- Aug 31, 2022
How did you collect all of this information?
bad as usual but unlike before porks could not do shit to us anymore in name of running proxy war (that we call Terrorism here), we have far surpassed them in almost all merits (yeah they can chest thump on muh happiness index hurr durr lol but as if such indexes matter in material tangible world) so except hypernationalist schizos no one gives 2 shits to themRelationship
It's good to get along. Happy for both countries tbhbad as usual but unlike before porks could not do shit to us anymore in name of running proxy war (that we call Terrorism here), we have far surpassed them in almost all merits (yeah they can chest thump on muh happiness index hurr durr lol but as if such indexes matter in material tangible world) so except hypernationalist schizos no one gives 2 shits to them
not possible because our history with pisslam; it's not just some 100 years old rivalry but goes far far back to 700 some AD and so, what happened in '47 was an attempt to make a truce with them at cost of giga level of violence and yet it did not happen in long runIt's good to get along. Happy for both countries tbh
Still good to cope and have few brocels from rival countries. I don't care about nationalism tbhnot possible because our history with pisslam; it's not just some 100 years old rivalry but goes far far back to 700 some AD and so, what happened in '47 was an attempt to make a truce with them at cost of giga level of violence and yet it did not happen in long run
it's better to be realist than being in false hope
Kek yeah the interior and victim mentality is very real. I appreciate your advice though on the pushups. Will try ityou can have them bros over for coping whatever, like how brits brought over massive massive amount of them there and turned their streets into rape zones
TLDR, but read your first paragraph.Looking at the list of Nobel Laureates, one cannot help but notice who rules the world and what political agenda they intend to impose. Sometimes, in fact, the Nobel Prize becomes a means to spread hate propaganda against the enemies of the System.
For example, this year’s Nobel prizes have aimed at supporting the struggle of the sexes in our countries (Claudia Goldin), reinforcing the dwindling confidence in the COVID vaccines (Weissman and Karikó), and slamming Israel’s main enemy in the region, the Islamic Republic of Iran, by the way they allegedly treat their women (Narges Mohammadi) — now that the United States military has been definitively driven out of the Taliban’s Afghanistan and the women there no longer matter.
Last year’s ceremony saw an unprecedented situation: The Nobel Foundation announced that its home country’s second-largest party, the Sweden Democrats, would not be welcome at the Nobel banquet because of the horrendous crime of wanting to stop a foreign invasion — including that of the evil Iranians, by the way — and opposing the extinction of the Swedes.
Political influence on the Nobel Committee by the Jewish media also translates into racial bias. According to Dr. Jan Biro:
- They award the Prize 7 times more frequently to Jewish candidates worldwide, and 26 times more frequently to those in America, than would be expected from the size of the Jewish population. The proportion of Jewish laureates more than doubled (2.3-fold increase) after the Second World War owing to the explosion of Prizes shared between Jews and Gentiles (8.8-fold increase). Higher IQs and preferential choice of science as a profession among Jews do not fully explain this J-bias.
Not to mention the fact that the Chairman of the Nobel Foundation between 2005 and 2013 was the son of the head of the Swedish branch of the World Jewish Congress, Marcus Storch.
No doubt in most cases the Laureates receive their prizes rightfully. For the rest, however, we can detect a very pronounced bias. As would be expected, this is particularly scandalous and evident in those categories that are less merit-based, more politicized, and more loaded with subjectivity — i.e., the Nobel Peace Prizes.
Only 17 blacks have “won” any Nobel, most of them as ridiculously and undeservedly as Barack Obama. Of those, the vast majority are for peace, almost none for the arts, and not a single one for science. Also, each and every one of them was won since the establishment of the New Order that followed the Second World War.
Some of the most obvious and paradigmatic cases of this political bias are Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize and Donald Trump’s lack of a Nobel. Henry Kissinger, yes; Rudolf Hess, no. Woodrow Wilson, yes; Adolf Hitler, no. Nelson Mandela, yes; Mahatma Gandhi, no. Bob Dylan receives the Nobel for Literature, but Ezra Pound does not; Winston Churchill gets his, but Pío Baroja doesn’t. I will go into the details below.
The best-known case of an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize was that of Barack Obama, who received it through the crudest exercise of “affirmative action.” It simply seemed cool to give a Nobel to the first non-white President of the United States.
So, in October 2009, less than nine months after taking office, Obama was awarded the Prize on the basis of . . . nothing, to be precise. The Nobel Committee’s deserves even more ridicule when we consider that the deadline for submitting nominations for that year was only 12 days after Obama was sworn in as President.
