The suicide of Europe is on full display, yet it’s hard to know that if you’re not one who keeps tabs on international news.

To give you the short form of a long story, European countries have been allowing in refugees from the middle east and North African countries in order to help them escape horrid situations. On the surface, these countries appear to be the international good guys, willing to open their arms to complete strangers in order for them to achieve a better life.

The only problem is that western culture isn’t compatible with much of the middle eastern cultures. In the Middle East, women are below second class citizens, violence and rape are sometimes treated like a game, and some of the laws they bring with them are barbaric.

While this should have awakened European countries to their solution being more akin to opening Pandora’s box, these countries have doubled down in the name of being progressive. This has inevitably resulted in police turning a blind eye to crime committed by immigrants, and crime spiking through the roof. The solutions haven’t involved deportation, but things like bringing more Muslim women into the country. In other words, no solution at all.

This has been perfectly highlighted by Douglas Murray, author of The Strange Death of Europe, during his Prager U video about Europe’s continued self-afflicted destruction:

For a time, immigrants were allowed—even encouraged, thanks to the European commitment to “multiculturalism”—to pursue whatever culture they wanted. But that didn’t work out well. The leaders of Britain, France and Germany admitted as much in 2011, when David Cameron, Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel dramatically announced that multiculturalism had failed.

So, the immigrants were then asked to assimilate and embrace Western values. If that happened, European governments reasoned, all the financial costs, even the occasional acts of terrorism, could be overlooked. But it never happened. And immigration just increased.

Why was this allowed to happen? According to Murray a lot of it has to do with a misplaced guilt:

So, why did European leaders decide Europe could take in anyone in the world, whether fleeing war or simply seeking a better life, no matter how different—or even opposed—their values were to European values? The one-word answer to this question is guilt.

Aren’t these refugees, the thinking goes, fleeing the consequences of European imperialism? Didn’t we mercilessly exploit these unfortunate people in their home countries? Aren’t we the cause of their misery?

The short answer is “no.” Much of what happened with Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s was done under a people who, mostly, aren’t alive anymore and whose current population does not condone the actions of previous generations. Germany, in reality, owes no one anything. The sins of the father should not be borne by the son, because where does that guilt end? Where does the repayment for wrongs stop?

But this kind of reparations thought process isn’t just seen in Europe. Over there, they feel they need to pay for being Europeans all on their own. In America, it’s demanded of the white populace by black activists that the black community should be given money and special treatment for the sin of slavery.

I already wrote on this in 2016 in an article frankly titled “I’m A White Man, And I Don’t Owe One Cent In Reparations,” where I said:

The problem with the concept of reparations is that it blankets an entire race with blame. In the case of events the left typically refers to – the enslavement and trade of black people – it happened long ago, in a time none of us were alive to see.

For instance, the pervasive myth that seems to float around in people’s minds is that white people all across America owned a slave. As if it was some kind of common practice, and we had a slave each. This is demonstrably false. In reality, less than 1.4% of Americans owned slaves. Owning a slave wasn’t necessarily cheap. Purchase, feeding, clothing, etc, couldn’t be done if your economic situation was meager. Not to mention those who didn’t own slaves purely out of their morality making it abhorrent to them.

So, most white Americans today would be completely innocent of the charge of racism and enslavement if they weren’t ALL completely innocent of it anyway for not having taken part in it in the first place.

The concept of reparations whether freely given, or demanded is essentially keeping an entire populace on the hook for something their ancestors, or someone who lived in the same area, or someone with their same skin tone did long ago. Unless they themselves are guilty of the crime for having directly committed it, then there is no blame.

There is no guilt.

This idea that there is, or should be guilt is obviously hurting people. People expect to receive and do not, causing bitterness and resentment. In Europe’s case, this guilt is allowing innocent people to be assaulted, stolen from, raped, and killed because the guilt is causing them to sweep it under the rug so they don’t look like they’re not the changed, open-minded country that starkly contrasts their ancestors.

Past wrongs were wrong. That is true. The qualifying word here, however, is “past.” The guilty are dead or dying. The new generation’s hands are clean, and they reject the mistakes of their ancestors by a vast majority.

We should not be making today pay for foregone yesterdays.