclusion to form the basis of most of the rest of his argument. So not only is he entirely wrong about the
story, but the foundation of everything that follows is also wrong. (Molyneux) Now that obviously is a belief, and a wrong
belief, and a false belief. But they’re certain of it. (B.E.) Okay, they had a framework that they lived
by which is kind of like a religion but not exactly. You know, like most people in the world ever? Through its myths, they understood things
about the world. This is not unique to Aboriginal culture at
all, this is a worldwide phenomenon. He seems to think that he’s made a point by
saying this, but he kind of hasn’t. (Molyneux) I was talking to a local. I don’t know if this story’s true or apocryphal,
but, camels, camels not native to Australia. Except the cigarettes. And camels were brought to carry water, some
mining town I assume. And then the mining town ran out, the gold
ran out, so they just kicked the camels loose. And within ten to twenty years, the Indigenous
population had a whole crazy backstory about why the camels were there. Two guys merged together, the gods did this
and that and the other. And they were certain of it, by golly. The ancient ones had told them that the camel
was, you know, whatever right? And then people came across and said “no,
you know, they were brought across in ships and here’s the, you know.” “No.” Alright. Stay with your certainty. (B.E.) With such a reliable source, it’s probably
not a surprise that this is a complete fabrication. For some background, Afghan immigrants introduced
camels to Australia back in the 1860s. Which they would use to transport goods long
distances through the inhospitable centre desert of the continent, until the 1920s. The camels were only released and a feral
population was only started then, in 1920, not because of something in “some mining town.” Indigenous people also regularly mingled,
traded, etc, with these Afghan cameleers, from the very beginning, in the 1860s, to
the extent that many of them actually intermarried. So, obviously, they knew where the Afghans
were from and they knew where the camels were from, because they knew the Afghans. So this story is just made up. (Molyneux) So, you have a culture, the West, which has
doubt, which will not be satisfied with magic as the answer, or socialism, or actually no,
socialism, well we’ll get to that, alright. So we have a culture which is doubtful and
a culture which has [slaps hand] certainty 150% no doubt. (B.E.) So let’s get this straight. Based off the previous two stories, one of
which he got wrong, and the other of which he probably made up, he’s concluded that Aboriginal
culture had no concept of doubt. What? Even if these stories were true his logic
just doesn’t follow at all. You need a lot more than that to prove such
an extraordinary claim. Yet he’s nonetheless absolutely certain that
he’s right. This is a guy who self-published a book named
‘The Art of the Argument’. Yeah. Okay. (Molyneux) And there’s totemism or animism right? So animism is everything has a soul, everything
is alive, everything has a presence and a being and so on. (B.E.) Totemism, and animism, right? No. Indigenous people did not practice totemism
or animism. Nicolas Peterson examined this idea in a journal
article in 2009. He concluded that “evidence for the idea that
Aboriginal people believe or believed the world is full of persons is lacking.” (Molyneux) And one foundational aspect of this whole
worldview of the Aborigines is called the Dreaming, or the Dreamtime. Is it can’t ever be changed. It can’t ever, ever, ever, be changed. It is certain, it is written, it is absolute,
and doubt is not allowed. (B.E.) So the Dreaming, which is the proper name
for what he calls the Dreamtime here, is similar to a religious framework. Its three principle functions are the sort
of things that are common to many religions: to explain how the world was created, where
things come from, and dictate rules to live by. Stefan seems to think that he’s making a point
here by pointing this out, like he’s just forgotten the fact that there’s plenty of
other religions in the world, including in the West. And most of them are not only very sure that
they’re correct, but they also have explanations and rules to live by. So he’s not really saying much of anything
by pointing this out, though he seems to think that he is. (Molyneux) Which is why free speech is not allowed. (B.E.) So, Stefan has, somehow, reached the conclusion
that free speech was not allowed in Aboriginal culture. And this is how he got there: One, Aboriginal
people were not allowed to imitate the call of a bird. Two, Aboriginal people had a mythical explanation
for the origin of feral camels, and refused to change their minds. Both of which are wrong. Three, Aboriginal people had a belief system. For him, that’s it, it’s proven, they had
no free speech, done. I honestly don’t even know what to say to
that. It’s nonsensical, none of it follows at all. I find it difficult to believe that there
are people who paid money to see this man speak in the crowd. And they’re all probably nodding along to
this and thinking about how profound it is. How? (Molyneux) Now I have no doubt that over the 40,000 plus
years that the Aborigines lived in Australia, that they had, erupting from time to time,
as happens in all societies, I believe throughout the world, throughout history, you have the
geniuses, up they come. Like the aforementioned gophers. And, every culture has a different relationship
to the people who ask uncomfortable questions, right? So the people who asked the uncomfortable
questions in the aborigine culture [smacks hand] were probably killed. (B.E.) Okay, so smart Aboriginal people were “probably
killed” for asking questions, because they didn’t have free speech. He never actually did anything to show that
they didn’t have free speech, nor has he done anything to show that Indigenous people “killed
their geniuses” other than act with undue confidence while saying that they did. So he qualifies this with “probably”, right? But he’s gonna take this as a fact for the
rest of the video. And remember that, it’s gonna be relevant
later. At this point, I’m honest kind of gobsmacked. I’ve never watched Stefan Molyneux before
this video, and so far this has been unspeakably stupid. All he’s doing is saying things that he made
up, but doing so very confidently. His conclusions have about as much of a basis
