Galtung lets it rip

Johan Galtung takes credit for inventing the notion that peace is a desirable condition, making it clear that his field of work (“peace studies”) is the one true pursuit of humankind’s nobler instincts. All those other fields – like history, political science, international affairs – are lesser than peace studies, because, well, they don’t explicitly mention peace.

This – and a bunch of vague rhetoric with support only in anecdotes and conjecture – has given Galtung standing among the radical chic, red wine socialists around the world. His popularity goes to show that as long as you condemn the US, Israel, corporations, and speak sincerely about peace, goodwill, cooperation, and dialogue, it doesn’t really matter if you can substantiate any of your propositions. You will still get standing ovations and grants to boost your ego and your financial security.

So Galtung takes it all out in his latest article in Humanist, a more or less official periodical for the Norwegian Humanist Association. (And to be clear, the editor of the periodical minces no words in shredding Galtung for this piece).

Galtung thinks that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion deserves serious consideration, and doesn’t believe that it’s a piece of contrived antisemitic bile, as the rest of the scientific community does. He thinks there’s something to the allegations that Israel, or the Jews, are behind the July 22nd and September 11th attacks. He also implies that the Jews do control the media. And so on. Push him hard enough, and he’ll ask if anyone has really checked matzoh for blood.

Galtung is a Noam Chomsky wannabe, and that’s already aiming pretty low, and yet he misses by miles.

Still, this presents an awesome opportunity for the many anti-Zionists to prove that even they are capable of condemning antisemitism when they see it. So we are anxiously awaiting statements from Kåre Willoch, Ebba Wergeland, Trond Andresen, Finn Graff, Berit Ås, etc., that they deplore Galtung’s article and denounce his way of reasoning.

But it would be foolish to hold our breath.