Saturday, December 14, 2013

Even as victims we're oppressors

In 2008 an Indian national living in Melbourne, Puneet Puneet, got drunk and drove at double the speed limit. He hit two white Australian men, killing one and seriously injuring another. He was arrested and bailed but he borrowed the passport of a conational and fled Australia.

He has now been arrested in India and is facing a deportation hearing. But here's the thing. His family is portraying Puneet Puneet as a victim of white racism, even though in this case he is clearly the perpetrator of a crime and the victim is a white Australian:
His father told Fairfax Puneet was a victim in the case. "There is differential treatment for Indians in Australia. I do not think he will be safe there. He is not an accused, he is a victim," he said.

His mother said outside the court that "accidents happen all the time".

"So many Indians were killed in Australia probably in cold-blooded ways. What about those?" she added.

The narrative of whites as oppressors and non-whites as victims is so strong that it is invoked even when, as in this case, an Indian has killed a white Australian.

Another case of Indians playing the race card occurred recently in America. A female Indian diplomat, Devyani Khobragade, has been arrested for falsifying a visa application. She wanted to bring out a young Indian woman to be her nanny and housekeeper and claimed on the visa application that she would be paid award rates. It is alleged that the nanny/servant was in reality only paid $3.00 an hour.

That's interesting for a couple of reasons. First, Devyani Khobragade claims to be an advocate for women. She does not seem to practise what she preaches and was willing to exploit female labour for her own advantage. Second, it's another example of how difficult it can be for locals to compete with overseas labour. Presumably, the Indian woman was willing to travel to America and work for an absurdly low wage as a servant in the hope of getting residency. Why would a local accept the same conditions?

Anyway, once again, the father is claiming that his child is a victim of racism:
"It is nothing but a racial bias. It is simple and clear racial bias to harass the Indians," he said.


  1. "The narrative of whites as oppressors and non-whites as victims is so strong that it is invoked even when, as in this case, an Indian has killed a white Australian."

    Right. It's an anti-white narrative that has power because a lot of money gets spent every year to strengthen that narrative, and there are sneaky messages supporting it in practically every film that comes out of Hollywood and winds up on our television screens. That narrative is easy to deploy; it takes no brains, just an accusation.

    It can be terrifying for the targets, because it can lead to social repudiation, mass shaming, losing your job and not being able to get another one, or in some cases legal penalties. And it gets to people internally too - George W. Bush said the worst moment of his presidency was when a pop singer accused him of not caring about black people - the "racist" accusation. That is a lot of control to have over someone's feelings.

    And deploying this accusation is a free swing. So people take the free swing whenever it suits them or when they feel like it.

    Why is there no penalty for deploying this terrible attack? In part, because there's no "received" word for saying that anti-white race hate propaganda and anti-white false accusations are wrong. "Antiwhite" has been an English word since 1904, but the powers that be do not want to hear that word or recognize it, since once white people have the right tool to think with, the jig is up.

    It's very "1984". We've been controlled in part through denying us the words needed to think about our condition and what is being done to us, just as the bureaucrat intellectual in 1984 wanted people not to be able to think outside the Party's box, for lack of the proper language.

    We live in an anti-white system. The mass media is anti-white. The politicians are reflexively anti-white. The laws, such as our immigration laws, are demographically anti-white. We have "multicultural" policies that create a legally enforced one-way flow of racial accusations. And so on. But there's no way for any of this to be recognized as wrong, and corrected, or even recognized as one big thing (which it very much is) without the proper word.

    If anti-whitism was a recognized "thing", you would not see people casually, routinely employing false anti-white accusations and narratives like this.

    You would not have the one-side playing field where it Peter says something Patil does not like, Patil calls Peter a "racist" and society and the law beats Peter down, but if Patil says something Peter does not like, tough. Because there really is no label for anything Patil could be saying to Peter, even if he calls him a white bastard and accuses him of historic crimes.

    (And no, "racist" is not neutral language, equally applicable to all races. Academics have labored for generations to make sure it can never be that.)

    Without the word "anti-white" we are not going to be able to get anything corrected, because there won't be a "thing" that rules could address, the way "racism" has been a "thing" that rules address.

    Without the word "anti-white" we are not even going to be able to explain to people that disadvantaging, demeaning and even genociding white people is wrong, and that it's wrong to do all of the above on system, as a matter of bureaucracy and law.

    Too many people, too often, just can't recognize and remember something they don't have a word for, even if it's in front of them every day.