as me saying that, say, Stefan Molyneux probably had his lower rib removed. Though, with how much he loves himself, that
might just be true. (Molyneux) So that’s how you deal with people who ask
uncomfortable questions. So what you get out of that process, where
we have lies that are considered to be the physics of reality, and anyone who questions
those lies gets killed? You get certainty. And you get stasis. Stagnation. Nothing changes, nothing grows. Nothing evolves. Anyone who steps out of line, gets killed. So the line never changes direction, never
grows, never alters. (B.E.) So yeah, he keeps repeating it. As far as he’s concerned, it’s already been
proven. He says this about a dozen more times throughout
the video, so I’m just gonna skip it now. (Molyneux) The Dreaming, this metaphysical relationship
they had with reality, it forbade the alteration of their environment. That’s part of the animism as well, like the,
everything has a soul, everything has a spirit. (B.E.) So this is extremely wrong. Many different groups of Aboriginal people
all over the continent drastically and deliberately altered their environment all the time. The prime example of this is the practice
known as ‘fire-stick farming.’ They would carried out controlled burnings
of forests, which would then promote them renewing as grassland in the near future. This grassland would then attract lots of
grazing animals, such as kangaroos, making hunting much easier. So they’d move in an established pattern within
their land, burning forests as they went, to ensure that there would be plenty of food
when they got back. So, they very much did not forbid the alteration
of their environment. If anything, they practiced it extensively. (Molyneux) Which meant no agriculture. (B.E.) So our friend Stefan keeps doing this thing
where he says something very wrong and then makes a conclusion based on that. This time, guess what? It’s all wrong again. At least some Indigenous people practiced
agriculture and aquaculture. We have primary sources from settlers themselves
attesting to Indigenous people who farmed yams, for example, with seed storage houses
and all. Explorer George Grey, upon first visiting
the area now known as Victoria, wrote, “we saw yam fields that extended east and west
as far as we could see. The whole of this valley is extensive yam
ground.” (Molyneux) The Aborigine comes up to the Fijian missionary and says “what are you doing all this crazy work for? We don’t have to do any of this stupid stuff.” “The nature, the ancient ones, they just hand
it out this stuff like candy, we don’t have to do any–awoowawee what are you, stupid? Ridiculous. [self-satisfied laugh] I dunno. I mean, I… You’re naked, nothing’s changed in 40,000
years. You spend five hours a day trying to get 2,000
calories. (B.E.) So, I’m going to take this claim entirely
at face value and ask, is it historically exceptional to spend five hours working to
get 2,000 calories a day? Well, it turns out that at the end of the
19th century, male British industrial workers worked ten hours and consumed an average of
1,800 calories a day. Americans worked about the same hours, and
consumed an average of 2,300. So yes, it was historically exceptional. Exceptionally good. Using Stefan’s own numbers, Indigenous Australians
worked half the time for the same caloric intake. So in his attempt to make Indigenous people
sound ‘unsophisticated’ or whatever, he’s gone and made it sound like they actually
had things quite well in comparison. That’s a pretty stunning own goal. (Molyneux) You’re so malnourished that according to the
skeletons that have been unearthed, up to 80% of children had two to three ‘stall lines’
in their growth, which means severe malnutrition. (B.E.) I searched far and wide for this ‘stall line’
term that Stefan uses here. It turns out that it’s just not an actual
scientific term, at least not in anything to do with skeletons or nutrition. So if he’s actually basing his claim on anything
concrete, he’s misquoted it and effectively made it impossible to find his source as a
result. But hey, let’s give him the benefit of the
doubt again. His clear contention here is that historical
childhood malnutrition among Indigenous people is something exceptional, out of the ordinary. Is it, though? Well, as you can probably guess, because I’m
pretty sure most people are well aware that historically, malnutrition has been very commonplace
all over the world: No. For example, archaeologists found that a 19th
century mass grave in London contained skeletons with extremely high rates of malnutrition,
and 40% of the bodies were infants, clearly indicating very high rates of infant mortality. Go back a little bit earlier, and malnutrition
was even worse. To the extent that even the bones of rich
noble children from the Renaissance period often show signs of severe malnutrition, such
as rickets. All in all, I don’t think the idea that malnutrition
was historically widespread is really contentious. It was extremely common and it’s hardly surprising
if it was common in Australia, too. Another case of Stefan not actually checking
to see if the thing he’s implying was bad was really out of the ordinary or not. (Molyneux) 30% to 50% of the aborigine children were
killed. Infanticide. 30% to 50%. (B.E.) So, this idea of extremely high rates of infanticide
among Indigenous people is one of the more common myths. It’s been around since the colonial days,
and it still persists today among who want to believe it’s true really bad. Now, infanticide did occur, as it has, always,
in all cultures. But, it was very much out of the ordinary. Annette Hamilton, for example, concluded back
in the 80s that there was nothing but contradictions to the idea that infanticide was common. She said that most of the claims stem from
hearsay and rumours spread among settlers. And indeed, the sources we have almost never
recount actually having witnessed infanticide. They’re all hearsay, rumour, or conjecture. Often, they’re just plain ridiculous, such
as one person who assumed without ever having seen it, that Aboriginal people ate all of
their newborn babies. Not some, but all. It sounds a bit like Stefan Molyneux’s logic,
really. Obviously, if it was anything resembling 30%
to 40%, it wouldn’t be so hard to find sources that directly witnessed it. The source of this myth has actually been
traced. The idea that so-called ‘savages’ practiced
infanticide was common among the British, and it long predated the colonisation of Australia. So settlers projected this idea onto Indigenous
