Is it Wrong to Advise Non-Indians to Defend Themselves Against Indian Exploitation?

Last Updated on July 8, 2021 by Shaun Snapp

Executive Summary

  • This article contains a comment and my reply to an Indian who opposes the way Brightwork covers the topic of Indian exploitation.

Introduction

This comment is from an Indian offended by the articles about Indians at Brightwork Research & Analysis.

*This commenter submitted a previous comment, but it had personal attacks and contained guesswork around my views on other topics, so I have excluded the first message but included the second. However, I removed several personal attacks from this message as well. Other commenters may want to take note that personal attacks are not considered an acceptable argumentative technique.

My Partial Response to This Commenter’s Previous Comment

I have received this type of comment before, and it is a type of projection on the part of the commenter that I think is based on the article passing some type of PC threshold, which makes you uncomfortable. And this causes an emotional reaction and a need to put the author back in their box.

So I would not share this comment with my audience because it is filled with personal attacks and inaccuracies. You have written things about my views that are incorrect, and I can prove this. If someone wants to debate me, they have to stay with the arguments and the evidence, and you have not done that.

My first point is that you seem to be agreeing with what I am saying about Indians. In fact, you can’t state what I am saying is incorrect, and that is the only important topic. I have a lot of articles on the topic, but many articles on a lot of topics. So categorizing this as an obsession is a personal attack. These issues are not adequately covered, and the victims of Indian behavioral patterns are suffering because of this. What exactly is wrong with publishing accurate information about a topic that is affecting so many people?

The Response

This commenter begins in response to my question about her support for freedom of speech.

You are as entitled to absolute freedom of expression as I am entitled to pen a response to views that are publicly held. I see no reason to apologise for exercising my right to respond. As the saying goes: If you cannot take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

You did not catch what I said about being wrong about my other views and projecting what you think I think?

I provided article evidence that what you thought about at least some of my views was wrong?

Did you miss that point completely? So now you are pretending you did not get my other views wrong and pretending that you did not project these views onto me? Wouldn’t you love it if I supported bombing countries? You would jump for joy if only I could fit into your “stereotype.” Who is stereotyping now?

You see, in my culture, you are obligated to admit when you were wrong. You don’t appear to share my culture. If I were wrong about something, I would correct it immediately. I would also apologize to you.

The commenter continues..

Please do not wave my womanhood around as a rhetorical tool – I am perfectly cognisant of the fact that I would be treated in a subhuman manner in MENA countries, but that does not excuse your wanton bigotry.

And as for Islam, I will wave your womanhood in your face because you are defending societies that would not allow you to express your view while denigrating white societies that gave you this right. And I am also going to wave in your face where exactly your rights come from. So if you are going to be a woman and defend Islam, you will get that waved in your face. What you call “waving in your face” is actually called evidence.

Let find out how much you support Islam that, according to you, was harshly mistreated by Europeans. Take my article challenges and ask yourself if you are ready for Sharia. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/a-quick-guide-to-sharia-law/ Sounds great, doesn’t it? Many feminists think Sharia can help fight the patriarchy. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/are-feminists-right-that-islam-and-sharia-can-be-used-to-help-fight-patriarchy/

Also, the only real heat I found in your previous comment was personal attacks. I don’t respond to or publish personal attacks.

Let us go back to this part of your quote.

I would be treated in a subhuman manner in MENA countries, but that does not excuse your wanton bigotry.

You have confused why I replied about Islam. You said that Islam was attacked by Christianity, which is some sort of strange defense of Indian behavior in the countries to where they have immigrated, I think, by stating that non-Indians, particularly white people, have done bad things. In fact, in your previous comment, your main point seems to center around white people doing bad things historically. Secondly, there are tons of books that talk about the misdeeds of Europeans. Still, I find it curious that when unacceptable behavior is brought up around non-whites, immediately the defenses come up, and the topic switches to whites again. Did you know that the largest slave traders in history were Arabs (I cover this in the article Where Did African Slaves Come From And Where Did They Go? However, when it comes to discussions of slavery, the very tiny number of slaves transported to the US (a white country) immediately becomes the topic again. It appears that only whites are held to ethical standards. In fact, while European-based countries eliminated slavery, slavery is common in the Middle East, as is covered in the article Did Slavery Ever End in Arab Countries?

