In this video above, British writer Douglas Murray offers a simple and logical rebuttal of a standard Cultural Marxist cliche that attempts to validate and/or justify the ethnic replacement of Europeans via mass non-European immigration.
The argument says that since European states engaged in colonialism over the past few centuries and exploited the resources of other countries and territories, then those former colonial countries have no right to reject masses of immigrants who wish to come and live there. In essence what those who use this argument are saying is that all Europeans must be collectively punished for the crimes of past regimes.
Murray queries the person who suggested this, asking how long this collective punishment should be enforced. Should it be enforced to the point of completely negating the identity of Europe via mass non-European immigration? In other words, are those who advance this view in favour of the elimination of all European peoples and cultures due to the misbehaviour of governments of the past?
Murray also draws attention to the misconduct of non-European empires such as that of the Ottomans, and asks why those who advocate collective punishment of European countries that practiced colonialism are not begging for Turkey to be likewise penalized in the form of losing its identity for the crimes of its former regime.
Should the people of Mongolia harbour a collective racial guilt for the murderous behaviour of Ghengis Khan thousands of years ago? Should the citizens of modern China hang their heads in collective shame over the colossal misdeeds of Chairman Mao and his Red Guards? And should their societies be radically transformed into multicultural melting pots as punishment for those transgressions? Do the Mongols and the Chinese “deserve” to be ethnically replaced and their culture erased because of the immoral policies of their leaders decades or centuries ago?
The same collective punishment could be advocated for all peoples on this planet who all have dark points in their history, but, as Murray noted, only Europeans are obsessively traduced for past wrongs.
While Murray makes sense on this issue, he unveils his true colours on other essential topics. For those who wouldn’t otherwise know, Murray is a neocon and defender of Israel and everything Jewish. Murray is the author of a book entitled Neoconservatism: Why We Need It and has been a vocal mouthpiece for the Zionist regime and its bloodthirsty policies on British TV.
As a neocon agent of Zionism, Murray acts as a false defender of European sovereignty. His agenda is to portray Muslim immigrants as the only threat to Europe’s survival, thereby deflecting attention from the more pressing issue of Jewish-Zionist power which, many argue, is the cause of the immigration crisis. He works tirelessly to propel neocon mythology about the bogus “war on terror” and the bogeyman of Islamic terrorism. He works to promote the artificial “clash of civilizations” engineered by his Zionist friends in Tel Aviv. He aims to hide the truth about Israel’s involvement in 9/11 and other false-flag terror spectacles that were planned and executed by the forces of global Zionism to hoodwink the West into endless wars against Israel’s enemies in the mid-east.
Murray is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a snake in the grass who masquerades as a defender of Western civilization. Neocons and their agents have put a lot of effort into hijacking European discontent with massive Arab/African/Muslim immigration which is radically transforming and destabilizing their societies. The Zionists want Europeans to view Muslims as their primary enemy, thereby aligning European nationalists with the Israeli imperial agenda to subdue and subjugate the Arab/Muslim world. This is what the “English Defence League” and similar anti-Muslim groups and political parties were created to do — steer European nationalisms into the Zionist camp.
That would be a grave and ultimately fatal mistake. Fortunately, not all European nationalists have taken the Neocon-Zionist bait.