people, because it was simply what they expected. What we now call a stereotype. For example, in the 1830s, the British Select
Committee into the Treatment of Aborigines in the Colonies investigated claims of Indigenous
infanticide, because they expected them to be true. But even though they tried very hard
to find any proof, the only case they found was, wait for it, that of a white man killing
an illegitimate baby he had fathered with an Indigenous woman. These dubious rumours were also used to justify
the abduction of Aboriginal children, so the settlers had an incentive to lie as well. All in all, Marguerita Stephens concludes
in her study on Aboriginal infanticide that “the idea that it was customary or prevalent
is not supported by the balance of evidence.” (Molyneux) Abortion was very common. They would eat herbs, they would tie ropes
or whatever they used around their bellies, the women who were pregnant, and slowly tighten
them. They’d pound their bellies with rocks. (B.E.) Contemporary estimates of abortion rates in
the 19th century United States are above 20%. So, once again, he’s trying to present something
that’s also common in the West as a uniquely bad thing, specific to Aboriginal people. (Molyneux) If, because, you know, the Stolen Generations, is that the phrase? Right [childlike mumbling], yeah, right, so,
what is it six percent of the kids were taken out? And it was under the same rules as they would
be taken out of white families, because of abuse, and neglect, and sexual abuse, in particular. So, six percent of children were taken out
of highly abusive environments. And you never heard the end of it. And same things happened in Canada, by the
way. (B.E.) Well, there it is. We’ve reached the biggest denialist talking
point. So, for my non-Australian viewers, first I
need to give you a bit of a background. It was common up until the 1970s for the authorities
to confiscate Aboriginal children from their families, and either adopt them out to white
families or raise them in missions. About one in ten children were stolen in this
way, possibly a lot more. In the 90s, an investigation into this was
finally commissioned, and it released its final report, called the ‘Bringing Them Home’
report, in 1997. This report finally revealed the full extent
of what had really happened to broader society for the first time, and had a profound effect
on Australia society, politics, and culture. It prompted official apologies by every single
state and territory government, and the federal government finally apologised in 2008. Now, to respond to the philosopher king, it
was not for the same reasons as white people’s children were taken away, nor were they subject
to the same rules, nor was it for the protection of the children. There were many laws that specifically applied
to Indigenous children. Here’s just a few examples. In Western Australia, the Aborigines Act of
1905 made the state the guardian of any Aboriginal child under the age of 16, and this was later
raised to 21. Yes, that’s right: Aboriginal people had no
legal parental rights. This remained in force until 1963. There was an almost identical law in South
Australia, under the Aborigines Act of 1911. In Victoria, the Aborigines Protection Amending
Act 1915 gave the state the power to confiscate Aboriginal children without having to prove
neglect before a court. Hmm, I wonder why that might be? Now that’s just a taste of it. There were plenty of other pieces of legislation
that either applied specifically to, or were specifically directed at, Indigenous people,
and especially their children. So, obviously, Stefan is wrong, the rules
weren’t at all the same as those that applied to white people. So, why did they want these specific rules
for Indigenous people? Well, they were nice enough to tell us that
themselves. Auber Octavius Neville was the Chief ‘Protector’
of Aborigines in Western Australia. This was the highest authority in the state
in regards to Aboriginal people. He said in 1937, “Are we going to have a population
of one million blacks in the Commonwealth, or are we going to merge them into our white
community and eventually forget that there were ever any aborigines in Australia?” His counterpart in South Australia said, “Children
should be committed to state care, where they will be educated and trained to useful trades
and occupations, and prevented from acquiring the habits and customs of the aborigines.” And from Cecil Cook, the Chief ‘Protector’
in the Northern Territory, “Generally by the fifth and invariably by the six generation,
all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly
be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence
of their progeny in the white. The Australian native is the most easily assimilated
race on earth, physically and mentally.” So this sums up the goal of the Stolen Generations:
biological absorption into the white population. Take the children from their parents, deprive
them of their culture, ban them from associating with their people, encourage them to marry
a white spouse, and continue this for generations until there’s no visible vestiges of Aboriginal
culture or blackness remaining. And look, they even made us this nifty diagram
to demonstrate their goal for us. This is clearly genocide according to the
definition presented in the UN Convention on Genocide, which, Australia was, get this,
the first country to sign. “In the present convention, genocide means
any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial, or religious group, such as: Forcibly transferring children of the
group to another group.” So, all in all, saying that the Stolen Generations
were just a case of “protecting children from neglect”, requires that you ignore what the
people who carried it out openly said about why they were doing it. (Molyneux) When I started looking into the aborigine
history, well, it’s kind of controversial, as you may have heard, right? So, starting in the 60s, there was this conflict
between historians. The old school historians, the new, obviously
leftist, maybe even plain Marxist historians. (B.E.) So, according to the Master of the Argument
here, if you stop whitewashing history and acknowledge the fact that things actually
happened, you must be a Marxist, I suppose. Contrary to his assertion though, the leading
figure of this shift in Aboriginal historiography in the 60s was not a Marxist. It was a conservative, William Stanner. Stanner coined the term ‘the Great Australian
