Johan Galtung and his anti-Semitic rant in Humanist

A few days ago, internationally renowned “peace researcher” Johan Galtung published a reply to an ongoing debate with a man, John Færseth, who had attended a seminar by Galtung, and had left disgusted (You can read this link to get the gist of the background to this story, eminently summed up by Bruce Bawer) and thus engaged in a discussion challenging Galtung’s absurd theories on 22/7 (Dershowitz elegantly points out yet another example of Galtungs rather flimsy relationship with the truth, Galtungs claim to have worked for the ADL in the prevention of anti-Semitism, in reality narrows down to a collaboration on a survey carried out in 1961!)

Below you will first find Galtung’s article, and below that again, an article by the editor of Humanist, explaining why they have chosen to publish Galtung’s disturbed thoughts.

This article is a response to an article by John Faerseth in Humanist 4/2011, available online here. The editorial clarifies why we have chosen to publish an article  with such extreme content (comments by the editor of Humanist).

On clear lines and ambivalence

Johan Galtung
Let me first thank John Faerseth bringing up all this in the discussion after a lecture I gave at the University of Oslo on 22/7 and Breivik. He has every right to bring up for discussion something that was peripheral to the lecture, but might be important at another time.

I will get to his article, but will approach the topic through a bulletin from the U.S.: Six Jewish Companies own 96% of world media. You can read that the directors of the three largest media conglomerates, Walt Disney, Time Warner and Viacom are Jews, as are the directors of three main television channels, ABC, CBS and NBC before they were included in the conglomerates (not Ted Turner’s CNN, but the is in line with the others, and Murdoch – NewsCorporation, Fox Television – is not Jewish, but many of his top people are and extremely pro-Israel), the same applies to the five major movie studios, Disney, Warner Brothers, Sony, Paramount, Universal, as does it for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and also Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, as are also three of the six largest publishers, Random House, Simon & Schuster, Time Warner Trade Group , No. 1, 3 and 6 etc..

Is this a random accident for 1.9 percent of the U.S.? Hardly. “Clear lines” have clear conclusions: if the boss is Jewish, this means Jewish control, or this is pure anti-Semitism, tear it apart or don’t mention it.

“Ambivalence,” a researcher’s attitude, will immediately infer: property does not necessarily mean control. It can also mean quality. 70 percent of the professors at America’s top 20 universities are Jews, thus it is not said that all research is pro-Jewish or pro-Israel. Jewish intellectuality, Talmud-based, dialogic, is undeniable.

Thus one takes a closer look we see a little more on how this debate plays out is in the United States.

For example, as expressed by the columnist Eric Alterman in The Nation, citing Norman Podhoretz – who, succeeded by his son, edited the Commentary: “The role of Jews who write in Jewish or other media is to defend Israel.” Or Harvard’s Ruth Wise, to young Jewish journalists, that they should not “see themselves as seekers after wisdom and truth, but as part of the Israeli Defense Forces’ (13/02/12). Or Sheldon Adelson (“I am the Richest Jew in the world” and who uses parts of his wealth on media to the right of AIPAC (27/02/12). Control? Alterman notes that anti-Semitism has largely disappeared from the American debate. And that is good . I made my contribution when I worked for the Anti-Defamation Legua.
But it can happen again, and the surest way to guarantee it is to make a taboo of the problem, withholding it from  debate. It is sad and scary when the very talented Swedish senior researcher of The Institute of Peace Research is reprimanded by the director because he, in an article in the New Norwegian magazine presents the hypothesis that Mossad could have been behind Breivik, and mentions the Temple Knights entry into Jerusalem in 1099, the terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, and the Government building-Utøya 2011: all on the same day, 22/7.Random? Hardly. Peace Research is research, search and search again. Perhaps it should change its name to Norwegian Security Department? It will be interesting to read the police report about Israel during the trial.

Deny such questions and anti-Semitism will be over us like a flood, as Jewish friends in the U.S. – a nation frustrated to the very marrow of its bones – fear. Even the conspiracy to kill aformer U.S. Senator James Abourezk, who is critical of Israel, was silenced to death. But there are exceptions, such as Finkelstein, Mearsheimer-Walt and the book The Transfer, which among other things is related to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Faerseth appears to believe that to be critical of anything related to Jews and Israel to play with fire. I take the view that he himself is the fire, on account of his taboos.

What has been said above about the media can be followed up with a similar analysis of ownership relations in the world economy, but lets leave that for another occasion. I wonder how many of the people who have such strong opinions about The Protocols of the elders of Zion, actually have read it? It is impossible to do it today without thinking of Goldman-Sachs. And here I am in line with Erik Rudström (a well known conspirationalist) : it’s hard to believe that the Russian secret police were able to write such an analysis. But that proves nothing, either for or against, moving to the details,

1) I have not “recommend” the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I have recommended to read it, so you know what you are talking about.

