The India Menace - Street shitting, unsanitary practices, scams, Hindu extremism & other things

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The FDA is now inspecting Indian drug manufacturing facilities:
1774049806826.png
1774049825115.png
1774049829200.png
Source (Archive)

Full Letter:
WARNING LETTER​

Patcos Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.​

MARCS-CMS 718220 — March 12, 2026​

Delivery Method:VIA UPS
Reference #:320-26-52
Product: Drugs
Over-the-Counter Drugs

Recipient:
Mr. Vimal Patel Director
Director
Patcos Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.
Survey No. 659 A Kevdi Falia Road
Daman 396210 Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu
India

Issuing Office:
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
United States

Warning Letter 320-26-52​

March 12, 2026

Dear Mr. Patel:

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an unannounced inspection of your drug manufacturing facility, Patcos Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., FEI 3009250196, at Survey No. 659, A Kevdi Falia Road, Daman, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman, India, from July 14 to 18, 2025.

Your drug products are adulterated under section 501(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(A), in that they have been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions, whereby they may have become contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health.

This warning letter also summarizes significant violations of Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulations for finished pharmaceuticals. See Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 210 and 211 (21 CFR parts 210 and 211).

Because your methods, facilities, or controls for manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding do not conform to CGMP, your drug products are adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B).

We reviewed your August 11, 2025, response to our Form FDA 483 in detail. Your response is inadequate because you failed to provide supportive documentation for evaluation or adequate evidence of corrective actions taken to bring your operations into compliance with CGMP.

During our inspection, our investigators observed specific violations including, but not limited to, the following:

Insanitary Conditions

Your firm manufactures over-the-counter (OTC) (b)(4) drug products that are marketed to (b)(4). Your drug products are adulterated under section 501(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act because they were prepared, packed, and held under insanitary conditions1. Your production operations, including filling lines, are conducted in a facility that lacks adequate separation barriers from the external environment. Specifically, our investigators observed evidence of harborage areas, broken windows, insanitary production-area sinks, and significant water damage in areas where open processing lines are located and where finished drug products are stored. Further, the investigators observed the following:
  • Harborage areas immediately outside the first floor of the facility where filling, packaging, and (b)(4) production operations are performed. This area consisted of discarded piping with window-grate openings to the exterior of the facility.
    1774049628887.png
  • A broken window precluding the protection of open processing (b)(4) lines (lower right of photo) from the outside environment surrounding the facility.
    1774049645200.png
  • Sinks in the production area used as a source of water for cleaning production equipment.
    1774049654660.png
The insanitary conditions of your facility did not provide adequate protections of your (b)(4) manufacturing operations from potential contamination with filth.

In your response, you state that facility cleaning and repairs will be carried out before restarting production. Your response is inadequate because no other details were provided including but not limited to the scope of repairs, timeframes for completion, or photographs documenting completed remediation. Nor did you include a comprehensive evaluation of your failure to maintain your facility and equipment in a clean and sanitary condition or the potential impact to your OTC drug products.

In response to this letter, provide:
  • A comprehensive plan to remediate the facility, given the pervasive nature of the insanitary conditions.
  • Detailed procedures that demonstrate your firm can maintain buildings free from pests and that they remain in a clean and sanitary state.
CGMP Violations

1. Your firm failed to maintain buildings used in the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of drug products in a good state of repair (21 CFR 211.58).


Your firm failed to maintain your facility in a good state of repair. During a 2017 FDA inspection, our investigators noted that your facility was in disrepair and had experienced flood damage to your facility and (b)(4) system. Our current inspectional findings were commensurate with findings from 2017, indicating that you have not properly remediated and maintained your facility. For example, in addition to the previously mentioned insanitary conditions:
  • The first floor of your facility contained dirt residue-covered flooring as well as water damage, which resulted in inadequate maintenance of the (b)(4)-production system.
  • The (b)(4) floor of your facility showed evidence of significant water damage with brown discoloration of the ceiling and walls and green mold-like residue on the ceiling in retained product storage areas.
Although you are not currently producing (b)(4) drug products for the United States (U.S.), the processing lines were previously used to produce (b)(4) for the U.S. and continue to supply other markets.

To protect drug products from potential routes of contamination, your facility must be kept in a good state of repair and sanitary conditions must be maintained.