Silence’ to describe the way that academics of the time just ignored Aboriginal people
and the atrocities committed against them when writing colonial histories. That’s a slightly inconvenient fact, isn’t
it? (Molyneux) They have this wonderful thing, this leftist
historians. What they do is they wait until everyone’s
dead, and then they slander the living crap out of them, cause they can’t get sued, cause
they’re dead. And so they began going back to the 1920s,
and talking about, and even further back, and so on, and they were talking about how
brutal and horrifying the occupation was. You all know the story of the genocides, and this and murder. [makes baby noises] (B.E.) This just in: historical research is now slander. A pretty interesting take from a guy who considers
himself a historian. (Molyneux) And it’s a problematic case to make, for sure. There’s one estimate, you’ve probably heard
of this, that in Queensland, it was 10,000 Aborigines who were killed. And a professor, a very good professor, started
looking into the sources for all of these claims. And, it’s interesting what he found. He found that the estimate of 10,000 came
from no records. (B.E.) The professor that he’s talking about here is Keith Windschuttle. Windschuttle isn’t a professor, nor has he
ever been, because he never received a PhD. So he’s not actually qualified to hold a professorship. Nonetheless, Windschuttle is a right-wing
historian whose entire schtick is to deny everything. And his work has been thoroughly debunked
by other historians, including other conservative historians. And yes, a few times, he did actually find
some bad citations. But some poor citations does not prove that
there weren’t massacres or that there wasn’t a genocide. And just as a side note, Windschuttle’s own
work has been scrutinised, and he has dozens upon dozens of terrible citations that do
not even say what he says they do. He also routinely ignores anything that contradicts
his narrative. So he’s not exactly a reliable guy here. as far as massacres go, though, professor
Lyndall Ryan, who is a real professor, has an ongoing project to map the massacres of
six or more people from 1788 to 1930. He’s identified more than 200 massacres of
Aboriginal people by settlers. Even if we say, for example, that half of
these never happened, that would be still be 100 massacres. So I think it’s safe to say that a whole lot
of massacres occurred. It’s also reasonable to assume that more massacres
happened that were covered up and that we just don’t know about. I’ll show you one of these that was only recently
uncovered in a second. (Molyneux) The estimate of 10,000 came from no records. Of course, right? I mean, not only did the Indigenous population
as a whole not have a history of a written language, but they don’t speak of the dead. (B.E.) Okay, I really don’t understand why Stefan
seems to think that the only way that we could know about massacres is if Aboriginal people
wrote about them. Because we mainly know about them because
the colonists wrote about them. How did he not think about this? But just because he mentioned that, we actually
do have massacres that have been confirmed by forensic evidence based on Aboriginal oral
histories. For example, the Sturt Creek massacre. The only survivor of this massacre in 1922
told their people what had happened. This story was then passed down to the present
day orally. In 2017, these Aboriginal people were able
to lead archaeologists to the site of the massacre. Here, they found bone fragments with clear
evidence that someone had burned them in an attempt to hide the bodies. So yes, it is actually possible to confirm
massacres based off the testimonies of Aboriginal people. (Molyneux) I saw one, I think it was the ‘River Massacre’,
the estimates are between one and a thousand Aborigines were killed. One and a thousand. How is that anything? I mean how does anyone say that with a straight
face? (B.E.) The “River Massacre”? The “River Massacre”? Could you be a bit more specific? What’s the name of this river? That would kind of help us to find what you’re
talking about. I did find what he was talking about, though. It was the Forrest River massacre of 1926. But it’s not historians who overestimated
the death toll. What happened is that one of the witnesses
vastly overestimated it, saying that up to 300 were killed, not 1000. But that number isn’t given any credence by
historians. Historians actually say that about a dozen
were killed, which is the same number that a commission into the massacre came to. So what Stefan is doing here is attributing
the unreliable testimony of a single witness to historians as a bloc. It’s bizarre. (Molyneux) But, um, smallpox and so on. Now smallpox, that’s the big thing, right? That’s the big thing. Oh, the Europeans they brought over the smallpox
blankets and they infected them [grunting]. Nonsense, there was no germ theory of disease
in the 18th century, 17th century, 16th century. Germ theory of disease didn’t come til much
later. I mean, okay, people knew [coughing] you cough
on someone and it’s bad, but, there was no big germ theory, no, there were no microscopes,
no, couldn’t see the germs. They didn’t know. (B.E.) I’m continually amazed here. The smallpox blanket thing has nothing to
do with Australia. It’s from the USA. But since you mentioned it, Captain Watkin
Tench who arrived in Australia with the First Fleet in 1788, notes in his journals that
he brought smallpox infected material with him in vials. So they quite clearly did not need germ theory. One year later, there was an outbreak of smallpox
among the surrounding Indigenous population, which coincidentally came at a very convenient
time for the colony, as they were having a lot of trouble with the local Indigenous people. Now, there’s different theories as to what
exactly caused this, and we have no way of knowing for sure. But we do know that the colonists intentionally
brought smallpox with them, and they certainly could have spread it amongst Indigenous people
if they wanted to. The outbreak was extremely convenient for
them, either way. (Molyneux) But you have historians, and I’ve read these
quotes, and the historians say, “well, either accidentally or on purpose, these illnesses
made their way into the aborigine population.” Again, either accidentally or on purpose? Seems like a pretty important distinction. But what they do is they put that in so that