It must be nice to continually change subjects when unethical or corrupt, or abusive behavior is brought up and not have to address ethics outside of white societies.

And I had to chuckle because Islam was set up as a religion of war to dominate and “subdue” infidels. So the idea that a religion based around conquest can complain about itself being conquered does not compute. This would be like a team of professional muggers complaining that they were themselves mugged.

What is the Definition of Bigotry?

I also don’t see where the evidence for my bigotry is. Here is a definition of bigotry.

The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

So you think it is bigoted of me to

  1. Oppose discrimination by Indians against non-Indians.
  2. Observe the reinstitution of bonded labor into the US labor market.
  3. Disdain the degradation of contracts that Indian firms have put onto the US labor market.
  4. Disagree with the widespread acceptance of slavery and slave-like conditions in India.
  5. Oppose the targeting of jobs by Indians of US domestic workers?

And countless other topics covered on this website. This is your definition of bigotry. If this is bigotry, then I will proudly be called a bigot. However, you are misusing the term.

The articles on the site call out the horrid behavior of Indians. Indian culture cannot accuse others of bigotry as it is the height of discrimination and bigotry itself. So again, a claim of bigotry from anyone part of Indian culture really needs a splash in the face with water about what Indian culture is.

The commenter continues..

You would do well to remember that Christianity was spread by the sword during Byzantine rule and later during the European Age of Discovery – Islam may be barbarous in its own right but it never had a monopoly on violent proselytism.

This is a complicated topic that spans several thousand years. The Spanish treatment of native populations in the Americas was horrendous and was supported by the friars. However, Christianity differs from Islam in that Islam began as its life as a conquering religion. There are quotes in the Koran about sex slavery of infidels, and it talks about infidels as lower than dogs and pigs, and much much more. These teachings are accurately reflected in the documentation of ISIS and consistent with Mohammadian teachings. This is no a “perversion of Islam”; this is true Islam. These things do not exist in the Bible. Secondly, Muslim societies are far less civilized than Christian societies, so it is not only the documents and teachings that are substantially different but also the outcomes. Most of the advancement of thought was performed in Christian societies, not in Islamic societies, so Islamic societies have been washouts to advance new ideas. Islam congealed in around 850 AD, was considered imperfectible after that time.

There is simply no doubt that Islam would be the last religion you would choose for any society. I am no Christian, but there is little doubt that Christianity would probably be the top religion you would take. Only an extremely ill-informed person would try to defend Islam. Just read the article links I sent. Those are all the desires and rules of Muslim societies.

“Inflammatory Op-Eds”

The commenter continues..

Your inflammatory op-eds (and let’s be real, that is exactly what they are – personal opining, not peer-reviewed research)

No, I’m afraid I have to disagree that my articles are not opt eds.

An opinion piece does not provide much evidence and is normally primarily about advocating for something. I have some articles that advocate in that way, but that is more of a rarity. Most of the articles describe the mechanics of something or provide examples of something. I checked several opt eds in the New York Times just to brush up on them, as I don’t read opt eds.

I read several of these opt eds, and I did not recognize them as like any of the articles I have published. 

The fact that you either can’t tell the distinction between an opt ed and my articles (or are lying about this to diminish my articles) is a problem. It means your sensitivity to different types of articles is low, or again you are lying.

They are researched pieces that use information from many sources. So I don’t publish just one type of article.

This survey below is not research?

https://indianitsurvey.com/

Surveys, if honestly done, fall into the category of research dno’t theay?

How about this. It explains how the corrupt private banking system in the US works.

https://realstoryonbanking.com/

This site uses a large number of quotes from the best non-mainstream banking sources and is made searchable through the technology we used.

Banking interests control the journals on banking. None of them would ever publish my articles that are critical of the banking industry.

Your requirement for peer review would render me unable to publish on these topics. So what you are saying is that you would like me to publish through censored channels. This is a very Indian view. And this type of view is why India has precisely zero Nobel Prizes since independence. However, India has two Nobel Prizes when it was a British Colonial protectorate. I find the advice by Indians about how to conduct research unconvincing as it is well known I can go to India and buy a Ph.D. for around $9,000. My discussions with Indian PhDs invariable makes me conclude that they are not dedicated to what is true.