In response to this letter, provide:
  • Your corrective action and preventive action (CAPA) plan to implement routine, vigilant operations management oversight of facilities and equipment. This plan should ensure, among other things, prompt detection of equipment/facilities performance issues, effective execution of repairs, adherence to appropriate preventive maintenance schedules, timely technological upgrades to the equipment/facility infrastructure, and improved systems for ongoing management review.
2. Your firm failed to conduct at least one test to verify the identity of each component of a drug product (21 CFR 211.84(d)(1)).

Your firm repeatedly failed to adequately perform identity testing of incoming high-risk components for (b)(4) contamination. In response to our December 15, 2023, FDA Warning Letter 320-24-13 pertaining to the 704(a)(4) records request, you committed to updating your specifications and ensuring robust and documented testing procedures for each high-risk component, including but not limited to (b)(4) solution, used in the manufacture of your OTC (b)(4) drug products. During our recent inspection, we found your practices continued to be inadequate, in that:
  • You continued to use the Indian Pharmacopoeia (IP-(b)(4)) specification for (b)(4) solution which did not require impurities or identity testing for (b)(4).
  • You have not updated sampling procedures to ensure that sampling was properly documented and adequately represented each shipment of each lot of high-risk components.
  • You affirmed that the methods used by your third-party lab to perform identity testing are neither validated nor verified.
Your responses are inadequate and demonstrate a failure to meet commitments. In your response to Warning Letter 320-24-13, you claimed that testing would be implemented. In your August 2025 response you reiterate previous commitments, stating that you will initiate validation/verification of all analytical methods using ICH guidelines and that USP-compliant (b)(4) testing protocols will be adopted. Your current response is inadequate because you did not provide timeframes for completion, documented method validation, and an updated specification with sampling plan to ensure the quality of your high-risk components.

The use of ingredients contaminated with (b)(4) has resulted in various lethal poisoning incidents in humans worldwide. See FDA’s guidance document (b)(4) to help you meet the CGMP requirements when manufacturing drugs containing ingredients at high-risk for (b)(4) contamination at (b)(4).

In response to this letter, provide:
  • A commitment to provide (b)(4) test results, no later than 30 calendar days from the date of this letter, from testing retains for all lots of high-risk drug components used in the manufacture of drug products. Alternatively, if a retain of a component lot is unavailable, perform retain sample testing of all implicated finished drug product batches for the presence of (b)(4).
  • A full risk assessment for drug products that are within expiry which contain any ingredient at risk for (b)(4) contamination (including, but not limited to, (b)(4)). Take prompt and appropriate actions to determine the safety of all lots of the component(s) and any related drug product that could contain (b)(4), including customer notifications and product recalls for any contaminated lots. Identify additional appropriate CAPA that secure supply chains in the future, including, but not limited to, ensuring that all incoming raw material lots are from fully qualified manufacturers and free from unsafe impurities. Detail these actions in your response to this letter.
  • A description of how you will test each component lot for conformity with all appropriate specifications for identity, strength, quality, and purity. If you intend to accept any results from your supplier’s certificate of analysis (COA) instead of testing each component lot for strength, quality, and purity, specify how you will robustly establish the reliability of your supplier’s results through initial validation as well as periodic revalidation. In addition, include a commitment to always conduct at least one specific identity test for each incoming component lot. In the case of (b)(4) and certain additional high-risk components we note that this includes the performance of parts A, B. and C of the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) monograph.
  • The chemical quality control specifications you use to test each incoming lot of high-risk drug components to determine acceptability for use in manufacturing.
  • A comprehensive, independent review of your material system to determine whether all suppliers of components, containers, and closures, are each qualified and the materials are assigned appropriate expiration or retest dates. The review should also determine whether incoming material controls are adequate to prevent use of unsuitable components, containers, and closures.
3. Your firm failed to establish adequate written procedures for production and process control designed to assure that the drug products you manufacture have the identity, strength, quality, and purity they purport or are represented to possess (21 CFR 211.100(a)).

Inadequate (b)(4) System

Your firm uses (b)(4) as a component to manufacture OTC (b)(4) drug products. You failed to adequately validate your (b)(4)-production process to ensure that the system was producing (b)(4) of appropriate quality for its intended use. Additionally, our investigators observed that your (b)(4) system contained several design flaws (e.g., ball valves, (b)(4) tubing with numerous joints, inadequate pipe sloping, threaded fittings and (b)(4) tape), and it was not adequately maintained and periodically sanitized. Furthermore, your (b)(4) system was inadequately monitored to ensure that it consistently produced (b)(4) that met appropriate chemical and microbial quality standards.