then idiots down the road can just say, “whites infected Aborigines on pur-“, like they just
throw this stuff in like a vague qualifier, and then it becomes an absolute, and then
it gets taught. (B.E.) So, remember earlier, when Stefan just said
“they killed all of their geniuses” out of nowhere and based on nothing? So the people who asked the uncomfortable
questions in the aborigine culture, were probably killed.” ‘Probably’. That is some juicy hypocrisy. But, there’s a huge difference. Stefan is using ‘probably’ to justify just
making stuff up, the historians aren’t. To explain this, historians often make arguments
based off circumstantial evidence. You see, history is not a court of law, you
don’t have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt, as often, there’s just insufficient
sources to form definitive conclusions. So you try your best to fill in the blanks. But just because these arguments can’t be
certain, it doesn’t follow that the opposite, in this case ‘it was an accident’, must be
true by default, as that’s not definitively provable either. So, rather than picking a side, they acknowledge
the fact that it could have been intentional or accidental. This is entirely regular practice. For someone who claims to be a historian,
everyday history stuff sure seems very foreign to Stefan Molyneux. (Molyneux) The issue that’s happening right now, not
just in Australia, not just in New Zealand, not just in Canada. Throughout the West. Is that there’s this horrible, collectivist,
historical, moral, condemnation. Which is as vile a philosophical and moral
sin as anything I can imagine. Where, as Europeans, as whites, we are told
to feel guilty for things that other white people did hundreds of years ago, a lot of
which is not even true. We are told to feel guilty for the bad things
that happened, but we’re not supposed to feel any positive emotions for all of the great
things that happened. Nothing but shame. Nothing but self-derision. Nothing but self-contempt, nothing but self-hatred,
isn’t that the invitation that is constantly played out to us? You did terrible things, your ancestors did
terrible things. Feel guilty. Give money. [one guy in crowd laughs]
We’ve turned into these giant, collectivist, bloodstained, vending machines of white guilt. Boom, boom, boom, money, money, money. (B.E.) So, finally, we’ve reached the point of all
of these extraordinary claims made with no justification, and all of this flagrant historical
denialism. Stefan’s overall argument is that the reason
historians properly research and write about historical facts… Is because they want to make white people
feel guilty…? It’s just the white guilt insult that’s used
by conservatives against white people who dare to show sympathy or compassion to people
of colour. So as someone who studies Aboriginal Australian
history, I have something to say about this. I’m a white Australian, I acknowledge all
of this history, without whitewashing it one bit, because it’s just what happened. And guess what? I don’t feel guilty about it at all. Why would I? It had nothing to do with me. But there were many injustices, and these
injustices still affect Australia today. For example, historical factors play a huge
part in the gap in welfare between Indigenous Australians and other Australians. And you know, I think this should be kind
of obvious, because Aboriginal children were still being kidnapped as part of a genocidal
project just forty years ago, within living memory for many millions of people. So yes, I acknowledge the overwhelming evidence. And I believe that it’s important that our
country works with Indigenous people to ensure better outcomes for them. This isn’t because I feel guilty. It’s because I have something called moral
principles. I care about other human beings, I feel sympathy
and compassion. Maybe conservatives don’t, I dunno. You know who actually does feel guilty, though? It’s not leftists, it’s the right wingers. Because they identify personally with the
people who carried out these historical atrocities. That is why they get so uncomfortable when
it’s brought up. That’s why they take the discussion of history
as some sort of attack on themselves. Their immediate response is denial, because
denial is one of the most common reactions to feelings of guilt. This is a self-inflicted condition. No one is forcing you to tie your identity
to heinous criminals. And whatever good you think they did, it doesn’t
matter. When you murder, when you kidnap babies, when
you attempt a genocide, that is how you deserve to be remembered. Nothing else. For others, though, it’s deeper and it’s more
insidious. In the case of Mr. Stefan Molyneux, his fans,
and others like them, they know deep down that these things really happened. But they don’t actually think that the atrocities
were bad. At the very least, they think that the ends
justify the means. And at the other end, you’ve got people who
believe that killing Indigenous people is a good thing. Molyneux expresses the end justifies the means
idea in this video, actually. Such as in this bit from earlier. (Molyneux) Aborigines had Australia for 40,000 years. Europeans have had Australia for less than
one percent of that time. Less than one percent of that time. And you have made a paradise out of a desert. (B.E.) Of course, the reason that these people feel
guilty isn’t because they think that the actual atrocities and the attempted genocide were
wrong, because, well, they don’t. It’s because their views aren’t welcome in
mainstream society. They’re made to feel judged, attacked, ashamed,
etc, and all of this leads to guilt. They’re not comfortable voicing their pro-genocide
views openly, so they instead obscure them behind denialism, while throwing in justifications
such as Molyneux did here. This also isn’t socially acceptable. But, you know, it’s still a bit more so than
coming out and actually admitting that you think that the mass murder of black people
was good. But hey, aside from the fact that these people
exist, this is all actually great. It’s exactly what should be happening to racists
like this. They’re small, they’re weak, they’ve been
shunned, and they will continue to be. That is why they feel so much ‘white guilt.’ Thanks for watching. If you enjoyed this video, consider subscribing
to my channel, following me on Twitter @BadEmpanada, checking out my other videos, liking, commenting,
etc. I’ll be posting more videos in the near future,
so look out for those. See you later!

