#28- The diluted Nobel Prize


The highest international honour, known as Nobel Prize, takes the name from Alfred Bernhard Nobel (21 October 1833 – 10 December 1896) who was a Swedish chemist, engineer, inventor, businessman, and philanthropist.   The will of the Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel established the prizes in 1895. The prizes in Chemistry, Literature, Peace, Physics, and Physiology or Medicine were first awarded in 1901. It was commented that Nobel had a sort of guilt complex after he invented the dynamite and wanted to compensate the humanity with his unique philanthropy.

I am a simple man, not obsessed with academic titles, because as an intellectual I agree with Sartre –(which I do not particularly like) in his assertion that, basically, an intellectual creator ought not let himself be transformed into an institution “. I have an unlimited respect for those who contribute with something to our society evolution in any area of science, because it is palpable and easy to verify.                                             Unfortunately, in my opinion, it is very complicated to award a such prize in some esoteric areas like literature and, even more, peace. Literature, as an art , has its value confirmed in time, regardless if the writer produced one book or an entire library from which just one stands against the time, as is the case of Hamsun’s Hunger.

I will end these pages commenting the embarrassing prize for literature.

In case of the prize for Peace, I noticed that in the last part of the last century until the present time, Nobel Committee is very much left inclined and , how we say today, infected by politically correctness.

I will mention few cases where the winners of this prize for peace are, at least controversial.

Who today can remember the name of the politician, Cordell Hull who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1945 for his “prominent role in the creation of the United Nations, his peace efforts, and his trade agreements.” Without commenting about the useless activity of this UN, I have to mention that it is forgotten the pre war story when almost 1,000 Jewish refugees were denied asylum. In 1939, when SS St. Louis attempted to carry 950 Jewish refugees from Hamburg to America in order to avoid the impending Holocaust. Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt seemed in favor of this action, it was largely due to Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s advice, and the opposition of Southern Democrats, that the ship was turned away and forced to return to Germany, where many of the refugees suffered torture and death at the hands of Hitler’s Nazis.

From that time remained a very tragic sentence related to Jews, that “even one is too many”.

Because we mentioned a Jewish tragedy I presume that the prize for Peace was awarded to Ellie Wiesel in 1986 just because he was one of the last few survivors of Holocaust.                 I have an unlimited respect for his personal tragedy, but I cannot see another reasons, knowing that they were many others who suffered the same and his book of personal memoirs is not an exceptional literary document. I know many other books of better quality and the atrocities made by the soviets were the same, but Nobel Committee is quite aloof to he crime committed by the communists. The explanation of Nobel Committee who said about Wiesel that he is a “messenger to mankind,” stating that through his struggle to come to terms with “his own personal experience of total humiliation and of the utter contempt for humanity shown in Hitler’s death camps,” can be easily applied to many other victims.

I understand than Jimmy Carter will go down in history as one of most inefficient President, humiliated by Iran’s Mullahs, loosing the election in favour of Reagan who won 44 of 50 states. Why Carter got Nobel Prize is very hard to understand.

Another controversial winner was Kissinger who accepted the award “with humility,” but many felt that it should never have been offered to him in the first place. There were two reasons for this controversy. Kissinger was accused of war crimes for his alleged role in America’s secret bombing of Cambodia between 1969 and 1975. His win was also called premature since North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam two years after the prize was awarded, voiding his work. Two Norwegian Nobel Committee members resigned to protest Kissinger’s win.

A laughing-stock of a serious scientific community, Al Gore, an inept politician, was awarded Nobel Prize for Peace because “he is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted” regarding climate change and global warming. The problem was many feel Gore was undeserving of the award since he hardly practiced what he preached. In 2006, shocking electric and gas bills from the Gore household showed that his 20-room home and “pool house” were eating up over 20 times the national average electricity usage. Additionally, Gore’s eye-opening film about the effects of global warming and measures that could be taken against it was exposed as having nine gross errors, as ruled by a High Court in England. The errors, crafted to support Gore’s argument, included “alarmist” fudging of facts regarding the rising of sea levels, unfounded claims of the effects of global warming, and the manipulation of statistics. Although his work is undeniably important, his presentation of speculation as fact, coupled with his refusal to address concerns regarding said inaccuracies, makes Al Gore one of the most controversial Nobel Peace Prize winners of all time.