In your response, you state that your (b)(4)-system remediation will take effect when you resume routine production. Your response is inadequate because you do not include timeframes for remediating your (b)(4) system’s poor design, completing microbiological and (b)(4) testing, nor validation or sanitization of your (b)(4) system. Further, you do not address the potential impact of a poorly designed (b)(4) system on drug products distributed within the United States that are within expiry.

(b)(4) is (b)(4) which must be suitable for its intended use and routinely tested. To achieve an ongoing state of control in your (b)(4) system, you must conduct routine monitoring of (b)(4), and microbial levels and identify any contamination in the system.

Inadequate Process Validation

You failed to validate the processes you use to manufacture your OTC drug products. During our inspection, you affirmed that process validation was not performed. Furthermore, you provided records for eight batches of (b)(4) drug products tested in December 2023 and January 2024 that were super potent ((b)(4)% to (b)(4)%) for your active ingredient, (b)(4). Your failure to properly validate your manufacturing processes provides a lack of assurance that your finished products have met all quality attributes including specifications.

In your response, you state that you will validate manufacturing processes once routine manufacturing resumes. Your response is inadequate because you do not provide documentation or timeframes for completing your process validation, nor do you consider a retrospective assessment of the potential impact to your products distributed within the U.S. that are within expiry.

Process validation evaluates the soundness of design and state of control of a process throughout its lifecycle. Each significant stage of a manufacturing process must be designed appropriately and assure the quality of raw material inputs, in-process materials, and finished drugs. Process qualification studies include intensive monitoring and testing throughout each significant process stage to characterize intra-batch variation and evaluates batches to determine whether an initial state of control has been established.

Successful process qualification studies are necessary before commercial distribution. Thereafter, ongoing vigilant oversight of process performance and product quality is necessary to ensure you maintain a stable manufacturing operation throughout the product lifecycle. See FDA’s guidance for industry, Process Validation: General Principles and Practices, for general principles and approaches that the FDA considers appropriate elements of process validation at

In response to this letter, provide:
  • A comprehensive, independent, assessment of your (b)(4) system design, control, and maintenance.
  • A thorough remediation plan to install and operate a suitable (b)(4) system. Include a robust ongoing control, maintenance, and monitoring program to ensure the remediated system design consistently produces (b)(4) adhering to (b)(4), United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) monograph, specifications and appropriate microbial limits.
  • Regarding the latter, ensure that your total microbial count limit for (b)(4) is appropriate in view of the intended use of the products produced by your firm.
  • A detailed risk assessment addressing the potential effects of the observed (b)(4) system failures on the quality of all drug product lots currently in U.S. distribution or within expiry. Specify actions that you will take in response to the risk assessment, such as customer notifications and product recalls.
  • A detailed summary of your validation program for ensuring a state of control throughout the product lifecycle, along with associated procedures. Describe your program for process performance qualification, and ongoing monitoring of both intra-batch and inter-batch variation to ensure a continuing state of control.
  • A timeline for performing process performance qualification for each of your marketed drug products.
  • Process performance protocol(s), and written procedures for qualification of equipment and facilities.
  • A detailed program for designing, validating, maintaining, controlling, and monitoring each of your manufacturing processes that includes vigilant monitoring of intra-batch and inter-batch variation to ensure an ongoing state of control. Also, include your program for qualification of your equipment and facility.
4. Your firm failed to establish an adequate quality unit and the responsibilities and procedures applicable to the quality control unit are not in writing and fully followed (21 CFR 211.22(a) and (d).