Obama himself was as surprised as anyone else. As if that were not enough, in his speech at the award ceremony, he allowed himself a few words justifying war as a solution to conflicts and to say that war is okay on some occasions. Indeed, he would find quite a few such occasions during his presidency. He had no qualms about scorning the Prize and (half-)joking that “nowadays they give it to anyone.” In 2015, the former Director of the Nobel Institute, Geir Lundestad, implied in his statements to the BBC that the Committee which had decided to award Obama the prize regretted its decision afterwards.
In reality, Obama would prove to be a faithful follower of the precedent set by George W. Bush in the Middle East. And, although it may seem that 12 days is not enough to do much for world peace, Obama had the dubious honor of becoming a war criminal during his first months in office, causing a million people to be displaced in Pakistan, which was in fact the largest such crisis in that country to date.
For the rest of his presidency, Obama overthrew governments, armed the Islamic State, and was responsible for countless military operations in Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, and Iraq, as well as Libya and Syria, countries where he in fact provoked civil wars.
In the last year of his presidency alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs.
But giving Nobel Prizes to blacks through affirmative action is a somewhat older practice. In October 1961 it was announced that the 1960 Nobel Peace Prize would go to black South African Albert Luthuli, “for his non-violent struggle against apartheid.” Precisely in that year, the great contribution of the African National Congress’ (ANC) main leader to their non-violent struggle was that, although he did not oppose the use of the terrorist tactics proposed by his colleague Nelson Mandela, who was then President of the ANC’s Transvaal Branch, he did not speak out in favor of them, either — not for any moral reason, but because he did not think they were prepared to undertake such a campaign. Not exactly great justifications for the award, but hey, that’s something, at least!
Mandela and other members of the ANC, in association with the South African Communist Party, co-founded the terrorist group uMkhonto we Sizwe in 1961, along with Walter Sisulu and the Jew Joe Slovo. Although initially declared to be separate from the ANC in order to protect the latter’s public image, this group was later widely recognized as being the armed wing of the African National Congress, which Luthuli led until his death in 1967.
The man behind the famous Fourteen Points and the international push for “self-determination,” Woodrow Wilson, was the same man who said, “I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men,” and went about launching military interventions in several countries acros the region. Also, his Fourteen Points conveniently only applied to the losing powers, in addition to explicitly denying self-determination for Alsace-Lorraine, which was annexed to France without being consulted.
But his greatest achievement was to push his country into the First World War. Although Wilson was fully aware that the vast majority of American citizens were opposed to entering the European war, he was secretly determined to bring them into it, so he did his best to collaborate with the United Kingdom in order to provoke an incident that could be used as a casus belli. He even hired the services of the legendary Jewish publicist Edward Bernays to change public opinion in the country.
Sure enough, in May 1915 a German submarine torpedoed the Lusitania, a British ship carrying war materiel as well as American civilian passengers. It sank so fast that there was no time to launch the lifeboats due to the huge load of ammunition it was carrying, which caused a second explosion inside (although this was hypocritically denied at the time). In spite of this, it was not until 1917 when Wilson decided to begin hostilities, declaring war on the Central Powers only one month after his second inauguration as President.
To achieve his reelection, Wilson had not only promised that he would maintain neutrality and use a more conciliatory approach, but his party had also adopted the electoral slogan “He Kept Us Out of War.”
His pacifist and non-interventionist discourse had been crucial to keeping him in power, to the point that it caused Wilson to become the first Democrat since Andrew Jackson in 1832 to win two consecutive mandates. However, as a good politician ahead of his times, once he won the election he did just the opposite of what he had promised — since, as he had stated in his Declaration of War against Germany on April 2, 1917, it was necessary to go to war “to end the war” because “the world must be made safe for democracy.”
In 1919, after having brought the United States fully into the war against public opinion, but in favor of “peace” and “democracy,” Woodrow Wilson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It was he who would definitively put an end to his country’s traditional policy of isolationism and neutrality and who would usher in a new era of military interventionism and aggression throughout the world that has characterized US foreign policy ever since, as well as a new era of growing domination by Jewry over the country’s direction.
Martin Luther King
Another case is that of Martin Luther King, a depraved man who, because of his political activities and subsequent killing, has been elevated to one of the highest positions in the Establishment’s pantheon of clay idols.
Just as Jews controlled and directed the black movement and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) from the beginning, with Jewish presidents Joel and Arthur Spingarn and Kivie Kaplan at the helm from its early decades until 1975, the Jewish lawyer Stanley Levison, previously Treasurer of the American Jewish Congress in Manhattan and having defended of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, controlled and financed Martin Luther King’s activities. Among many other things, Levison served as King’s literary agent and co-authored his famous “I have a dream” speech.