As another irony, in 2012, the European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for “six decades of contributions to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy, and human rights in Europe,” despite the protests and riots engulfing Greece, Portugal, and Spain at the time. The Associated Press stated that the win came during the union’s most severe internal crisis ever. The last year events in Europe started to show how the idea of an union in Europe, global and borderless , was still-born and the final disaster is on the way to happen.

A very controversial Peace Prize was that awarded to Barack Obama in 2009. Nominations had closed only eleven days after Obama took office as President, but the actual evaluation occurred over the next eight months.[ Obama himself stated that he did not feel deserving of the award,[ or worthy of the company it would place him in . Past Peace Prize laureates were divided, some saying that Obama deserved the award, and others saying he had not secured the achievements to yet merit such an accolade. Obama’s award, along with the previous Peace Prizes for Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, also prompted accusations of a left-wing bias, which is at all surprising considering what Marx said in 19th century: “A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism. “ This spectre,  now under various names, like the rats in The Pest by Camus is waiting to come again and destroy the democratic society.

The most peculiar situation was the award given to Yasser Arafat, one of the most known international terrorist. Immediately after the award was announced, one of the five Norwegian Nobel Committee members denounced Arafat as a terrorist and resigned . Additional misgivings about Arafat were widely expressed in various newspapers.               In an in-depth 1976 biography of Arafat, writer Thomas Kiernan chronicled the life of a young Arafat in Cairo. Kiernan also relates Arafat’s relationship with a boy, Ahmed, whose parents ended up on the Israeli side of the border after the 1948 war. An associate of Arafat’s related, “Yasser tried to get the boy to publicly denounce his parents…Yasser really loved the boy. He was delicate, sensitive, like a flower. He was very much a part of Yasser’s inner circle – four of five boys who lived in the same place, and well, you can imagine what I mean.” Kiernan continued: Arafat held a “kind of formal hearing for the boy” because of his refusal to denounce his parents. “Arafat sobbed and sobbed as [a young associate] proceeded to castrate the boy. The next day the boy was dead.”

In the 1987 book “Red Horizon” written by Ion Mihai Pacepa – head of Romanian Intelligence under Nicolae Ceausescu – the author claims that Arafat’s bedroom was “bugged” when he visited Bucharest (Arafat was trained by the KGB in the 70’s and 80’s). Loud sex between Arafat and his blonde Aryan bodyguards was recorded via a microphone monitoring system. The primary eavesdropper – a general assigned to the PLO – reported that dominant Arafat “roared like a tiger” while his submissive bodyguards “yelped like hyenas.” The general also compiled an intelligence report stating that Arafat’s first homosexual relationship occurred with a teacher, when he was a teenager.                              A variety of sources also suggest that Arafat had pedophiliac tendencies – an urge that some say found release in Romania where he was given the services of underage, orphan boys. Another rumor says Arafat’s personal driver – a Mossad double agent – located teenage boys to deliver to the PLO leader. In a book by McAuliffe’s describes how in 2000 Arafat   scrubs his leg under the table at a Washington dinner party, before kissing him on the lips. McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, reports this in his book, “What A Party! My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals.”

