Why Credentials Matter: How Factual Are Pieter Friedrich’s Claims?

The Credentials and Veracity of Peter Friedrich:

1. What are Pieter Friedrich’s credentials?

2. The Veracity of Pieter Friedrich’s Articles

When probing deeper into Pieter J. Friedrich’s writings, I’m finding it difficult to understand why this man should be viewed as credible by anyone. I’m sure there are some readers willing to give a pass to this man for his lack of credentials because they might be under the assumption that what he’s writing is credible. Unfortunately for fans of Pieter Friedrich, I’m finding the opposite to be the case. It seems that he has been deliberately duping people and breaking any good faith with either deliberate lies or half-truths. I’d like to prove this claim of mine by examining his featured article on Counter-currents.org which is titled “Adios Modi: Urging Houston City Council To Boycott ‘Howdy Modi’“; however, before doing that, I’d like to make clear that “countercurrents.org” an Indian-based website apparently formed in 2002 doesn’t seem to be affiliated with counter-currents.com, the White Nationalist website formed in 2010. I think this is probably where the confusion stems for some of Pieter Friedrich’s critics since he’s using an Indian-based website with the same name as a US White Nationalist website. I’m not sure if he’s aware of this since it isn’t brought up in his “Debunking Lies” page on his personal website.

For the purposes of critiquing his “Adios Modi” article, I’ll be quoting it and giving my objections regarding specific claims that he’s making:

“Modi’s hands are stained with blood,” I stated at the city council meeting. “Those who shake his hand in welcome cannot wash their hands of complicity in his crimes.”

The claim that anyone who shakes Narendra Modi’s hands is complicit with any crimes that he’s purportedly done makes no sense from a logical standpoint. However, most importantly, Narendra Modi was acquitted of all charges and given a clean chit (in India, it means a, usually verbal, certificate of exoneration to suspects of crimes). The case went on for a decade and no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part was found. Yet, some Left-leaning Indian articles, the BBC itself, and Pieter J. Friedrich claim that he’s guilty. This is in deliberate ignorance of the court determination of 2012 and it is in itself fascistic to do this because Pieter J. Friedrich and others are claiming guilt before innocence with flagrant disregard for the rule of law. If any were to argue that India’s rule of law is corrupt, I’d like to cite the fact that victims of the riots have gotten justice in the very same Indian court system that they’d be accusing of corruption.

Bottom line, Pieter J. Friedrich is deliberately lying to people in this Houston city council meeting.

“Howdy Modi” is being organized by leaders of US branches of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The RSS, often referred to as a paramilitary, is infamous for its members dressing in uniforms which strongly resemble those worn by members of the Hitler Youth. It was founded in 1925, the same year that the Nazi party was reformulated with Hitler as its leader. In addition to drawing inspiration from the Nazis, the RSS modeled itself after Mussolini’s fascist movement in Italy.

M.S. Golwalkar, who headed the RSS from 1940 to 1973, wrote glowingly in support of Nazi racial policy. Golwalkar described those who refuse to “glorify the Hindu Race and Nation” as “traitors” and called it treason for an Indian to convert away from Hinduism. In 1939, he further wrote, “To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races — the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here.” He called this “a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.”

The RSS has been repeatedly accused of instigating violence. It has been banned several times, the first time following the assassination of M.K. Gandhi by a former RSS member. In 2002, Human Rights Watch named the RSS and its subsidiaries as the groups responsible for an anti-Muslim pogrom that killed 2,000 in the Indian state of Gujarat. In 2012, Swami Aseemanand, a full-time RSS worker, confessed to orchestrating several terrorist bombings which claimed hundreds of lives from 2006 to 2008. In its June 2019 report, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom warned that the RSS’s agenda “to alienate non-Hindus or lower-caste Hindus is a significant contributor to the rise of religious violence and persecution.”