The records and information you provided demonstrate that your quality unit (QU) did not effectively exercise its responsibilities to oversee the quality of your drug manufacturing operations. Specifically, your QU failed to:
  • Ensure adequate control over laboratory data including deliberate alteration of original data to conceal out-of-specification results (21 CFR 211.194).
  • Ensure that batch production and control records are complete (21 CFR 211.188)
  • Ensure adequate specifications, sampling plans, and test methods for components and drug products to assure they conform to appropriate standards of identity, strength, quality and purity (21 CFR 211.160(b)).
  • Ensure the establishment of a written testing program designed to assess the stability characteristics of drug products and to use the results of stability testing to determine appropriate storage conditions and expiration dates (21 CFR 211.166(a)).
In your response, you state that you will perform certain corrective actions upon resumption of production but acknowledge that you have limited ability to fully implement the proposed systemic changes across the facility. Your response is inadequate because you did not provide documentation in support of any proposed changes or commit to compliance with CGMP before resuming operations. Furthermore, your response does not address the significant failures in data governance observed during our inspection.

Significant findings in this letter demonstrate that your firm does not operate an effective quality system in accordance with CGMP. In addition to the lack of effective management oversight of your production and laboratory operations, we found that your QU was not enabled to exercise proper authority and insufficiently implemented its responsibilities. Executive management should immediately and comprehensively assess your company’s manufacturing operations to ensure that your systems, processes, and products meet CGMP.

Your firm’s quality systems are inadequate. See FDA’s guidance document Quality Systems Approach to Pharmaceutical CGMP Regulations for help in implementing quality systems and risk management approaches to meet the requirements of CGMP regulations 21 CFR parts 210 and 211, at https://www.fda.gov/media/71023/download.

In response to this letter provide:
  • A comprehensive assessment and remediation plan to ensure your QU is given the authority and resources to effectively function. The assessment should also include, but not be limited to:
    o A determination of whether procedures used by your firm are robust and appropriate
    o Provisions for QU oversight throughout your operations to evaluate adherence to appropriate practices
    o A complete and final review of each batch and its related information before the QU disposition decision
    o Oversight and approval of investigations and discharging of all other QU duties to ensure identity, strength, quality, and purity of all products
  • A comprehensive, independent assessment and CAPA plan to ensure the adequacy of your stability program. Your remediated program should include, but not be limited to:
    o Stability indicating methods
    o Stability studies for each drug product in its marketed container-closure system before distribution is permitted
    o An ongoing program in which representative batches of each product are added each year to the program to determine if the shelf-life claim remains valid
    o Detailed definition of the specific attributes to be tested at each station (timepoint)
Responsibilities as a Contractor

Drugs must be manufactured in conformance with CGMP. FDA is aware that many drug manufacturers use independent contractors such as production facilities, testing laboratories, packagers, and labelers. FDA regards contractors as extensions of the manufacturer. You are responsible for the quality of drugs you produce as a contract facility regardless of agreements in place with product owners. You are required to ensure that drugs are made in accordance with section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act for safety, identity, strength, quality, and purity. See FDA’s guidance document Contract Manufacturing Arrangements for Drugs: Quality Agreements at https://www.fda.gov/media/86193/download.

Data Integrity Remediation

Your quality system does not adequately ensure the accuracy and integrity of data to support the safety, effectiveness, and quality of the drugs you manufacture. See FDA’s guidance document Data Integrity and Compliance With Drug CGMP for guidance on establishing and following CGMP compliant data integrity practices at https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/pub...ufacturing-Practice-Guidance-for-Industry.pdf.