Who was Arafat anyway? Forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner defines him as the “most successful psychopath terrorist leader in history.” If that description is accurate, it will be difficult for biographers to unravel the complex, duplicitous motivations of the man. Psychopaths are often charismatic with the appearance of normal emotions, but in actuality, they are anti-social, immoral creatures devoid of shame or guilt, operating as “interspecies predators.” All too frequently, their neurological maliciousness finds a focus in Anti-Semitism.                                                                                                                                   However, in 2003, a team of American accountants—hired by Arafat’s own finance ministry—began examining Arafat’s finances. In its conclusions, the team claimed that part of the Palestinian leader’s wealth was in a secret portfolio worth close to $1 billion, with investments in companies like a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Ramallah, a Tunisian cell phone company and venture capital funds in the US and the Cayman Islands. The head of the investigation stated that “although the money for the portfolio came from public funds like Palestinian taxes, virtually none of it was used for the Palestinian people; it was all controlled by Arafat. And none of these dealings were made public.”[ An investigation conducted by the General Accounting Office reported that Arafat and the PLO held over $10 billion in assets even at the time when he was publicly claiming bankruptcy.                                                     How this character could be awarded a Nobel Prize is beyond of anyone ‘s understanding and destroy the Nobel’s prestige.

I have to come back to another question: Who is eligible for the Nobel Prize in Literature?The Literature Prize is typically awarded to recognize a cumulative lifetime body of work rather than a single achievement. The Academy honored the 75-year-old Dylan for “having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition”.                                 Dylan’s songs, such as “Blowin’ in the Wind”, “The Times They Are A-Changin'”, “Subterranean Homesick Blues” and “Like a Rolling Stone” captured the rebellious and anti-war spirit of the 1960s generation and moved many young people later as well.             I do not see any relation between Dylan and “the great American song tradition” especially that the Prize is for literature and not for songs. Seems to me that Swedish academicians , due to the age or other effects, are totally confused.                                                                          The Swedish Academy’s choice of Dylan drew some controversy with many questioning whether his work qualifies as literature, while others complained that the Academy missed an opportunity to bring attention to lesser-known artists.

In today’s world, infested by politically correctness and cheap leftist propaganda, is very hard to discern what is really literature and what is some banal lyrics with pretense to be “revolutionary” and to be a promoter of a counter culture, whatever this expression means for pseudo artists like Baez supported by traitors of the country, like Fonda ejusdem farinae.

It is a mystery how he “composed” the music knowing that he cannot read notes? Was he also helped for his written platitudes?

The following are quite inspired q little bit from John Done, a little bit from Kipling and the song was made famous mostly by the trio “Peter Paul and Mary”

“How many roads must a man walk down/Before you call him a man?/How many seas must a white dove sail/Before she sleeps in the sand?/Yes, and how many times must the cannonballs fly/Before they’re forever banned?/The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind..”

Those in love to ‘counter culture”  are  trying to discover various senses which obviously are none.

Another banality:

And she takes just like a woman/And she aches just like a woman/And she wakes just like a woman/Yeah, but she breaks just like a little girl.

What is a literary value of this confused “verses”?

The bridge at midnight trembles/The country doctor rambles/Bankers’ nieces seek perfection..

I presume that Dylan wants to impress with some “culture”:

Inside the museums, Infinity goes up on trial/Voices echo this is what salvation must be like after a while/But Mona Lisa musta had the highway blues/You can tell by the way she smiles.

Please notice the grammar at the level of …literary prize!

I can ad nauseam continue with so-called “verses” but it is embarrassing for that Academy.

Looking to amazement to the above “Lyrics” selected by Swedish academy as literature, comes to my memory one verse from a very famous crooner who deserved many times more such an honour. I refer to Leonard Cohen and one magnificent verse:

“Dance me to the end of life”.

Dylan could never produced such a poetical line

As a condition, the laureate Dylan must give a lecture on a subject “relevant to the work for which the prize has been awarded” no later than 6 months after Dec. 10, the anniversary of dynamite inventor Alfred Nobel’s death.

What Dylan will do? Will sing his acceptance speech about counter culture, pseudo revolution and leftist ideas?

Going on this path of counter culture we will reach non culture and soon we will have a prize for…rap artistry!

God, please protect our traditional culture.

Johannes de Silentio







Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s