Of course, there is a variety of material on the website. Surveys and articles, some with mathematical analysis, some without but Brightwork Research & Analysis is certainly not an opinion site. But even if you don’t like the term research, notice the name. Brightwork Research & Analysis. If one wants to, one can call some of the articles “analysis.” You would have an even harder time asserting that my articles do not contain analysis.

The Problem With Categorizing All Research As Being Peer-Reviewed

Furthermore, your assumption that all research is peer-reviewed is not accurate. Even if we leave out controversial topics, peer-reviewed research has many problems. For example, Newton could not get his work published because he was blocked by the head of the London scientific society, taking credit for his work. Newton only began to get his material published when this man died. Was Newton not producing research because he was not peer-reviewed? The problems with peer review are discussed in this article.

Also, I have published in peer-reviewed journals, and I don’t think much of the process. In the journal I published, they have software vendors on the panel, and they don’t like negative information about implementations published. So they have a financial bias to change my submission—secondly, no way any of my articles on Indian IT could be accepted in any journals. There is no journal for such a thing.

Overall this seems to be an error in understanding on your part. You have made the same mistake some other people who have no background in research trying to teach me what research is or how it works. Look at this article How Gartner Research Compares to Real Research Entities. Do you have the research knowledge to have written this article?

When I ask people who critique my research background, I find out they have none.

As for being inflammatory, this is another critical term, but are the articles inaccurate? If they are accurate but inflammatory, does that make them wrong?

Should the information be censored if it reaches a point of inflammation?

The Commenter’s True Stance on Freedom of Speech

You are use explanations that make me question your dedication to freedom of speech. People who are dedicated to freedom of speech don’t speak like you are speaking. Everyone says they support freedom of speech in principle. The clues to the desire for censorship come when you find out how tolerant that person is for accurate information but opposed to that person’s views and incentives.

As noted by Chomsky, even Stalin was in favor of freedom of speech for views he agreed with.

Didn’t you say in your previous email that I need to stay out of the kitchen if I could not take the heat? You heaped personal attacks in the first email you sent, so it appears like your concern for heat and inflammation is a one-way affair.

Striking a Nerve = Contradicting With The Commenter’s Indian Bias

The commenter continues..

They…struck a raw nerve in me because 1) I work in tech, and 2) I am of Dougla stock, what one might alternatively know as Indo-Carribean. We are mixed with minute amounts of African and/or European ancestry and are either Anglophone or Francophone (that depends on the specific part of the West Indies we hail from) with Westernised given names and Indic surnames that are an unambiguous marker of our patrilineal lineage. We were brought over to the region as cotton pickers and farmers by British colonialists from parts of northern India before the American Civil War and have been isolated from the Indian subcontinent for two to three centuries, yet by virtue of my name alone your preconceived notions would lead you to believe that I am “one of them” – part of a teeming mass of 1.3 billion scammers as you are so inclined to believe. Our proximity to the Northern American mainland has resulted in a sizeable Carribean diaspora in the States and Canada and I am utterly aghast to think that the likes of me and mine would be treated as pariahs by the likes of you with nary a consideration for the nuances of our origin.

I am not sure what to tell you on this, except everything in my articles is true. NO doubt any Indian or partial Indian would have problems reading articles that chronicle how damaging the Indian culture is to non-Indians. Whether you take it personally or not is not a concern of mine as I am not writing for Indians. I am writing to help people and societies defend themselves from Indians. Do I care if this hurts the feelings of Indians? No. This might be like saying the Sikhs should not have tried to hurt the feelings of the Muslims. Yes, but Sikhism is a reaction to persecution by the Muslim invaders.

The fact it reflects poorly on you cannot be allowed to change what I write.

And I will bring up the woman thing again. Indians and Indian culture are bad for women. India is ranked the worst in the world for women. Just imagine that for a moment. That means India has to beat out every Muslim country in the world for the top spot. (Yes, I know India is minority Muslim) Therefore you should support European-based culture, not Indian culture, because, under Indian culture, you lose.

In fact, your biggest risk is being exploited by an Indian man, not if Brightwork’s articles about Indians become more popular. I would be far more concerned about this risk and the Indian men in your life than my articles.