2) Masonry, I mentioned Breivik’s membership, and emphasized not the organization, but the loyalties and oaths within such networks, for instance the Templars, and cooperation between them. “Skull & Bones” is not a “student organization” even though it recruits among Yale students. It is important to read, with ambivalence, Anthony C. Sutton, but far more important is the police report on this during the trial.

3) The article on freemasonry has been publicly available for statistical analysis of the categories that are overrepresented.

4) I mentioned that Breivik was rejected by the society the same day; in my opinion, such rejection means distancing. Everybody were shaken by what happened, the problem is what one is shocked by and if you dare to utter formulations which also affect what Norway is doing in Afghanistan.

5) I mentioned Ertresvåg and Rudström because I was in Norway and therefore cited Norwegian literature. My own knowledge comes from a long life with experiences and literature in many countries. For an ambivalent analysis of it all, see Yakov M. Rabkins Jewish Opposition to Zionism.

6) anti-Semite. I remember a famous professor in Israel where it is possible to debate all of  this: “anti-Semite, it is to be more against us than we deserve.” The implication: we deserve some of it, but there are those who believe that only Jews are allowed to say it.

7) conspiracies exist. They are secret, comprehensive, and often long term. I divide them into two types: system preservation and system rejectionist. For me, the First and Second World War, were both Anglo American preservation and German rejection. The numerous American interventions are conservation systems, except the first ones, which were system-building. 9/11 is clearly system rejectionist. The conspiratory component lies in the secrecies, in democracies. We do not know enough about whether today there is a conspiracy to rule the world by making institutions, peoples, states dependent debtors, but the hypothesis must be tested. Privatisation of the central banks would, of course, be an important tool. Research is in progress.

NTNU 8 14/1 2012. My talk was about Norway in war: Afghanistan-Iraq-Libya Utøya; about politics, the U.S. and Norway’s motives, etc. I did not interpret the massive applause as implicit support, but as what they said,  happiness to hear anything other than official viewpoints. A main point: neither Breivik nor Norwegian politicians are psychotic, but affected by conflict polarization, presented as a link in NRK online.

So we will see which image that will prevail in the long run.

The 9th World Humanist Congress. My lectures were printed in TRANSCEND Media Service (often reproduced in up to 70 countries), and was about solutions to 22 of July with Norway as a victim, and in Afghanistan with Norway as the perpetrator. The point is to identify conflicts and solutions through dialogue, also with the Taliban and Breivik. I interpreted the standing ovation, as I was told, as acceptance. But of course there was also disagreement, for example, on the comparison between the Utøya at Breivik and Norway in Afghanistan. And I mentioned that Western values ​​can not be pushed on others, as when Bush goes to war with Norwegian support for democracy and human rights in Iraq (see the minutes of free thought, 3-4/2011) and that the most belligerent countries in the world are Western democracies.

The editor of Humanist, Didrik Søderlind, felt compelled to explain the wider public why they chose to publish this:

Editorial clarification

About Johan Galtung’s response to John Faerseth

Normally, Humanist would not have published an article with such extreme contents as Johan Galtung delivers. There are two reasons why we still do this. First of all,Galtung’s article is justified by his right of reply (see the editorial  of the Humanist 1/2012), secondly it is of public interest to know the ideological landscape a such a famous Norwegian now navigates in .
If Johan Galtung’s discourses about Jewish control of mass media arouses unpleasant associations, it is no coincidence. The source he himself states in footnote 1 is a web link to an article called “Six Jewish Companies own 96% of world media”. This article turns out, after some comparison, to be a down-sized version of another article. This second article is – conveniently enough – reproduced in its entirety just below the first. This article is called “Who Rules America?”.

“Who Rules America?” was originally published in a pamphlet  by the National Vanguard, the editorial branch of of the National Alliance. National Alliance was in its heyday America’s largest and best organized Nazi organization, led by William Pierce, whom it is reasonable to expect as the author of “Who Rules America?”. But Pierce will probably always be best known for his novel The Turner Diaries, which is considered the inspiration for, among other things, the bombing in Oklahoma City (see “the making of a mass murderer” Humanist 4/2011).

In Galtung’s defense should be said that in the down sized version of “Who Rules America?” he refers, the suggestions that the Holocaust never too place have been removed, as have incitements to fight Jewish power by any means. The text is still clearly anti-Semitic.

Since Galtung now is using thinly disguised Nazi propaganda as the source material, it is perhaps not surprising that he also defends The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Those who want a thorough explanation of the coming into making of the Protocol, can, for example, read Dagfinn Rians article in the anthology Konspiranoia (Humanist Publishing 2003). But put bluntly, it is well documented that the protocols are fake (we know which other texts it is plagiarized from) and this has been known for so many years (Aftenposten made Norwegian public aware of this already in 1922) that it is only the hardcore anti-Semites who take the Protocols seriously. One of these anti-Semites is Erik Rudström, with whom aligns himself in this question
In the previous issue of the Humanist John Faerseth accused Johan Galtung to play with fire. With this article, Galtung has become the arsonist.

Didrik Søderlind, Editor

5 comments for “Johan Galtung and his anti-Semitic rant in Humanist

Comments are closed.