We strongly recommend that you retain an independent third-party qualified consultant to assist in your remediation. In response to this letter, provide:
  • A comprehensive investigation into the extent of the inaccuracies in data records and reporting. Your investigation should include:
    o A detailed investigation protocol and methodology; a summary of all laboratories, manufacturing operations, and systems to be covered by the assessment; and a justification for any part of your operation that you propose to exclude.
    o Interviews of current and former employees to identify the nature, scope, and root cause of data inaccuracies. We recommend that these interviews be conducted by a qualified third party.
    o An assessment of the extent of data integrity deficiencies at your facility. Identify omissions, alterations, deletions, record destruction, non-contemporaneous record completion, and other deficiencies. Describe all parts of your facility’s operations in which you discovered data integrity lapses.
    o A comprehensive retrospective evaluation of the nature of the testing and manufacturing data integrity deficiencies. We recommend that a qualified third party with specific expertise in the area where potential breaches were identified should evaluate all data integrity lapses.
  • A current risk assessment of the potential effects of the observed failures on the quality of your drugs. Your assessment should include analyses of the risks to patients caused by the release of drugs affected by a lapse of data integrity and analyses of the risks posed by ongoing operations.
  • A management strategy for your firm that includes the details of your global corrective action and preventive action plan. Your strategy should include:
    o A detailed corrective action plan that describes how you intend to ensure the reliability and completeness of all the data you generate including analytical data, manufacturing records, and all data submitted to FDA.
    o A comprehensive description of the root causes of your data integrity lapses including evidence that the scope and depth of the current action plan is commensurate with the findings of the investigation and risk assessment. Indicate whether individuals responsible for data integrity lapses remain able to influence CGMP-related or drug application data at your firm.
    o Interim measures describing the actions you have taken or will take to protect patients and to ensure the quality of your drugs, such as notifying your customers, recalling product, conducting additional testing, adding lots to your stability programs to assure stability, drug application actions, and enhanced complaint monitoring.
    o Long-term measures describing any remediation efforts and enhancements to procedures, processes, methods, controls, systems, management oversight, and human resources (e.g., training, staffing improvements) designed to ensure the integrity of your company’s data.
    o A commitment to have a qualified consultant conduct extensive annual audits, for at least two years, to assist in evaluating CAPA effectiveness after you have executed your data integrity remediation protocol.
    o Inform FDA if you will be hiring a Chief Integrity Officer who is fully empowered to receive anonymous complaints from employees reporting data integrity concerns and with the authority to ensure any potential breach is promptly investigated (by independent quality assurance function, along with expertise from outside entities whenever needed).
    o A status report for any of the above activities already underway or completed.
CGMP Consultant Recommended

Based upon the nature of the violations we identified at your firm, you should engage a consultant qualified as set forth in 21 CFR 211.34 to evaluate your operations and to assist your firm in meeting CGMP requirements if your firm intends to resume manufacturing drugs for the U.S. market. The qualified consultant should also perform a comprehensive six-system audit of your entire operation for CGMP compliance and evaluate the completion and efficacy of your corrective actions and preventive actions before you pursue resolution of your firm’s compliance status with FDA. Your use of a consultant does not relieve your firm’s obligation to comply with CGMP. Your firm’s executive management remains responsible for resolving all deficiencies and systemic flaws to ensure ongoing CGMP compliance.

Conclusion

The violations cited in this letter are not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations that exist at your facility. You are responsible for investigating and determining the causes of any violations and for preventing their recurrence or the occurrence of other violations.

FDA placed all drugs and drug products offered for import into the United States from your firm on Import Alert 66-40 on November 17, 2023, and issued an FDA Warning Letter on December 15, 2023, after review of your response to our 704(a)(4) Request for Records sent to you on July 12, 2023. Your response demonstrated CGMP violations related to controls for (b)(4) in high-risk components used in your drugs. In response to this previous Warning Letter, your firm elected to re-register your facility stating your readiness for inspection and emphasizing your “ongoing compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices” and “adhering to the highest quality standards”.

The inspectional findings detailed above further demonstrate your firm’s noncompliance, regardless of your affirmed compliance to CGMP and inspectional readiness status.

Your firm remains on Import Alert 66-40.

Correct any violations promptly. FDA may withhold approval of new applications or supplements listing your firm as a drug manufacturer until any violations are completely addressed and we confirm your compliance with CGMP. We may re-inspect to verify that you have completed corrective actions to any violations.

Failure to address any violations may also result in the FDA continuing to refuse admission of articles manufactured at Patcos Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd, 659 Kevdi Falia Road, Daman, India into the United States under section 801(a)(3) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 381(a)(3). Articles under this authority that appear to be adulterated may be detained or refused admission, in that the methods and controls used in their manufacture do not appear to conform to CGMP within the meaning of section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B).

This letter notifies you of our findings and provides you an opportunity to address the above deficiencies. After you receive this letter, respond to this office in writing within 15 working days. Specify what you have done to address any violations and to prevent their recurrence. In response to this letter, you may provide additional information for our consideration as we continue to assess your activities and practices. If you cannot complete corrective actions within 15 working days, state your reasons for delay and your schedule for completion.

Send your electronic reply to CDER-OC-OMQ-Communications@fda.hhs.gov. Identify your response with FEI 3009250196 and ATTN: Matthew R. Dionne.