Also, as Indians are doing nothing to stop their wanton discriminate non-Indians, is any Indian really in a good position not to be categorized in this exploitive group? I barely ever have Indians reach out to me to talk about how terrible Indian behavior is. The fact is most Indians accept exploitive behavior. Indians call Indians who are not exploitive “lacking survival skills.” So, there does not appear to be any groundswell from Indians to stop Indian exploitation. I have had a few comments from Indians calling out Indian practices, but the vast majority endorse Indian exploitation.

This is a good time to bring up the universal nature of Indian awfulness.

  • Indian companies are all, not some, all horrible places to work. This is not some “percent defective.”
  • When I say that every Indian I ever worked with was over 20 years dishonest, this again is not a percentage. This is all of them.
  • Indians have demonstrated enormous corruption and discrimination since arriving in large numbers to European-based countries (but of course, it went on in India long before this). And the more Indians that are allowed into a country, the worse it is for the inhabitants of that country.

This is Indian culture. Under some circumstances critiquing individuals as part of the group they are part of is not fair to many members. But in the case of Indians, the “stereotype” has an incredibly high accuracy level. There is microscopic variance between Indians in these negative characteristics I am describing.

Indians Do Not Show Reformist Tendencies

Indians have done nothing to reform their country. It is not part of Indian culture to reform, exploit, and degrade every country that they immigrate to because Indian culture sees how you can scam or rig something and is not about improving something for the general welfare. And that is just a fact from multiple avenues of evidence. The evidence is presented in many articles on this website. You can’t dispute them; hence, you come up with some sort of PC smokescreen and divert attention to everything but the evidence presented in these articles. You spend your time calling them not research, calling them opt eds or calling them McCarthyism. You spend your time smearing and leveling unsubstantiated allegations — which is paradoxically what McCarthy did. All of this is itself evidence that you do not have evidence that my articles are incorrect.

I have to ask.

  1. Would an honest person do this?
  2. How different are you from the Indians I have profiled in the many articles on the site?

Perhaps you don’t like the articles because they describe either your behavior or the behavior of your friends and family. The exact behavior you do not want out in the general public.

The Problem With Indian Surnames

The commenter continues..

All it takes is a fucking Indian surname to declare one an invalid. Gee, I wonder if I should jettison my ancestral name to drop off your McCarthyist radar.

Many Indians are doing this. Indians reach out as recruiters to IT workers and have names like Stan Wilson.

Why?

Because hatred and distrust are building up against Indians, which is based upon the accurate appraisal of the character of the vast majority of Indians. And the term “invalid” is a bit of pearl-clutching on your part. You are being identified due to an established pattern of deceitful behavior that is not shared by a small segment of Indians but by the great majority.

What else would you have non-Indians do? However, you don’t just have an Indian surname. You are part Indian. You share some part in Indian culture. The number of Indians that are mixed like you is tiny. However, the dishonest way you are arguing is making my readout say “Indian.”

Again, your argument assumes you are a good Indian. However, the variance or normal distribution from the mean behavior of Indians (being highly unethical) is so low that I am not sure why we are even entertaining the concept. Remember, Indians in the US rig employment, rig procurement, and many other factors all bring in more Indians. Indians are constantly cheating others, and they have a degree of pride in cheating. For example, you have argued very deceptively in your comments, I would be embarrassed to have written what you wrote, but as an Indian or partial Indian, you may take pride in your deception, much like an attorney feels pride in getting a guilty man set free because his ability to deceive shows his deceptive legal skills.

Observing Truths About Indians is a Form of McCarthyism?

As for McCarthyism, that was based upon a false claim. Joe McCarthy claimed that communists infiltrated the US. This was never true. Those who had leanings towards policies benefited the population, but there was never some communist infiltration in the US. So here you are comparing a false claim with a true claim.

My claims around Indians are true and substantiated with decades of personal experience and many people reaching out to me talking about abuse by Indians. The stories all show the same pattern.

You have stated the following in your previous email.