The uniforms are similar in style to European military wear in general. To the best of my knowledge, It wasn’t particular to the Nazis during the 1920s. Golwalkar did indeed write an odious pamphlet and it hasn’t been in circulation since 1948. I couldn’t even find any copies online so I can’t even verify most of these quotes specifically because they’ve been discontinued. What matters are the RSS’s current political goals and proclivities and not the words of a dead man from the 1970s. All organizations that have a long history have odious moments, but to what extent do they reflect the current political ideals of the RSS? Pieter Friedrich quotes the USCIRF regarding this question. In my personal opinion, the USCIRF can no longer be deemed credible so long as they continue to ignore the ongoing child rape sprees that happen in Christian communities throughout the world, particularly by the Catholic Church. To my knowledge, they’ve never discussed this issue so I don’t see how they can be deemed as credible even if they’re government sponsored by the US. USCIRF is putting religious tolerance above the human rights of children by blithely ignoring that issue.

Human Rights Watch is generally seen as a very credible and trustworthy organization so I thought that Pieter Friedrich citing them would be a non-issue, but HRW’s reporting on Gujarat 2002 has shown some oddities with certain bizarre claims such as the following in their report:

Several fact-finding missions to southeastern Gujarat by local and national human rights organizations attributed the increase in violence against Christians to the growing presence and activities of sangh parivar groups in these areas. According to an October 1998 joint report by the Committee to Protect Democratic Rights and the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee:

“A well planned strategy is being operated by the Hinduvata forces in Gujarat and it aims at communalising society at the grass root level. Youngsters belonging to the age group of fifteen to twenty-five are being recruited as activists of the Bajrang Dal for this purpose. They are taught to carry out operations covertly and deny any knowledge of those incidents where communal flare-ups do take place…. The VHP has also intensified its activities all over Gujarat. Activities such as the distribution of the idols of Hindu Gods, revival of Hindu festivals, conducting of “Artis” [prayer ceremonies] etc., are on the increase in recent months…. A well planned program to “Hinduvise” the tribals is in full swing in the entire tribal belt of South Gujarat. The founding of the units of the VHP and the BD [Bajrang Dal] in each tribal locality, the regular visits and preaching of Swamis, the construction of temples for tribals, etc. are being pursued vigourously. The attack on Christian churches, disruption of prayer meetings, physical assaults on Christians, etc. are part [of] and the result of this programme.205”

How can distribution of hand-sized statues, celebrating festivals, and conducting prayer ceremonies celebrating Hinduism be blamed as the cause of violence against Christians? There seems to be a leap in logic with no explanation on how they got from A to B. One could easily switch this view and claim Christians celebrating their religious festivities, iconography, and prayer rituals is to blame for violence on Muslims or Hindus. The argument presented by Human Rights Watch lacks any logical sense and does a disservice at finding the root causes of violence by blaming Hindus in general for the crimes of perpetrators. This specific claim honestly seems like Human Rights Watch wholeheartedly supporting anti-Hindu bigotry and I’m surprised they had put it in their report.

Furthermore, Human Rights Watch’s updated information in their 2012 article has even worse problems. HRW makes the following claim:

Strong evidence links the Modi administration in Gujarat to the carefully orchestrated anti-Muslim attacks, Human Rights Watch said. Rioters had detailed lists of Muslim residents and businesses, and violence occurred within view of police stations. An independent media organization, Tehelka, used hidden cameras to capture some of the accused speaking openly of how the attacks had Modi’s blessings.

The “strong evidence” seems to be referring to Tehelka’s Gujarat sting operation which was not published by Tehelka because it didn’t meet their necessary editorial standards. The data gathered wasn’t new, it was of inadequate quality filled with holes and thereby incomplete, and therefore they couldn’t publish it. The investigative journalist that conducted the operation, Rana Ayyub, later self-published the book as “Gujarat Files: Anatomy of a Cover-up” and gained massive fame. In her book, she accused her higher-ups in Tehelka of bowing down to political pressure. Tarun Tejpel, the Chief Editor, has said that he didn’t run the story because it was incomplete since they requested Rana Ayyub fill the holes in the story for which she never did. He disputes the claim that it was out of fear of Modi and explains Modi wasn’t even a Prime Minister candidate during the time period of the 2002 riots. Former Managing Editor of Tehelka, Shoma Chaudhury, added that Rana Ayyub’s investigation had loopholes, there were serious concerns about procedure, and Ayyub’s claims of Tehelka bowing to political pressure seems a “serious departure from the truth” in a statement about her claims. Rana Ayyub’s rebuke of “Let the reader judge” seems to be an appeal to popularity fallacy instead of judging the contents of her self-published book by its veracity. In fact, a petition by the legal NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, which used Ayyub’s famous book as evidence, was rejected because the Supreme Court of India stated: “The Book by Rana Ayyub is of no utility. It is based on surmises, conjectures, and suppositions and has no evidentiary value.” Therefore, this claim by Human Rights Watch brings about serious concerns in their methodology and their own credibility. Nevertheless, it is possible that Pieter Friedrich acted in good faith by referencing Human Rights Watch since he may have not known about these serious flaws, but there is a reason for doubt due to the next issue.