Comments 100

  • I've got a patreon now: https://patreon.com/badempanada – if anyone would like to support my work, it'd be greatly appreciated! Each video takes a lot of work, upwards of 50-60 hours. I've been considering continuing on into academia for a while, but the fact that most academic work is inaccessible for the vast majority of people, due to paywalled journals, and the often ridiculous costs of academic books, really puts me off it – I don't want to make stuff just for a small bubble of academics. I'd much rather create content like this that everyone can watch for free. Anything you'd like to throw at me would really help in in that endeavour :). I'll re-invest it all into my videos in one way or another, and maybe one day I'd like to do this full-time, if that's even a remotely realistic goal. Thanks all!

  • Microscopes were invented in 17 th century. Stefan is a lazy ignorant

  • Molyneux is a deadest dickhead. I don't trust Conservatives or Leftists. Both have tried to deplatform people and ideas, it's just the loony lefts turn and soon the Conservatives will have there go again and probably try to ban Music and Movies they don't like, just like the 80's and 90's

  • Really never thought I'd hear Stefan Molyneux narrate a dreamtime story of all things

  • Has Molyneux never heard of Christianity?

    Also, 2,000 calories a day is normal, it's a bit on the low end for an adult male, but it certainly wouldn't lead to malnutrition, and definitely not in women and children

  • thousands of aboriginal cultures and we always assume that they were all peaceful,

  • Christians aren’t allowed to say the lords name in vain therefore america has no free speech whatsoever.

    This is Stefans logic

  • Stefan Mulenuts sucks !

  • Why don't you reveal who you are? Stop hiding behind that drawing.

  • @34:00
    It should be added thaf circumstantial evidence can be quite strong, and is the main factor in many court cases. "Circumstantial" does not mean "weak" or "unreliable".

  • Ann Coulter’s husband?

  • So, when Hitler and sidekicks were brought down, survivors were held accountable for crimes against the Jews. Who was arrested for crimes against Aboriginis everywhere, in fact blacks in general?

  • Thanks for standing up for us brother if your aboriginal or not it doesn't matter thank you brother ❤️ an to everyone in the comment section besides the bogans thanks for the positivity towards us aboriginals thank you we may not be in the best spot atm but we are really trying to change that an we couldn't do that without the good 2nd Australians who actually wanna help an not hate on us power to yous all an fuck you bogan dogs ya can suck my black d***

  • Stefan is right though.
    Especially regarding Aboriginals in Australia

    Only joking here is my chiropractor

    My radiologist

    My cardiologist

    The local physician

    This is the Professor at my Uni

    Some of his students

    The debating team

    The opposing school's debating team

    The men's netball team funnily enough

    Hockey team:

    Basketball team

    Soccer Team

    Swimming Team

    Make up your own


    Yeah nah you're wrong – maybe you should listen to Stefan you might learn something.

  • Another imperialist apologist who turns reality on its head. I can't watch him, it hurts my brain.

  • Stefan is not a philosopher but a lawyer. He’s already got a conclusion and either lies or twists the facts to reach his conclusion.

  • The anglo settlers/conquerors were the worst of all…

  • I think this is cute. the amount of blind faith and make believe in Europe was literally oppressing to its own people and its a big reason why we have white people in America today haha umm just for more religious beliefs to start a new. come on. the whole world is full of religious nonsense. as a religious person myself, this just can't be denied

  • wtf! free speech? literally at this same point in history, if u spoke against royalty or if they had a problem with u, they would literally roll a Guiliten to your house and take your head..poor European were literally trying to escape the royalty and the church

  • Impressively comprehensive takedown of Molyneux. How do people like him say such blatantly erroneous things with such confidence? But yeah, the general attitudes towards indigenous people in this country is really depressing.

  • 29:40 “the estimate of 10,000 came from no records!”

    Says the guy who literally just made stuff up and then added ‘probably’

  • Stefan Molyneux continues to show himself to be one of the most vile people I've ever come across.

  • Im Mexican and you're a fucking idiot lol

  • Sorry, but this video did not change my opinion on Molyneux – I still don't like him.

  • I feel bad that you did all this work and I'll never be able to appreciate it because of the violent fits of projectile vomiting those clips of Stephan induce in me.

  • At first listen I thought you said that Australian people picked up ideas about aboriginal people through “socialist Moses” which would’ve been a way cooler sentence.

  • Stefan Mollyracist. We need him gone.

  • Seriously awesome video.
    16:12 Also I love that this woman decides "Oh, let's bring little Johnny to the control burn! It'll be fun!"

  • I heard that Australia had pretty fucked history, but I couldn't even imagine how fucked up

  • Huh, where's he going with this?

    "no free speech"


  • hello everyone . oh hi shaun oh wait?

  • Lol can’t believe people follow Molyneux.

  • As a Canadian I am sorry about Molyneux.

  • "Aboriginal people probably killed them"

  • Thanks Stefan, very cool

  • The Residential School System in Canada which took Native children from the reserves where all of the First Nations people’s were corralled into across the country. The children were forced to be converted into Christianity, were not allowed to speak their language, were physically and sexually abused, many died while in the care of the Jesuits who ran the Residential Schools, and it has had an impact on generations of First Nations people to this day. Never mind the thousands of missing women of Aboriginal descent who have been ignored for decades.

  • 0:11 what? Who fucking cares what the race of the donor was?

  • Lying comes naturally to stupid assholes like him.

  • Speaking of abortion, the old testament has instructions for it. Or at least the Torah does. It's in one of those silly books. I vaguely remember it from one of the atheist videos I watched.

  • this is like a horrible and comically gruesome train wreck… i can not stop watching, but it is so painful and sad. typical Molyneux, from what i have made myself endure so far.

  • "Nothing changed in 40,000 years"!?

    OK Stefan, you boomer.

