Indigenous rights and the right to migration are not rights, they are instruments of enslavement
Copyright: Lionel Royer [Public domain]
Are you perhaps a fan of the TV series “Vikings”? If so, when the Scandinavian Vikings fight to occupy “indigenous” Saxon lands in Britain, do you feel that the Saxon “First Nations” are morally superior to the invading Vikings? If so, check yourself. Saxons displaced the native Celts only a few centuries earlier when they crossed the English Channel from northern Germany. They are about as indigenous to the islands as the Vikings. Or are they? At the time of Julius Caesar, all of Western Europe with the exception of the lands east of the Rhine and south of the Alps spoke Celtic languages like Welsh, Cornish, Gaelic, and many that are now extinct. This is well-documented by Caesar himself in his famous Gallic Wars, a multi-tome book, much of which survives to this day. We know from the carefully recorded names of the military leaders Caesar fought and defeated that they were all Celts. Today, Celts and their languages are pushed to the margins; Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Ireland, Brittany. Hard and wild places to which the remnants of the Celts fled pursued by Germanic tribes from the east and and the Latin-speaking Romans from the south. Today, Europe speaks German and Roman, and the world’s lingua franca, the language that the Japanese use to speak to the Chinese is a curious mashup of the two: English.
The only way the word “indigenous” can be applied to humans with scientific precision is to say that humans are indigenous to Planet Earth. The rest is is a matter of arbitrary definitions that have nothing to do with any objective truth. Unfortunately, these definitions have been weaponized in the last half-century by the Western Globalist elites who have begun to feel that their own population has become too independent and needed to be brought under control. In North America, for example, the weaponized definition of indigenous status lumps the descendants of English settlers who arrived in mid-17th century together with an English actor wannabe whose tourist visa expired yesterday as NON-INDIGENOUS, while a person who has a fraction of the genetic makeup that existed in America prior to 1492 is defined as INDIGENOUS. In America and more so in Canada, this weaponized definition of indigenous status is used to transfer wealth from individuals who have it (and all of whom are defined as non-indigenous) to the government, which is charged with administering it on behalf of those who are defined “indigenous” and who are apparently considered (by the government) intellectually incapable of administering it for themselves. Results over many decades unequivocally show that the American and Canadian governments have succeeded beyond anyone’s imagination in padding their own pockets and growing their own ranks, while managing to do absolutely nothing to put the slightest dent in the many deadly problems that plague Native American and First Nations communities.
The other example of weaponized definition of indigenous status is the Israeli-Arab conflict. Anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli forces have proposed the ludicrous idea that Arabs are indigenous to the strip of land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean and Jews are not. This, of course, is ludicrous, because every bit of scientific data, from ancient Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions to multiple archaeological finds, to the names of most towns and villages in the land that maintained their Jewish names as they appear in the Bible tell us that Jews, while not “indigenous” to the area, have lived in it continuously since at least 1,000 BC and to the present day. The Arabs, however, never set foot there until the Arab conquest of Judea from Byzantium in the late 7th century AD. It is important to note that the Zionist movement does not play games with the definition of indigenous status. It does not attempt to answer the unanswerable question of how long a certain ethnic group must reside in a place to be “indigenous” to it. Israel’s Declaration of Independence simply states the historical truth that the Jewish people have arisen in the Land of Israel and that it was in that land that they have produced their incomparable cultural legacy.
However, even that historical claim, while being the necessary condition for the reestablishment of Jewish political independence in Israel, is far from being the sufficient condition. That condition was fulfilled in the over two millennia that Jews did not control their natal land. It was fulfilled when the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the various Islamic rulers concluding with Turkey allowed the land to lay fallow and largely uninhabited, when neither of them invested in its development, and when the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the aftermath of WWI. Had the Jews originated on the island of Manhattan, they would have a had a hard time reclaiming it from the United States. While many Jews reside today on the Upper West Side, it does not appear that they will declare independence any time soon. Jews were able to reclaim the land in which they originated because, quite simply, nobody else managed to lay a claim on it for 20 centuries.