Sincerely,
/sneed/

Francis Godwin
Director
Office of Manufacturing Quality
Office of Compliance
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

CC:
Mr. Kantibhai Patel
Chairman
Patcos Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.
120 Mahal Industrial Estate
Mahakali Caves Road
Mumbai, Maharashtra
400093 India

__________

1 CDER is including photographs of your facility in this warning letter to document the gross insanitary conditions violations.
Source (Archive)

Never buy any drugs made in India.
 
India brain drain and staff shortages causing burnout covered by CNA:


They keep leaving because even they know home is that bad.

Edit: For some unexplained reason, tech is the only sector with an employee oversupply. I wonder why.
 
Not all of them use Sysco, and Sysco is generally not terrible, what you need to watch for is places that use Gordon Food Service, because their primary contract is the US prison system, which should tell you everything you need to know. That said, there's also been a rising number of reports of Indian and Muslim restaurants sourcing their meat from co-ethnics, and I'm sure we all know how terrifying that is, since a lot of those reports are revealing that the halal butchering in question isn't happening in industrial environment subject to food safety inspections, and the rest of the food isn't coming from industrial food service companies, either.

Jeet "AI compliance startup" that got founder on Forbes 30u30 list is a scam. Because of course it was going to be. The jeets in charge even set it up so their clients would get fucked if they went down, too.
View attachment 8729490
View attachment 8729494
View attachment 8729498
Here's the linked SubStack. I'm expecting the Subcontinental Cyber-Defense Program (SCRP) to start trying to dox the people responsible for outing yet another massive jeet scam.
This is actually semi related to my job and it's fucking HILARIOUS.

Remember kids, the big rule in auditing is YOU DON'T AUDIT Yourself for a SoC or HIPAA or similar audit..... Ever. Its literally like grading your own homework and it must be performed by a competent, licensed third party.

These guys were literally breaking every single rule in the book.
 
I used to work at a Sysco warehouse, giving Indian truckers basic directions was a truly daunting task. We had printed maps of the property and would give the most simple and basic instructions as possible so as not to be misconstrued in any fashion.
Drawing on the map in front of them and handing it to them saying "You are here, your delivery is there, drive around the back of the building to get there." and I'd get to watch as they'd go any direction but the one they were supposed to, just smile and nod "ok saar" and then it would be up to me to chase them down after they've driven into a car lot where there isn't space for a semi to turn around. 0/10 daily occurrence, do not miss that job.
Bonus is when it was time for them to leave, they'd ignore the 50 signs around the trailer yard that say "EXIT THIS WAY" and instead drive back to the one way entrance and get upset that there is incoming traffic that won't move for them.
Hirschbach trucking was one of the worst companies for providing this experience, 9/10 drivers were Indian and illiterate.
 

The Delve situation is crazy.
Delve - Fake Compliance as a Service - Part I | Archive

1774080119248.png
Selin Kocalar and Karun Kaushik
You go boss babe. | Archive

I have to wonder how many companies went with them because they knew they'd give them a pass. Or alternatively, because the CEOs of client companiess are Indian.

Leaked spreadsheets in question: https://archive.ph/6ZSzX
Reports: https://mega.nz/folder/3ZNi3DqZ#ZH-M2Au1zErISCPD5Hgegg

1774081263152.png
1774081226237.png
 
Last edited:
Prime was always the biggest pain in my ass but Hirschbach wasn't too far off.
I didn't deal with Prime too often. Outside of Hircshbach most Indians I saw were coming from Canada which was its own can of worms in terms of paperwork. The only other company that was a constant pain was CR England, but that was just from them being the company that hires a lot of first time drivers, but they at least were only hiring Americans.
 
I didn't deal with Prime too often. Outside of Hircshbach most Indians I saw were coming from Canada which was its own can of worms in terms of paperwork. The only other company that was a constant pain was CR England, but that was just from them being the company that hires a lot of first time drivers, but they at least were only hiring Americans.
Fucking CR England can eat my entire cock and balls. Fuck those fuckers. I had to threaten to kick them off the property more than any other company because they could never back into the dock properly and were constantly holding up traffic. CR England, JB Hunt, Prime, Hirschbach, and HO Wolding were so shit that they all made Swift drivers look good.
 
I finally understand why boomers love hiring indians.
They managed to turn "Have you tried turning it off and on again" into a magic trick.
It's the same reason why the scammers connect to the boomers computer, open the command-line and write "tree" to make the boomer feel like they just entered the matrix.

