Why Were Winston Peters’s Comments About Indigeneity So Controversial?
by Vince McLeod
Winston Peters when he said that Maori people are not indigenous to New Zealand. The chimpout that followed saw Chris Hipkins, Chris Luxon and David Seymour . This caused some to ask: why are the left and the right teaming up against the centre?
The explanation: the left vs. right paradigm is no longer as relevant as the globalist vs. nationalist paradigm, if it ever was.
The globalist conception of indigeneity, which is essentially an anti-white conception, is that indigenous and non-indigenous are like victim and criminal. The presence of the non-indigenous in indigenous lands is a crime of some kind, and one that needs to be rectified, or at least compensated for. To be indigenous is to be innocent; to be non-indigenous is to be guilty.
This narrative – of irreconcilable opposition – is pushed by globalist interests in order to divide and conquer nations. It is in rejecting this narrative of division that Winston Peters has gained the ire of the globalists.
Peters correctly realises that a globalist conception of indigeneity is a threat to the New Zealand nation, because it sets the two primary components of the New Zealand nation (white Kiwis and Maori Kiwis) against each other in conflict. Through rejecting this conception, in favour of one where whites and Maoris work together as Kiwis, Peters has caused great seething.
Globalists are seething because they need to destroy nations, and to destroy national consciousness, in order to get those people to accept mass immigration. Mass immigration maximises rents and minimises wages, and therefore maximises profits, which is all that matters in our soulless capitalist hellscape.
There are few things more profitable than mass immigration for those who already own land, and the more land they own the more profitable mass immigration is.
The stumbling block for the globalists is that the people who already live in New Zealand will naturally oppose mass immigration, as it increases their cost of living and lowers their wages. So the globalists have to divide and conquer those people, by splitting them into an indigenous Maori bloc innocent of all wrongdoing, and a non-indigenous white (or Pakeha) block whose very presence in these isles is a crime.
This same scam is being pulled right now in Australia and North America as well. Even in Europe, white people are told that the Sami are the only indigeneous European people and that white people themselves don’t qualify (which leads to the absurd assertion that Icelanders, who have been in Iceland for 1,100 years, are not indigenous to Iceland, whereas Maoris, who have been in New Zealand for only 800 years, are indigenous to New Zealand).
The whole purpose of pushing indigeneity as a concept, when it comes down to it, is to disenfranchise white people. The concept creates the impression that only non-whites truly belong in New World countries. Whites don’t truly belong in New Zealand (or Australia, Canada, America, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, etc.). Therefore they need to gracefully let go of the levers of power.
If white people were encouraged to think of themselves as first-class citizens of New Zealand, as good as anyone else, those white people would be more inclined to defend the country against the globalist thieves in control of the mainstream propaganda organs. They would refuse to accept governments who sell the country out from under them, whether by asset sales or allowing mass immigration.
In other words, they would be less profitable.
The profit motive demands that the New Zealand nation be shattered among as many fracture lines as possible, and to that end, Maoris and white Kiwis need to be set against each other. The time-honoured way of doing this is to manufacture a grievance narrative wherein everything white Kiwis have to their name is considered stolen from Maoris.
Winston Peters, like the author of this piece, has both Maori and white ancestry. Following naturally from this is a conception of nationalism that sees Maoriness and whiteness as equally legitimate expressions of Kiwiness, similar to how the Jomon and the Yayoi people both represent the modern Japanese.
Such a conception would heal the damage caused by globalist lies in recent decades – lies which have seen the New Zealand nation divided into Team Maori and Team White and then set against each other, to the ongoing detriment of both.
In summary, the very concept of indigeneity is globalist psychological warfare against those peoples who would live freely and determine their own fates. There’s no need for it other than to ascribe special privileges to the “indigenous” and to thereby stir resentment among the “non-indigenous”, weakening the nation against outside threats.
Peters’s comments were controversial because the globalists are in near-total control of the mainstream media, which means globalist values are normalised and nationalist values made to seem insane or evil. Thus, it’s expected that Peters would kowtow to globalist lies such as Maori people being indigeneous to New Zealand. In reality, it’s the fact that he told the truth – and not so much what he said – which is controversial.
As Orwell didn’t, but could have, written: in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Please pass all Counterspin articles on to those you think would appreciate them but will not come to them without your assistance. We are creating the new world, and it begins with honest human interaction and the sharing of ideas.