Piers Morgan Savagely OBLITERATES Woke Lawyer, Leaving Her Speechless!

.
.

The Apology Trap: Why the Woke Crusade for Collective Guilt Threatens National Pride and Fails to Deliver Justice

By Darian K. Miller, Senior Political Analyst

LONDON | NEW YORK – As fireworks light up the skies for the Fourth of July, the celebration of American independence is increasingly marred by a political crusade seeking to dismantle national pride and replace historical commemoration with constant, debilitating apology. A fiery debate, recently highlighted on Piers Morgan’s show, exposed the deep philosophical divide between those who believe in national self-affirmation and those who view Western history solely through the lens of perpetual guilt and grievance.

The segment featured conservative heavyweights like Douglas Murray clashing directly with voices demanding that contemporary society be held accountable for historical crimes. The core argument leveled by critics is that the modern push for collective historical apology is not about reconciliation or justice, but rather a narcissistic, political ploy to shift power dynamics and project racial guilt onto the majority population.

The confrontation confirmed the existence of a toxic “grievance competition” that threatens to consume the cultural bedrock of both the United States and the United Kingdom, leaving citizens confused, demoralized, and deeply cynical about the future of their nations.

I. The Ideological Divide: July 4th vs. Juneteenth

The conflict is starkly symbolized by the growing trend among certain American political figures to frame Juneteenth—which commemorates the emancipation of slaves in Texas—as a moral and historical alternative to the Fourth of July, the nation’s Independence Day.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Representative Cori Bush (D-MO) have voiced sentiments that the Declaration of Independence was a holiday only for white men, and that Black Americans remain fundamentally unfree.

For critics, this viewpoint is clear evidence of a deep-seated anti-American sentiment, characterized by a fundamental rejection of the nation’s founding principles. The commentary vehemently asserts: “They hate this country and they hate what it’s founded on.”

The enthusiasm with which politicians embraced making Juneteenth a federal holiday—while simultaneously singing a negative tune about the Fourth of July—is seen not as a recognition of history, but as a deliberate political strategy. The argument is that proponents view Juneteenth as a “more liberating holiday” because it focuses on the internal failure of the nation (slavery), thereby allowing for a continuous narrative of oppression and systemic guilt, while rejecting the unified, patriotic celebration of independence.

This political maneuver, critics argue, is designed to create different tiers of citizenship, ultimately aiming to put the majority population—or “white people”—at the bottom of a new moral hierarchy defined by historical guilt.

II. The Moral Masochism: Why Apology is Not Enough

The debate intensified around the concept of compulsory historical apology, specifically targeting institutions like the British Monarchy. Douglas Murray, author of The War on the West, dismissed this trend as a “very strange act of massochism.”

Murray and others highlighted key historical facts that the modern grievance movement conveniently ignores:

British Abolition: King George III signed the Anti-Slavery Act into law in 1807, and the British Royal Family, through Prince Albert and the Anti-Slavery League, were actively involved in policing the slave trade on the high seas decades before the U.S. Civil War.

Historical Distance: Critics questioned the practical and moral end-game of demanding apologies for crimes committed centuries ago by individuals who are long dead, arguing that no living person has suffered the original hurt, and no living person committed the original wrong.

The counter-argument, presented by lawyer Paul Ron Adrain, was that apology does matter. Adrain claimed, “Saying sorry is actually a very empowering thing to do,” and that it helps “people in power are heard to acknowledge pain and hurt.”

This exchange revealed the critical philosophical difference:

The Power Perspective: Critics, such as those in the commentary, contend that the demand for royal or institutional apology is not about empathy, but about power. As stated bluntly: “If you want to know who’s powerful in a society, look at who you can’t criticize.” Forcing powerful figures—or “white people,” as the commentary interprets the complaining parties—to grovel is seen as a narcissistic pursuit of dominance, with no actual intention of moving on.

The Perpetual Grievance Cycle: The critique points to the fact that decades after the Civil Rights Era, there are more complaints about racism than ever before. This suggests a systemic refusal to move forward, driven by an ideology that benefits from the maintenance of perpetual grievance.

III. The Global Hypocrisy of the Slave Trade

A key component of the conservative critique is the observation of glaring hypocrisy when the conversation about slavery and reparations is confined exclusively to Western nations.

Murray introduced historical data to place the transatlantic slave trade into a wider, less discussed global context:

The Ottoman Empire and Arab Countries: Murray noted that these entities traded “far more slaves than across the Atlantic” and engaged in far more brutal practices, such as the castration of male slaves. Yet, there is zero interest in demanding reparations or apologies from modern Arab states.

Intra-African Complicity: The conservative stance highlights the historical reality that there is no interest in Africa in “paying reparations for selling their brother and sister Africans into slavery.” The vast majority of slaves transported to the Americas were sold by African traders and tribal leaders.

Furthermore, critics emphasize the modern crisis of slavery: “There are more slaves in the world today than there were at the height of the transatlantic slave trade.” These areas of modern enslavement—primarily in parts of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa—receive no attention from the “race hustlers” who exclusively focus their moral fury on the West.

The conclusion drawn by the commentary is clear: Western nations are targeted not because they are the worst offenders, but because they are the most virtuous and the most responsive to moral criticism. They are the easiest targets for this “struggle session.”

IV. The Race Hustle: Guilt Projection and Racism

The harshest condemnation is reserved for the motives behind the contemporary critique of Western history. The commentary asserts that the entire movement is predicated on projecting guilt and is inherently racist itself.

Racism Under the Guise of Justice: When the lawyer Adrain stated that the apology is for “making people like me feel better,” the commentary immediately pounced, interpreting this as a clear admission of a narcissistic, power-seeking ploy.

The Framing Tactic: The critique advises against accepting the framing provided by critical race proponents, especially the dangerous notion of “reverse racism.” The correct counter, as argued in the clip, is that “reverse racism isn’t a real thing. It’s just called racism.” The tactic of labeling anti-white rhetoric as something other than racism is dismissed as a disingenuous political ploy.

The Immigrant Paradox: The article highlights the fundamental paradox that undermines the “irredeemably racist” narrative: Britain, America, and France are consistently the most desired destinations for migrants worldwide. The commentary asserts: “It’s not because we’re racist. It’s because we’re better. It’s because we’re good.” It points out that the United States takes more immigrants than any other country in the world, despite making up only 5% of the global population.

The only way to achieve the ideological end of perpetual guilt and apology, critics conclude, is to continuously ignore the documented facts of history, change the moral framework, and engage in “ripping at closed wounds.”

V. Conclusion: Pride Over Masochism

The debate confirms the deep schism in modern public discourse. On one side stands a movement demanding that citizens engage in perpetual moral masochism, defined by collective guilt and the endless pursuit of historical apology. On the other side stands a defense of national pride, grounded in the belief that nations must be allowed to celebrate their progress, learn from their acknowledged failures, and focus on solving modern problems—such as contemporary global slavery—rather than endlessly litigating the past.

For those opposing the perpetual grievance machine, the message is one of defiance: The Western world should stop allowing itself to be labeled as the worst and the most culpable. It is time to assert that a commitment to liberty, equality, and the rule of law—principles that eventually led to the abolition of slavery—is precisely what makes these nations great and desirable. The time for apology is over; the time for self-affirmation and focus on the future must begin.

.