1774047684854175.png
 
Fucking CR England can eat my entire cock and balls. Fuck those fuckers. I had to threaten to kick them off the property more than any other company because they could never back into the dock properly and were constantly holding up traffic. CR England, JB Hunt, Prime, Hirschbach, and HO Wolding were so shit that they all made Swift drivers look good.
Ha, I'm dealing with Swift a hell of a lot more today. My favorite thing about both of those companies literally do not teach their drivers how to reverse trailers at all.
CR England was always told to pull through instead of backing in when dropping their trailers on our lot. Of course, once the yard gets halfway full that's impossible and their drivers get extremely pissy. They also had a driver who managed to roll a loaded outbound trailer on its side on a Friday evening right when management was getting ready to leave for the weekend. After about 6 hours of work, a crane and a few inflatable pontoons to support the weight of the load, the trailer was finally righted and sent to a door to be reloaded onto a new trailer.
 
I finally understand why boomers love hiring indians.
They managed to turn "Have you tried turning it off and on again" into a magic trick.
It's the same reason why the scammers connect to the boomers computer, open the command-line and write "tree" to make the boomer feel like they just entered the matrix.

View attachment 8732611
The desire of the Third World Brownoid to appear Smart, Educated and Professional is incredible. This dude managed to write a full page to describe how he told someone to delete their Temp folder.
 
That's just the setting of Conan the Barbarian. Though since you mentioned its nothing but browns, so no Conan. Imagine the Dung ages but with lingering artifacts from a previous, better age.


So, Korgoth of Barbaria but without magic. Just retarded fools carrying out rituals thinking its magic.
Initially I wamted that, a post-white 3 way world with latinos, jeets and niggers but realised that A: latinos would steamroll everything and B: I don't knoe enough latam lore to pull it off.

Now I read through All tomorrows and Man after Man, I want to write a long form tale spanning the 1 billion years of life left on the Earth before the sun gets too hot. The first uses an alien archeologist to retell the tale, the second is first hand stories about different subhumans. The first is also more hard scifi than the second and its telepathy ans genetic full recall memory, despite being written by a turkish guy vs a real evolutionary scientist.

I'll need to study the continental movements and water level rises and climate cycles. It will likely take me a few months to research all that and find nice sharty art for future jeetvolution.

I want to write the most racist and at least somewhat science backed speculative fiction on Jeet evolution after a nuclear exchange wipes out the rest of humanity in the next thousand years, the slow devolution into non-sapience through a series of long deep time interval stories and bsckground descriptions.

The jeets will survive because they are adapted to eating feces, trash and poison, the largest life form left apart from mutant cows.

What will Shitdeep look like in a billion years? I may put in jews as well because I promised in the conspiracy thread when Catch the Rainbow posted about jewish soul-fragmentation (souls are a limited resource that get split because there are too many people) and I replied that these cast off soul shards inhabit pajeets.

Homo coprophagius pajeeti.
View attachment 8714214
I think Jeets occupy evolutionary gap between nigger and wild beast.
Niggers know not to eat the poopoo so it checks out.
Monkeys have the same reaction to jeets that civilized races have to uncanny valley situations, which tells me that monkeys are the evolutionary outcome of jeets climbing out of the primordial shit-stew they live in. Even monkeys don't shit where they eat, although they clearly rape and murder at similar rates.
Monkey throws shit: he is pissed at you and figures being covered in shit is nasty and you'll fuck off.

Pajeet throws shit: He thinks he is blessing you with good fortune and expects a return gift.
Has anyone the comments on those Indian street food videos? Even the other third worlders are shocked by the filth in India.

I have seen the recurring "India is a fourth world country" comment.

View attachment 8715230

Also Africans are considered to be more hygenic than jeets.

View attachment 8715233
Whypeope may not season dem cheekens, pajeet dem seasons it with him shieeeeeeeeet!
US specifically to try their food, in particular
Just go to Europe. Burgerslop isn't good cuisine.
 
India brain drain
You cant get your brain drained if you dont have any.

Anyway, migration will never stop from india unless you take zero migrants from india. Migration experts talk about push and pull factors. Push factors being reasons fro people to leave, pull being reasons for people to come. India has such strong push factors there is zero incentive for anyone to stay there. Migrating to an African state not in a civil war is still an improvement for an indian.
 
Back
Top Bottom