Nothing demonstrates the political nature of the concept of “indigenous people”, nothing exposes it more for what it is, a blatant instrument of big government power grab, then the simultaneous embrace by the same globalist elites that push it of the notion of mass migration as a human right. How is it possible to simultaneously claim that being indigenous gives you a supreme preferred status and that getting up one sunny morning, leaving the place in which you are indigenous and moving to a place where somebody else is indigenous is perfectly within your rights? Why is it perfectly legitimate for people from Africa who have lived there for millennia to leave their ancestral homelands and show up on the doorsteps of Europeans, while it was criminal for the ancestors of those same Europeans to leave Europe and show up on Plymouth Rock? Africa is overcrowded and living conditions are poor? So was 17th century England.
The answer of course is altogether different. It has nothing to do with indigenous status, the right to migrate, or any human rights at all. It has to do with one thing only, the Globalist elites insatiable lust for money and for power. The West has always been an idea more than anything else, and it is a rather simple one. It is the idea that power resides with the people who temporarily lend some of it to a government of their choosing so it can accomplish a limited number of enumerated tasks for the common good. This idea is a late one in the annals of human history and it has never enjoyed longevity simply because it is, in control theory terms, unstable. The kind of people that want to instead of minding their own business mind everyone else’s are usually the worst type of people. They are lustful, egomaniacal, mendacious, overly ambitious, and usually unskilled and uneducated. Once one of them gets his hands on some degree of power, he will use that power to get more from the same place where he got it the first time: the people. In times of hardship and danger, people tend to be very mindful of their leaders and cautious of parting with their power even when the promises of various goodies are extended. Such an arrangement creates an optimal collaboration between an enlightened and aware populace and an honest and capable government. When that happens, you get Athens, and Rome, and Britain, and America, and Israel. You get unbelievable prosperity and incomparable military might. But what follows are grubby and dishonest rulers enabled by a weak, fat, feckless populace addicted to its bread and its circuses. Who can argue that this isn’t the state of the West at this point in history?
We are on the cusp of the precipice. The latest era of limited government that began with the trifecta of truly constitutional monarchy in Britain and the French and American revolutions, all children of the 18th century, is coming to an end just as these flashes of power sharing between the elites and the people always do. It had a good run, almost three centuries, but now it is all but over. For our elites, however, it cannot be over soon enough. They are doing all they can to hasten the end, to disenfranchise anyone around the globe who still clings to the notion of individualism, of God-given rights, who will not bend the knee. There are literal battles that are being fought as I write these lines between the forces of globalist control and the forces of individual freedom. They are being fought on the streets of France, and on the borders of Israel, and in the Supreme Court of the United States. The enemy is powerful. They have unlimited resources and unlimited capability to spy on our every move. But they know that we are powerful too. We are powerful because we would rather die than live as their slaves. So they are using the twin punches of calling us unlawful invaders in our own homes and at the same time bringing actual invaders into our homes to replace us.
This idea was best articulated by the latest mouthpiece for the enemy, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when she claimed that both Americas, North and South belonged to their indigenous people, the Latinos. The ridiculousness of the proposition that people who are defined by a word, Latium, that for three millennia now describes a region in Italy are indigenous to the Americas does not make her claim weaker. In the Orwellian world in which we now live, it makes it stronger. The farther something is from the truth, the truer it is. This is the logo of our masters, echoing Lenin’s “the worse things are the better they will be”. Small lies are weak, big ones are powerful. What Alexandria is saying is that your half acre in Natick, MA on which you built that mansard Victorian is not yours at all. It is hers. You may be using it for now, but that is only because as of yet she has bigger fish to fry. Better start packing your bags just in case.
Do we have a chance? Is there yet a glimmer of hope? Hard to tell, but one thing is certain. We had better wake up and start telling the truth, even if it is forbidden to do so. We must reject, loudly and clearly, the concept of indigenous rights. The only land ownership rights that we should recognize are the rights registered in the registry of deeds by lawful authorities. No group of citizens has privileges above and beyond any other group of citizens, but all citizens have privileged rights as compared to BOTH LEGAL AND ILLEGAL immigrants. Migration across international borders is most certainly not a human right, it is a crime, one that each country is sovereign to deal with as it pleases. Once we assert these truths loudly and clearly and without fear, we may regain just a little bit of ground that we have so recklessly ceded to those who would enslave us. Our time is nearly up.