(my articles) they shine a long-overdue spotlight on the dark underbelly of a low-trust culture that is mystifying and obscure to most,

This seems quite whitewashed, as it makes it sound like the culture is from outer space. We are talking about unethical behavior, and we are talking about Indians. Can you even bring yourself to write about this topic in a way that puts the responsibility on Indians? Furthermore, that is the entirety of your observation about the reality of the articles on Indian IT. Two lines of description. Everything else you have written is not about the topic and moves into creating equivalences with colonialism or personal attacks. You very much do not appear interested in addressing the core issue of Indian behavior.

Perhaps you find my articles inflammatory because you are suppressing an articulate view of what Indians are really like. You can’t believe someone would be so rude not to whitewash the issue as you have done in your mind. This again must be your strong support for freedom of speech manifesting itself.

So even you partially or in a roundabout way acknowledge there should be a spotlight on this culture. However, you still call my articles McCarthyite. How can you acknowledge much of the content of the articles are true but then compare it to a witch hunt that was completely untrue?

Also, am I using McCarthyite tactics? Am I deposing witnesses in the US Senate and ending people’s careers as did Joe McCarthy? No, obviously not.

You have taken a false claim of McCarthyism and mixed it with my substantiated research into Indians in IT. You have taken every opportunity to discredit my work and made zero effort to contradict any specific claims. The tactics you are using are not going to work. They are the lazy person’s approach to discrediting something to which they have an emotional reaction.

Indians Have a Great Reputation in Oceana and Southeast Asia?

The commenter continues..

Pray do tell how you treat long-separated ethnic Indian settlers from ex-European colonies like Suriname, Mauritius, Fiji, Malaysia, Singapore, and South Africa – many of whom are Westernised to the hilt and have diddly-squat to do with the caste-addled subcontinentals domiciled in India or the ones that emigrated to the United States post Hart-Celler act of ’65 save for the inertial retention of identity markers like names and superficial religious practices.

I question this.

  • When I was in Fiji and Singapore, I was told by non-Indians that Indians were unethical and could not be trusted and lied constantly.
  • I also have submissions to the survey stating that Indians engage in the same behavior in Singapore as they do in the US, Australia, etc… (see the quote below)
  • The evidence is that Indians act this way long after they have immigrated to countries and keep the same behavioral patterns of corruption and discrimination they use in India. The Indian behavioral pattern is so consistent that it is utterly predictable. Everywhere Indians live in the world. They act the same way.

Here is one such quote.

Indians Racist Views Begin to Spread?

I am from Singapore, we are suffering from Indians coming to Singapore and converting the entire department or company into Indian firms. No need to look further, Accenture is 80% Indians in Singapore. More restrictions or blocking them from easy access to H1B or Singapore Professional Permit. They don’t just make the environment hostile but their racist views begin to spread.

Bullying People In the Office and Outside of It?

They not only bully people in the office but their family members bully people in the neighborhood they live in.

This seems like you are hoping I do not possess information about Indians in the examples you provide. However, I have traveled to these regions, but I have stories about Indians from around the world through the website. I do not know if you were lying on this topic or you were misinformed. As an Indian or partial Indian, I expect you to lie, and I have no idea if when you say something, you believe it or if it is just another Indian scam. As an Indian (or partial Indian), you come from a culture that has never graduated to the point where you think true things if they don’t put money in your pocket or don’t support what benefits you.

Remember my logic for advising IT professionals to steer clear of Indians. Indians use personal relationships to gather information and then to dispossess non-Indians of something they want. They pretend to be your friend and then flip a switch and try to take something from you.

This is why I have questioned if conversations with Indians are conversations in the Western sense of a conversation or interaction.

Not Going to Be A Good Indian

The commenter continues..

I have no intention to be accepted into your “good Indians” club like a $2 strumpet from the streets of Bangkok begging for a bone from the degenerate sex tourists sauntering the streets for cheap sexual gratification, but I take enormous exception to the likes of me becoming collateral damage in a McCarthyist campaign led by a zealot so bent on seeing people with certain identity markers as a monolith that he ends up crucifying B to get at A.

You misunderstood the point of this article Should You Try to Find Good Indians While Risking Bad Indians.