  • hunter-gatherers do tend have various methods of preventing births, including abortion, but that's because their way of life requires them not to have too many babies around at any given time. It has nothing to do with laziness or whatever Stefan thinks

  • I can't stand Stefan Molyneux.

  • Oh! Stefan Molyneux, I remember the period of time when I saw most of his videos, hey, some of them were an serious analysis of the particular situation, even producing good talking points, but that was a long, long time ago. This guy is not a joke, don't laugh, hear me out, is because he is now a serious demagogue that who will use any influence that he can apply to his audience to simple spread his hatred and narrow political views without any filter or conscience, he is now an apologist of the ultra-right movement and everything that represent, this guy is dangerous and will do anything for a few bucks and gain more exposure to spread his simplistic and delusional approaches to very real social problems.

  • Stefan Molyneux is Thanos incarnate.

  • Stefan Molyneux is fucking White Supremacist.

  • Now that I heard this shit, I wish Stefan Molyneux had been eaten as a baby.

  • Isn’t it just awesome when a capitalist gets up on stages and tells a straw man aboriginal person that they have no idea how to manage resources or effectively consume them? Lol.

  • This Stefan dude is so unbelievably ignorant of even the basics of Indigenous cultures in the occupied Nations in Australia. This idea that Indigenous Peoples believed their 'mythological' stories as verbatim facts is also nonsense. The stories are complex encodings of knowledge histories, law, ecological, technical, social and spiritual ways of living. Stefans rant could just be seen an hilarious comedy except that it is an encouragement for other ignorant people to commit more violence against the Original Peoples on that big continent at the bottom of South East Asia (or is it on top? Depends which way you look at the globe).

  • Wow, great job, thank you so much

  • "Do not use His word in vain."
    Welp no free speech there, in the JudeoChristian world, on that front.

    "Rediculous ideas about the sun these people had";
    Invites Jordan Peterson three times

  • "we took a few children, yet we never hear the end of it" if you wrote a villain and made him talk like Stefan M, everyone would think him to be too cartoonishly evil written to still be believable. How can anyone be this nonchalantly cruel? It just blows my mind. Also his take on the religion of the natives… He must know the church imprisoned Galileo for finding out that the earth rotated around the sun, Bruno Giordano was literally burned at the stake. The "west" was quite alright with silencing their own geniuses.
    Thanks so much for this video! Sitting through the whole talk must've been excruciating.

  • I think by “stall lines” he means enamel hypoplasia. These are the lines that can form in the enamel of a child’s adult teeth if the child is very sick or malnourished while their teeth are forming (the health of adult teeth show childhood health, while the health of childhood/deciduous teeth show fetal/the mother’s health). It happens because the body stops producing enamel during times of great stress. I’m pretty sure this is what he’s talking about, because other signs of stress like malnourishment are way more difficult to see on the rest of the skeleton. But then again, maybe Molyneux doesn’t know that because he’s a fucking moron. Also, an examination of enamel hypoplasia in children would probably require a lot of dubious and unethical disturbing of children’s graves… not that Molyneux would have the heart to care about that

  • He's a known genocide denialist in Canada and his anti-Indigenious talking points are common with white supramcists like Jon Kay and Conrad Black.

    Nor surprised he's projecting racism targeted at First Nations, Metis and Inuit upon Aboriginal nations ocuppied by Australian government

  • One things with Canadian hard-right like Stefan is they don't like being reminded Indigenous peoples didn't sign treaties with Canadian settlers– they signed treaties with the Crown and First Nations never consented to the British parliament granting Canadian independence in 1982. The while idea of Ottawa being an Illegitimate government scare racists like Stefan.

    That would explain his racist rants in Australia. His white fragility assumes what is true in Canada apply to rest of Commonwealth.

  • You can't say the name of God in Christian culture. CHRISTIANS DESPISE FREE SPEECH

  • Instantly subscribed to Australian Shaun.

  • The right wing doesn't care if they are making a rational argument or if their argument is supported by facts. It is all about acquiring a platform and spreading misinformation and hate from there on.

  • Ugh he's insufferable, how to delete a person?

  • Why the hell am I enjoying setting around listening to the host/presenter of this channel for 45 minutes to over an hour? Oh yeah, it's because he's knows his shit.

    Mr. Mutilate-His-Nuts was mocking the Australian Indigenous people's myth but proud of European old myth of the sun orbiting the earth.

    OK! OK! Mr. BadEmpanada, we get it. The alt-right and white racists don't know how to fact-check nor care too. They also think the non-white world have the IQ to have proper myths and build a proper culture (sarcasm).

  • It takes a lot more time and effort to debunk fabricated assertions than it does to formulate them. Thank you for taking the time to do so. Stefan Molyneux obviously relies on people not questioning anything that he spouts.

  • I thought Bad Empanada was Uruguayan

  • A conservative walks in and tells you that your culture violently refuses to change or evolve and that you hold on to annacronistic believes that are ridiculous.

    That's it. That's the whole joke.

  • You should look up the California Genocide. It’s horrifyingly untaught and gruesomely extensive.

  • Excellent video. Molyneux is so arrogantly misinformed and wrong about so many topics, it's baffling that he has such a large following who take him seriously. Even his book, 'The Art of the Argument', is embarrassingly incorrect about basic philosophical definitions such as "valid" and has been panned across the board.