Finally, Swami Aseemanand, the full-time RSS worker that Pieter Friedrich states confessed to orchestrating several terrorist attacks, was acquitted of all charges because the confession that he gave was under police coercion via threats of physical violence. There is no evidence to support that he had anything to do with terrorist violence and he was acquitted in March 2019, but Pieter Friedrich clearly didn’t bother fact-checking his claims and labeled him as being a confessed terrorist in his September, 20th 2019 article. Yet again, a deliberate lie by Pieter Friedrich and this time claiming a man who was acquitted is somehow still guilty of a crime without any evidence. Please note, since it seems Hindus must always clarify to people who accuse them of being guilty in order to make us prove our innocence, I am not arguing in favor of Swami Aseemanand for any odious views that he may have such as purported anti-Christian pamphlets, but what I am pointing out is that he was acquitted of having anything to do with terrorism related charges. Innocent until proven guilty is clearly not a notion that Pieter Friedrich has any respect for.

The last portion of Pieter Friedrich’s article seems to be empty pabulum mixed with repeating his earlier comments, but there is one aspect that I’d like to address:

In my remarks protesting the City of Houston’s participation in “Howdy Modi,” I urged them to instead say “Adios Modi.” My full remarks were as follows:

Last month, a white supremacist terrorist murdered 22 people in El Paso, Texas.

His evil act was inspired by the murder of 51 people at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

That man’s evil act was inspired by the murder of 77 people in Norway in 2011.

In Norway, terrorist Anders Breivik left a manifesto that describes how he was inspired by other extremist and nationalist groups around the globe.

Breivik pointed to the RSS in India.

He praised the “right wing Hindu nationalism” of the RSS and its goal of making India a “Hindu nation.” He praised the RSS for how “they dominate the streets… and often riot and attack Muslims.” He said the goals of white supremacists and the RSS are “identical” and that they should “learn from each other and cooperate as much as possible.”

As bizarre as this is to comment on, Pieter Friedrich actually lied about what mass murderer Anders Breivik’s manifesto said, which calls into question on whether he read it or not before using it as a reference. To be clear, this is not an endorsement of the mass murderer Anders Breivik and I obviously condemn his atrocities, his anti-Muslim bigotry, Christian extremism, and his hate-filled motives that led to the deaths of 77 innocent people whether they were Muslim or non-Muslim. Breivik’s full statement from what Pieter Friedrich selectively quotes:

3.158 The state of the Indian/Hindu resistance – Indian nationalists Saffronisation is a political neologism (after the saffron robes of the Hindu clerics), used to refer to the policy of right-wing Hindu nationalism (or Hindutva) which seeks to make the Indian state into a “Hindu nation” and its Sikh, Buddhist and Jain minorities incorporated into Hinduism. These nationalist movements are also called Sanatana Dharma movements.

A related term, the Saffron Brigade, is used as a descriptor of people and organisations in India that promote Hindu nationalism such as the Sangh Parivar by their critics, who allege a militant Hindu agenda. The Sanatana Dharma movements or Hindu nationalists in general are suffering from the same persecution by the Indian cultural Marxists as their European cousins. An example of typical Hindu nationalist ridicule:

“Ullal by-polls results are out and the Congress has retained its ‘forte,’ thus upsetting BJP and JD(S) calculations. […]The message is clear – the BJP has failed to gain the confidence of minorities. “Come what may. We do not want the saffron brigade or any other party which is supporting the saffron brigade to come to power in Ullal” – is the answer given by the electorate of Ullal.”

