The link has several videos:
As I have noted on previous posts, Israel is a common target of the Left as its very existence as a nation stands in contrast to the drive by Leftists to destroy any and all national borders. As Islam also is inherently against thought of any nation maintaining its freedom and sovereignty (In their case because these form a bulwark against the establishment of worldwide Islamic rule -Dar al-Islam), the Left has found a convenient group to support to support their cause,the Palestinians.
Anyway, back to the interesting point - The group that started in with the mic-crashing referred to itself as un-Occupy Albuquerque. The reason for this the following:
"The word “occupy” in general is offensive to most Native Americans and indigenous people and people of color in general – again in general. Occupations have displaced us for generations by Europeans."
We are at the point where we cannot simply ignore statements such as these as the rantings of brainwashed and deluded individuals. The Western world, the people descended from those who created it, and those who have moved here (Or remained here) to be a part of it, are the main targets of the Left, the Occupy movement (Including its little brother, "un"), environmentalists, and Islam.
All of the invasions, occupations, raiding, conquering, and pillaging that have been committed by all the peoples and nations of the world do not matter - except for those that were done by Europeans. The Europeans and those descended from them are the only groups of people on which guilt should be laid.
For starters, the Aztecs were a terribly vicious conquering people who engaged in warfare almost solely to gain captives for human sacrifice, or worse, cannibalism:
"With an understanding of the importance of cannibalism in Aztec culture, and of the ecological reasons for its existence, some of the Aztecs' more distinctive institutions begin to make anthropological sense. For example, the old question of whether the Aztecs' political structure was or was not an "empire" can be reexamined. One part of this problem is that the Aztecs frequently withdrew from conquered territory without establishing administrative centers or garrisons. This "failure" to consolidate conquest in the Old World fashion puzzled Cortés, who asked Moctezuma to explain why he allowed the surrounded Tlaxcalans to maintain their independence. Moctezuma reportedly replied that his people could thus obtain captives for sacrifice. Since the Aztecs did not normally eat people of their own policy, which would have been socially and politically disruptive, they needed nearby "enemy" populations on whom they could prey for captives. This behavior makes sense in terms of Aztec cannibalism: from the Aztec point of view, the Tlaxcalan state was preserved as a stockyard. The Aztecs were unique among the world's states in having a cannibal empire. Understandably, they did not conform to Old World concepts of empire, based on economies with domesticated herbivores providing meat or milk."
The people of Tlaxcalan were kept in a state similar to that which the Eloi were for the Morlochs in the story The Time Machine by H.G. Wells. The Aztecs have long been portrayed as a peaceful and noble people who were the victims of European aggression. Well, Cortez was certainly aggressive, but rest assured, he and his successors, like them or not, put an end to human sacrifice and cannibalism.
But the European Spaniards were the only bad guys here.
Aside from countless smaller-scale campaigns that resulted in widespread pillaging, slave-taking, and seizures of land, Europe was invaded, with full conquest being the intent, by non-Europeans four times in the Middle Ages; the Turco-Mongol Avars in the 6th century, the Arabs and Berbers of the 8th, the Mongol invasion of the 13th, and the Ottoman Turks of the 14th and 15th. (The last one is still with us today - ancient Thrace in Europe is a part of modern-day Turkey). I have not included the Huns as they arrived before the beginning of the Middle Ages. I have also not included the Magyars (Hungarians) as their geographic origin is not clear. Europe was, nevertheless, ravaged by them for many years. They, like Finns and Estonians, do not speak an Indo-European language but belong to the Finno-Ugric group. The Basques speak a language not attributed to either the former or the latter, but one that is believed by some to be related to Georgian.
Slavery, while essentially disappearing in the West, was revived and maintained as a system by the Muslims. In Spain, the Christian communities under Islamic rule and the Christian Kingdoms that held on to a precarious existence, had no choice but to provide members of their own population as tribute.
This also happened in the Balkans when the Ottomans destroyed piece-by-piece what was left of the Byzantine Empire.
Contrary to what is claimed by some modern revisionists, there is every reason to believe that, had Charles Martel been defeated at the batter of Tours (Poitiers), the Muslim advance would have been continued into the heart of Western Europe.
There is, however, no doubt that the defeat of the Ottomans at their final siege of Vienna in 1683, a scant 100 years prior to the official recognition of the American Republic, repulsed what would have eventually turned much of Western Europe in a battle ground.
The Avars were driven out of Europe largely due to the efforts of Charlemagne and his German allies by the end of the 8th century, but the Mongol devastation of eastern Europe lasted much longer:
This of course is not intended to be an exhaustive or even detailed description of the history of invasions of Europe. The intent was to demonstrate that the Europeans too have felt the heavy hand of invasions and oppression -even at the hands of the Northmen or Vikings, themselves Germanic peoples, who terrorized and enslaved many Europeans prior to their conversion to Christianity.
None of this matters to the Left. Every invasion by any non-European people or nation is OK. Whether it is the Chinese of the Viet peoples, the Mongols of China, Russia, Poland and Hungary, the Aztec of everyone in Mexico, or of course the armies of Islam, who have been the most indiscriminate in their choice of peoples to attack, none of these can be brought into the discussion. The atrocious treatment of Native Americans captives by other Native Americans cannot be taken into consideration either.
All that matters are the Europeans. It is they who are responsible for all of the world's ills. Had they never existed or had been nipped in the bud as a people early on, the world would be a utopia in which everyone would be nice to each other.
We cannot remain silent any longer. Europeans and their descendants cannot be held to be different from other ethnic/cultural groups in regards to military aggression. They can, though, be held to be different in their accomplishments such as the concepts of the free individual, basic rights, property, and limited yet effective government. We can also include science, engineering, the arts, literature and more. There is nothing wrong with standing up for one's heritage.