    Anywhy, I've posted the following a few times elsewhere online, but…

    I'm increasingly convinced that just like the episode of 'It's Always Sunny …', where Charlie is led to believe he is a genius by scientists, Molyneux is the result of a long, ongoing experiment by his psychologist wife, Christina:

    "As you will see, with positive reinforcement and strategic kowtowing by myself, it didn't take long for the subject to start displaying signs of a narcissistic fantasist. After five years he firmly believed he was the Second Coming."


  • It's like Three Arrows and Shaun had an Australian baby. I love it!

  • So there are actually Aussies wanting to pay reparations to aboriginal people? Good to know…
    I have recover some faith in mankind.

  • Geez I hate that jackass..

  • it's growth arrest lines or Harris lines.When the child is malnourished and the body does not have enough nutrients to go around, bones stop growing.

  • Damn you really went in for the kill at the end there and explored what’s really going on at a deeper level. Mad respect

  • Honestly, People like Molyneux don’t need debunked, they need euthanized.. their arguments “debunk” themselves by being so vividly transparent.. anyone who believes their obvious bullshit has zero level of ability to scrutinize or think critically.

  • Australia doesn't exist and you can't prove otherwise..

  • If anyone wants definitive proof that God doesn't exist, it's the fact that Stefan Molyneux wasn't killed by his cancer.

  • Is Molymeme really applying scientific consistent logic to a creation myth? Holy fuck he is going to be in for a shock when he finds out other ones are just as ridiculous.

  • “He’s just saying lies that he made up very confidently” sounds strangely similar to Jordan Peterson

  • Thank god his talk in Auckland was cancelled, he was gonna spread the same shit about Māori.

    "I think people protest too much about criticisms of the aboriginal culture". "If I did the same speech here in New Zealand about the Māori culture, people would get mad about that too and the question is… why?" "It would come out of a place of pseudo-concern and caring and so on". Moleneux

  • You are doing god's work sir 🙏

  • "All he's doing is saying things he made up, but doing so very confidently." Pretty concisely sums up all of these right/far-right grifters.

  • Love the "TED Talk for White Nationalists" vibe from Stefan here. 😬

  • they use the same argument when jews criticize Israel or zionism too, coincidence i think not

  • Stefan Molynuts…

  • Professor: race is a social construct

    Doctor: great, then we can give you an organ donation from a different race

    Professor: I mean, yeah, obviously.

    Professor: I'm not sure why that'd be an issue

  • Im black my self and at one point there where 5 men and 2 women in one tribe from a massacre

  • Bald prick: dumb peoples smart person

  • I did not think he woulf be this much of a disgusting dishonest and easy to debunk lying hack. How can anyone be a fan of him

  • Thank you so much 💯

  • Stefan Molyneux IS AN IDIOT!

  • Western Civilization Burns witches and poisons fucking philosophers for 3200 years or so

    60 years without much of that shit, and 'philosophers' in the west start saying shit like this… this fucking twat needs a bit of social Darwinism, the kind that asks how long he can survive without police or medical services after being this much of a cumbubble.

  • "You have built a paradise out of the desert."

    I'm watching this while listening to the constant booms of a supercell thunderstorm that was triggered by the recent bushfires. Bushfires of absolutely unprecedented scale, that started earlier in year than we've ever seen before thanks to man-made climate change. This is not paradise.

  • 3:46 – 5:03 honestly reads like a bad comedian trying a new set

  • I do everything possible to avoid ANYTHING from Stefan Molyneux and watched this video with much apprehension but now find I must thank you.
    I pray someone brings Molyneux to his knees soon. There are no words by which I am able to offer my opinion of Molyneux but happy to know there are people like you who will hopefully expose him for who and what he truly is. Thank you again.

  • Misrepresentation? You misrepresent within the first two minutes.

  • The British invaded Australia. You shut up.

  • Iam Aboriginal,1/2 koori father white mother,Iam at the time writing this 45, so stolen generation is prevalent in my history. Iam also conservative. I believe we all regardless of origin should have an opportunity to keep alive our culture we can be proud of as well as be aware of our failings.
    I have seen some of his “works” back in 2012-13 when he was trying to promote his relevance in conservative culture. Back then a lot of people that considered themselves conservative called him for what he is, an uninformed easily disproved provocateur.

    Both side of the spectrum are guilty of allowing radicals to sometimes highjack the narrative at times.
    The responses you gave and the obvious time you put in researching the facts is appreciated and I truly thank you for it, but collectively grouping all conservatives as racist and he is the tip of conservativism is a disappointment. It left me feeling attacked for being conservative and I am one person that totally agrees with you about our past. If you had intentions of this being a piece that would possibly sway middle road conservative people I feel they will walk away from this not really hearing the true message intended.
    Anyway thanks for the time and obvious passion you have for this cause.
    Cheers Macca

  • Yeah, I'm a guy who is by no means an expert, but I know rather more than most people, and that myth is… Basically normal.

  • So, comment peeps dissing Christianity: Maybe not the best comparison. Christendom? Yes. Christianity, the teachings of Christ and his ideas? They center around a guy crucified by an imperialist State because the upper class and police of the time were afraid that he would overthrow them with the oppressed of society, something he never intended to do, so they killed him on false charges.

  • All over the world the indigenous people have been suppressed.USA Australia Canada South Africa etc etc lands taken away from them o by the Europeans in a cruel and murderous way.This factor needs to be known by everyone in the world an acknowledged

  • you're completely unable to listen and understand. What stef said about free speech, he followed with 'in that regard", meaning only about the callling of the bird. YOU are the one who's stupidly extrapolating that to all speech.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *