Indigenous – the word the left stole

I’ve been mentioning this fraud for many years – here it is, all covered in one article. As you’ll see, ‘indigenous’, is cleverly used to assist the discrimination agenda being committed against the vast majority of Australians. 

Indigenous, the word the left Stole.

You’ll have likely heard, “the pen is mightier than the sword” – the notion and similar wording has been around a long time, but it was Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839 who put it together as we know it today.

On a battlefield, one would be happy for the enemy to have pens – no chance against a sword, but many, if not most of the more important fights have not occurred on battlefields, but rather, through the written or spoken word.

Words are often misused or not fully understood, and occasionally words will intentionally have their meaning changed. Changes usually occur due to the process of language evolving and sometimes because so many people use a word wrongly for so long, that it takes on the new meaning and tends to lose its original meaning.

This is seen in the common use these days of, ‘decimate’ – a word which actually means to reduce by 10% (Roman – kill one in ten), but through incorrect use over time has come to mean virtually the opposite, being used to describe circumstances where something has been wiped out, or essentially destroyed – such is where, ‘Devastate’, is properly used.

However it appears there are also times when words are, in a sense, stolen, and typically put to bad purpose. Such has certainly proven to be the case with the word, ‘indigenous’ – we’ll examine its real meaning shortly.

The misuse of, ‘indigenous’, has been done to create an exclusive club – not a club one may choose to join, pay to join, or even be invited to join, but a club into which one must be born. Is there anything more elitist – some would say racist?

This, ‘indigenous’, club has been created for the express purpose of entrenching rights and advantages not available to the, ‘non-indigenous’. These are simply racially based advantages achieved through convincing people to accept a special category for others who are portrayed as unique.

Words are never bad – it’s the people who use them and the use they make of them that’s diabolical. Those responsible for using, ‘indigenous’, to describe aboriginal Australians, have succeeded in creating two distinct classes of Australians. In essence, ‘Here First’ and ‘The Uninvited’.

This misuse assists the propaganda that Aborigines, by being exclusively, ‘indigenous’, are traditional owners of the land. Whereas non-Aborigines are non-Indigenous, and hence invaders, who stole everything, even the Children of the land.

This ugly propaganda reduces the significance of one’s birthplace and citizenship, when compared to those put on a pedestal because they are said to be, ‘indigenous’, and hence more special than all other Australians.

It’s appropriate to historically recognize that people occupied a place prior to any current group and that is certainly the case with aboriginal people in Australia.

However, it is utterly wrong, in every way, to separate Australians in order to give to one group, for eternity, that which will never be allowed to others. This is precisely what continues to be done with Australians of aboriginal descent to the detriment of those without aboriginal ancestry. The misuse of, ‘indigenous’, serves this divisive agenda.

Clearly it’s critical to understand what ‘indigenous’, really means – perhaps then the agenda starts to become clear. This word has arguably been redefined by the left to be used politically and socially to advance the cause for aboriginal Australians to have rights not available to other Australians.

The propaganda has been so successful that almost everyone thinks, ‘indigenous’, describes aborigines only, but that is completely untrue. In fact, it’s sustainable to argue that, ‘indigenous’, doesn’t refer to people at all, aboriginal or otherwise!

You see ‘indigenous’, relates especially to Flora (plants) and Fauna (animals), and describes those plants and animals that are originating naturally in a particular region, as opposed to introduced.

Even when extending indigenous to include people, of course, in Australia, people were not naturally occurring. Everyone who has an ancestry attached to Australia has so because their forebears came here – no one sprung up out of the ground. In reality, we are all immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, aboriginal people included.

In that most accurate sense, there is no such thing as a Human Being who is also an, ‘indigenous Australian’.

Accepting the word being applied to humans also means accepting reference to being born in a place. So if one uses, ‘indigenous’, in reference to humans, that’ll be anyone born in Australia, regardless of ancestry.

In defining, ‘indigenous’, there’s something of a link to, ‘Native’, which has historically been applied to non-white (coloured) people around the world. However it actually relates to local inhabitants and just as readily describes white people.

One might express that at the time of the First Fleet’s arrival in 1788, the only indigenous people were Aborigines, but that all changed with the first birth among the colonists.

Definitive conclusion: If, ‘indigenous’, is used in its usual form, then no human Australians are indigenous – in the expanded view, anyone born in Australia is indigenous – one could even refer to themselves as a, ‘Native Australian’.

Further, consider how, ‘indigenous’, is used to discriminate. One may become an Australian through citizenship, yet while no-one can ever become, ‘indigenous’, some are born, ‘indigenous’, through a tiny drop of aboriginal blood. With that birth, comes special treatment not available to anyone else.

Picture the absurdity of accepting this nonsense. An Aboriginal/’indigenous’ child born yesterday, inherits a birthright that provides status, recognition and benefits beyond that allowed for your, ‘non-indigenous’, Australian child born the same day, or your Aussie Grandparents born eighty years ago.

Those, ‘indigenous’, only entitlements are wide ranging and include, land rights, special financial benefits and priority employment – now there is even a strong move to specifically note, ‘indigenous Australians’, in our Constitution.

The Australian Constitution currently has no mention of Australians by groups, racially or otherwise. Once, ‘indigenous’, is in the Constitution, the rights issues become irretrievably entrenched and more costly to we ‘non-indigenous’, Australians.  The uninvited, who occupy Aboriginal land – have no doubt, that’s how we’re seen.

I appreciate there are those who refer to Aborigines as, ‘indigenous’, to respectfully acknowledge their presence in Australia prior to civilization, but to do so is to fall for a very broad, well planned agenda to elevate Aborigines above all other Australians.

I do not support racial discrimination or the division of Australians into various classes. Embracing the current use of, ‘indigenous’, does precisely that. Currently we have Indigenous Australians (Aborigines), non-indigenous (but Australian born) and Non-Australian born, but citizens.

Sadly, more accurately using, ‘indigenous’, to describe Australian born, discriminates against Australian citizens born elsewhere. Given the divisive way in which indigenous has been used, maybe the best course might be to drop the term altogether.

Perhaps let it revert to, as it is often found in old dictionaries, as applying only to flora and fauna and just dispense with any relationship to people.

Otherwise, if you were born in Australia, start referring to yourself as, ‘indigenous’. After all, you’re as entitled to do that as much as any Australian.

I cannot overstate the socially destructive, divisive, discriminating and racist way in which, ‘indigenous’, is being used – I hope you will inform everyone you can as to how every non-Aboriginal in Australia is being dangerously undermined – their birth, their rights, their equality of citizenship – it’s a broad effective and long term agenda.

NOTE: Those who already know what I’ve explained in this article, but have stayed quiet about this matter, do so for reasons such as the following.

Don’t care – don’t think it is an issue for them. This lot fail to see the costly ramifications for all Australians, themselves included.

Support the agenda regardless of it being fraud. This lot likely also believe only Aborigines own Australia and the rest of us are something akin to squatters. BTW, this view ignores global history and is not rationally sustainable in any realistic context.

Won’t speak up for fear of being called racist. It’s a well founded fear, but the only thing racist here is the discrimination agenda that’s underway with the assistance of the dishonest use of the word, ‘indigenous’.

ENDS.