The point of the article above is that the number of good Indians is so minimal that trying to see if one can find a good Indian opens one up to enormous risk, as the great majority are unethical or nearly all. The example I give is if a substantial percentage of a woman’s dating pool were rapists. It is not worth dating within that pool. So I am saying that opening oneself to continual exploitation by Indians to make one’s “PC quota” of finding “one good Indian” is a fool’s errand. An enormous percentage of Indians, a number so close to all it may as well be all, can be categorized as sociopaths, and people are right to steer clear of sociopaths.

Overall, you are telling me not to warn people about Indian exploitation. Or I can, but not too much. In fact, I am a little hazy on how I can both warn people and fit within your parameters so that you don’t feel threatened in any way. My feeling is that if you had your way, my articles would not be published. That is, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You say my articles are inflammatory. However, all they do is describe the things that Indians and Indian companies do. So are the articles inflammatory, or is Indian behavior that I am documenting inflammatory?

The Implications of Keeping Things Quiet

If all of this is kept quiet, the exploitation will continue. Could this result in negative consequences for some Indians? First, the idea of good Indians is not found anywhere that I have looked. So what evidence is there for the hypothesis that good Indians exist? Second, Indians have large control over US media. And they are providing promotional and false information about Indians to the public. They are also aligned with US corporate interests that want to use Indians against the domestic population to lower their wages and to dispossess them of the society their ancestors built. The US has been on such perilous elitist takeover, that it now has the income inequality of nations that never indusrialized as I cover in the article Why Does the US Have and Income Inequality of a Preindustrialized Country

This published and corporate-controlled information about Indians is false (in fact, most of the information explained to the public about the H1-B program is false, as I have covered on this website); however, as it is positive, I would assume you support it over my material. After all, it is in no way inflammatory. Very corporate, and PR manipulated.

This means you seem to oppose one of the few entities that focus on telling the truth about Indian culture and the exploitative danger that Indians present to non-Indians. Breitbart does it, and some smaller sites do it, but the establishment media will absolutely not cover it.

The only thing you seem to be concerned about is the potential impact on you, and this is if the truth about Indians gets out. You wordsmith even the negative aspect of Indian culture as “low trust culture,” which illustrates the degree to which you censor appalling Indian behavior in your mind.

But what about the negative impact that Indians impose on non-Indians? This does not appear to be anywhere on your priority list. That is what I am bringing to light. As I said, Indians are in the process of degrading every society to which they immigrate. Indians have largely taken over recruiting in the US and are mass discriminating against non-Indians. Why is this allowed? Why are Indians allowed to parasitize European-based societies that they could never have built themselves and to expropriate the benefits from the people that did?

And it is long past time for non-Indians to be constrained by PC on this issue. The fact that you want accurate information censored shows that you don’t really care about the damage Indians do to non-Indians. You want these things covered in only the most delicate way that hides the reality of Indian behavior from the world.

Post Article Comment

For those reading this, I had to spend a lot of time analyzing this commenter’s email. From this email, I determined that this commenter was arguing in bad faith and was interested in really only personal attacks or coming up with red herring arguments designed to distract from the issue that my coverage of Indian behavior is accurate. I could do all this work, or I could have learned that the commenter was Indian or partially Indian (something I did not learn until after the first email she sent). Over several decades I have never once had an interaction with an Indian that was honest. How could this be true if there were not something powerfully consistent with Indian culture?

I could put effort into trying to understand an Indian’s arguments, or after so much experience, I could have just been advised that the commenter was Indian or partially Indian. Simply knowing that the commenter is Indian is enough information to disregard what the commenter had to say. After reading her comments, I found numerous areas of deception and dishonesty, but it took me time. It takes mental effort to analyze an argument and more mental effort to analyze the arguments of Indians because you have to constantly be on guard that the argument is a scam. I still have no idea if the commenter believes anything she says, but instead is just constructed the arguments to be confusing in order to emerge victoriously. At one point I caught the commenter projecting views onto me that are not my views. When I showed articles supporting my actual views, she refused to recognize that she was wrong. However, does the commenter have poor reading comprehension, and did she get confused, or was she lying about being caught projecting? We will never know because the commenter is Indian.

But if I had known the commenter was Indian, I could have ascertained this information that she would make dishonest arguments without reading her email. This is yet another example of the logic of the argument for ghosting Indians. Non-Indians can save themselves a lot of time and risk by not wasting time interacting with Indians.