The thing is, Indian government (current government United Progressive Alliance coalition led by Indian National Congress) is a Socialist-Leftist Liberalists. The other side is National Democratic Alliance led by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a political arm to the RSS: these people are of Hindu right wing nationalism comprising of Hindu parties (including Sikh, Buddhist, and Jain sub-sects), strongly supported by Jewish and Zoroastrian minorities.

The UPA (incumbent government) relies on appeasing Muslims and very sadly proselytising Christian missionaries who illegally convert low caste Hindus with lies and fear alongside Communists who want total destruction of the Hindu faith and culture.

The irony in India is that the Hindus who are living abroad (expatriate Hindus) are more concerned about Hindu culture than the ones in India, because from abroad, they can get an eagle’s view of what’s happening in India while Indian Hindu residents don’t see it being in the scene.

The only positive thing about the Hindu right wing is that they dominate the streets. They do not tolerate the current injustice and often riot and attack Muslims when things get out of control, usually after the Muslims disrespect and degrade Hinduism too much. This behaviour is nonetheless counterproductive. Because instead of attacking the Muslims they should target the category A and B traitors in India and consolidate military cells and actively seek the overthrow of the cultural Marxist government.

India will continue to wither and die unless the Indian nationalists consolidate properly and strike to win. It is essential that the European and Indian resistance movements learn from each other and cooperate as much as possible. Our goals are more or less identical.

The PCCTS, Knights Templar support the Sanatana Dharma movements and Indian nationalists in general.


When reading the full statement by the mass murderer, it’s clear that Breivik didn’t praise right-wing Hindu nationalism, but instead was making descriptive statements on his general views from what he read of Wikipedia articles that he cited. Breivik didn’t specify the RSS as having dominated the streets to riot and attack Muslims, Breivik mentioned a generic term of “Hindu right wing” as having been the ones to riot and attack Muslims. The only time he mentions the RSS is in a descriptive statement about the two major political parties in India. Furthermore, Pieter Friedrich seems to have written a lie when he claimed Anders Brievik praised the RSS for riots and attacks on Muslims because Breivik follows it up by arguing that the behavior is counterproductive and Breivik doesn’t specify the RSS in that statement. Pieter Friedrich outright lied when he claimed that Brievik said white supremacists and the RSS are identical and should learn from each other and cooperate as much as possible. What Brievik actually said was that the Hindu right wing should form military cells and seek to overthrow the government after slaughtering traitors; in other words, Brievik was encouraging Hindus of right-wing affinity to become bloodthirsty terrorists against the Indian government. Breivik further stated that European and Indian “resistance groups” should learn from each other and cooperate as much as possible because their goals were “more or less identical” which doesn’t corroborate Pieter Friedrich’s claim that Brievik said the RSS and White Nationalist groups should cooperate and learn from each other or Pieter Friedrich’s claim that Breivik said they were identical. Brievik making a generic term “resistance group” doesn’t mean that he was talking about the RSS at all. In fact, the group that he actually does detail, the “PCCTS, Knights Templar” seems to be a fantasy that he concocted judging from the evidence. These claims by Pieter Friedrich on what Anders Brievik wrote in his manifesto are therefore disingenuous. It’s to the extent that I wouldn’t be surprised if Pieter Friedrich has opened himself to being sued for libel or some other related offense.

I had planned on critiquing his August, 8th 2019 article titled “Jammu and Kashmir Loses Special Status” on antiwar.com, but I think readers already get the point on his lack of credibility. I’ll just point out the most salient fact which is that Pieter Friedrich ignores the systematic ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus from their homeland of Kashmir. He claims to be about peace, but blithely ignores the human rights atrocities committed upon Kashmiri Hindus by Islamist terrorists and mobs. Overall, it seems to me that Pieter Friedrich’s moral compass towards Hindus is no different than that of Anders Breivik towards Muslims.

4/26/2020 Update: Not even a day after my first post questioning his credentials and he blocks me on Twitter.


Leave a Reply