“. . . except for rare awards such as MLK’s in 1964 and Mother Teresa’s in 1979, the Nobel Peace Prize doesn’t have anything to do with peace . . . . It’s simply a way that the relatively IMPOTENT Scandinavians can try to push their political views on the rest of the world . . . to date, five progressive U.S. Presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize but no conservative or moderate presidents have although the progressives have got us into a lot more wars and a lot bigger wars . . .”
Predicting the Next Nobel Peace Prize
Winner for Fun and Profit
A great philosophical question to ponder is this, why is so much of the world so interested in progressive American Presidents? Progressive American presidents tend to be the most popular beyond our shores and only Progressives have ever won the Nobel Peace Prize. What’s that all about? What’s the connection?
Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite one of the greatest inventions in man’s history and one that’s saved a lot of trouble in the mining and construction industries, was appalled when the invention that made him rich was also used in munitions (the material of warfare). Actually, that’s not true . . . that’s just the story. What is the truth?
We’ve all seen those old west movies where they’re transporting nitroglycerin in bottles and everybody’s having a nervous fit . . . basically by combining sawdust, sort of, with nitroglycerine, Nobel made a fortune from dynamite which he invented in 1867. And once it was fully evolved, it made him a whole ship-load more. TNT (which was created by a German chemist, only four years earlier in 1963, was first created as a yellow-dye SURPRISE BOOM!) is even today taken around the world as the gold-standard when it comes to measuring explosive power. Dynamite, Nobel’s invention of a solid form of nitroglycerin is actually 60% more powerful than TNT. But TNT is more compatible with bombs and artillery shells so the myth dies there. Nobel did amass a fortune, however, the result of roughly 360 inventions during his lifetime.
What really happened is that the ever-responsible press in the northern latitudes didn’t understand and realize the difference between TNT and dynamite and excoriated Nobel, getting older, relentlessly. One newspaper took a mistaken report of Nobel’s death and wrote his obituary in 1888, titled Merchant of Death Dies. This falsehood so upset Nobel that he provided for the Nobel Prizes in his will. Thus Nobel created the fund which still exists today and which still awards the various Nobel Prizes.
Today, the Nobel Prizes for Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Economics, Literature and Peace are perhaps the most famous prizes granted human beings anywhere on the planet. The “mathematics prize” actually does NOT exist but several times mathematicians and game theorists have been awarded an economics or other Nobel Prize in recognition of their great works. American John Forbes Nash, subject of the biography and fictionalized version of the biography made into the movie A Beautiful Mind, shared an economics Nobel Prize in 1994. And then we come to the Nobel Peace Prize and the pure Nobel Economics Prize. First a paragraph on the prize in economics to set the scene . . . .
When issued as a pure economics award, the Nobel Prize is a pile of horse pucky. All the pure Economics that’s ever been worth printing is found here:
but the IMPURE economics that wins the Nobel Prize when they’re not giving it to deserving mathematicians is some variation of Keynesian economics. At last count there were at least 80 versions of Keynesian economic models out there. This is very reminiscent of the numerous contortions the geo-centric astronomers created to buck up the Church’s geo-centric dogma that the whole universe rotated around the earth . . . when a simpler and more effective and demonstrably true model (the earth and other planets in the solar system all orbit the sun: the helio-centric model) was rediscovered (the ancient Greeks knew about it and that the earth spun on its axis once a day) all the useless curlicues and retro-orbits disappeared immediately. Keynesian economics is utterly popular but Classical (TRUE) economics is not. Keynesian economic allows governments to pretend they can play around with our money and do great things including saving the day from economic crisis. Of course, the truth is that government interference is 99.9% of the time the cause of economic crisis and a sure recipe for economic disaster . . . such as thirty years of forced loans from five U.S. government laws that multiplied bad home loans in the U.S. 133 times from 1975 (1 in 404) to 2005 (34 in 100). So the economics prize is largely B.S., what about the Peace Prize and how might I make money from it?
The Nobel Peace Prize is one of the biggest lies ever created. When Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 he was the odds-on recipient that year, but his name was quietly dropped off the list. Gandhi never got the award but was the inspiration for Martin Luther King, Jr. who did. In fact except for rare awards such as MLK’s in 1964 and Mother Teresa’s in 1979, the Nobel Peace Prize doesn’t have anything to do with peace usually. It’s simply a way that the relatively IMPOTENT Scandinavians can try to push their political views on the rest of the world.
To date, five progressive U.S. Presidents and near presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize but no conservative or moderate presidents have^^ . . . Teddy Roosevelt in 1906; Woodrow Wilson in 1919; Jimmy Carter in 2002; Al Gore in 2007; and Barack Obama in 2009. Of these only one, Teddy Roosevelt, actually succeeded in any lasting peace attempt . . . negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. The rest have been abject failures and/or have won the award for some other ridiculous purpose. Certainly Carter has not brought any lasting peace of note; Gore’s science is disproven and had nothing to do with peace; and Obama got his for being elected president despite being half-Black. If we add in the prize won by Cordell Hull in 1945, the story becomes complete.
Cordell Hull was the long-serving (eleven years) Secretary of State under Franklin Delano Roosevelt and was given the award for ostensibly being a “co-initiator of the United Nations.” If Roosevelt had lived a bit longer, chances are that award would have been his or his shared with Hull. So the pattern is clear. The folks in Norway and Sweden (the Peace prize is awarded separately in Oslo, Norway not in Stockholm) are real big on progressivistic socialism and are one-worlders. Anytime an American President spreads American money and American effort toward those kinds of goals, that progressive president is very likely to become a Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Of course such American lavishness with money is always popular all over the world, not just in Scandinavia.
So who can you put your money on? Only once has the award been given twice to the same person, once. The Scandinavians would love to give it to Barack again, but it’s really unlikely. That leaves progressive Bill Clinton. One small problem if they award the Peace Prize for his efforts in Haiti, they’d have to split the award with George W. Bush and pigs’ll fly before that ever happens. So the best bet over the next few years will be Bill Clinton for his “lifetime body of work” referring to what he did as president and for negotiating with North Korea for prisoner release, etc. Billy Boy is right now doing everything he possibly can to build his legacy up to Nobel Peace Prize status . . . he’s a progressive and he knows how the game is played. Be smart, take at least ten or twelve to one odds, but it’s a very good bet . . . if Slick Willy can get his name involved in just one more such enterprise (perhaps his "Clinton Global Initiative" will do the trick for him?) he's got to be no worse than 2/1 against. That's a bet Rajjpuut would expect to win while deploring the winner all the way to the bank . . . .
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
** This is where all the mathematical models spring from and it’s a valid source of solid economic theories.
^^ of course, the progressives are far more likely to get us into wars. Wilson, was classic, he ran for a second term on the slogan “He kept us out of war” but within a month of his victory inauguration, had deliberately put us into World War I.