Because Stanley Levison was a member of the Communist Party, and because King admitted to him that he was a Marxist, King himself was eventually investigated by the FBI, and we now know many aspects of his true personality. King was not only a notorious plagiarist (for which he should have been stripped of his undeserved doctorate), but a sexual degenerate who participated in orgies, used money from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to pay for alcohol and prostitutes (with whom he was violent), had more than 40 lovers, and even witnessed and encouraged the rape of a woman by another reverend (Logan Kearse) while laughing about it. On another occasion, one of the prostitutes he hired for a threesome said it had been her worst experience due to King’s alcohol abuse and aggressiveness.
Although his demonstrations consistently led to violence, his merits for the Nobel Peace Prize seem to have been that, although he worked with violent people, he tried to convince them to use “tactical non-violence.”
His family has since proven to have the same moral character, but is more focused on money.
Another darling of the establishment media was Elie Wiesel, self-proclaimed Holocaust survivor.
This champion of the rights of oppressed peoples everywhere — except Palestine and anywhere else where the oppressors are Jews — became very wealthy from his lectures and the sales of his holocaustic books.
As a defender of the criminal state of Israel and its expansion into new, illegal settlements, he dismissed any criticism of Jewish crimes in Palestine on the grounds that they are “Israel’s internal debates,” while speaking harshly about “the perils of indifference” when the foot stepped on is a Jewish one.
His greatest merit is to have pushed for the creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, indoctrinating tens of millions of children and adults in hatred of certain people and their self-defense movements.
In Legends of Our Time, Wiesel wrote:
Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate — healthy, virile hate — for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.
Thanks to Obama, we know that war is wrong . . . sometimes. Thanks to Wiesel, we know that hate is wrong . . . sometimes. It all depends on who it is directed against. If it is against them, it’s wrong; if it’s against their rivals and detractors, it’s right. Elie Wiesel wrote the above paragraph a few years before he won the Nobel Peace Prize. There can hardly be a better example of what hate speech really means than this quote.
This didn’t stop Wiesel from lobbying for laws against what he called “hate speech,” which is nothing more than criticism of Jewry: among them, mere doubt about the victors’ version of an alleged historical event, the simple pointing out of contradictions in his autobiographical account, or curiosity about why he preferred to go with the Germans when they left the camp rather than wait to be liberated by the Soviets.
As we can see, furious hatred – even when provoking it under false pretexts — is justified as long as it is directed against the right target. Thus, this Nobel Peace Prize winner also declared, “I cannot and I do not want to forgive the killers of children; I ask God not to forgive,” in reference to the children he was supposed to have seen burning in giant open-air bonfires.
However, as Professor Robert Faurisson wrote:
He does indeed say that the Germans executed Jews, but . . . by fire; by throwing them alive into flaming ditches, before the very eyes of the deportees! No less than that! Here Wiesel the false witness had some bad luck. Forced to choose from among several Allied war propaganda lies, he chose to defend the fire lie instead of the boiling water, gassing, or electrocution lies. In 1956, when he published his testimony in Yiddish, the fire lie was still alive in certain circles. This lie is the origin of the term Holocaust. Today there is no longer a single historian who believes that Jews were burned alive. The myths of the boiling water and of electrocution have also disappeared. Only the gas remains.
The first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize was Wangari Mathai. Arguably, she encouraged peace among blacks by criticizing one of the many dictatorial and corrupt regimes that characterize black societies. She certainly did not favor racial peace with whites, however, saying, according to The Standard of Kenya, that HIV was artificially created by white scientists as a biological weapon to destroy blacks.
Hatred against the white man seems to be a merit when it comes to winning a Nobel Peace Prize. This is also the case for Rigoberta Menchú, an Amerindian leader and supporter of terrorist groups such as the Basque ETA-Batasuna. Although she is not as creative as Wiesel, she too suffers from an overly fertile imagination when it comes to crafting her autobiographical account, especially considering that her autobiography was precisely what brought her popularity and prestige in the first place — and which is why some researchers have unsuccessfully called for the revocation of her award.
In it, she unashamedly altered the facts about much of her life to portray herself and her family as radical fighters for the social rights of indigenous peoples. According to her, she was illiterate as a girl since her father had refused to send her to school because he did not want her to lose her cultural sense of belonging. In reality, she studied in a private school. She likewise invented a younger brother whom claimed to have seen die of hunger; he in fact never existed. She also claimed to have witnessed the death of another brother who was burned alive in a square, when in fact he neither died that way, nor she present at his death. She claimed her family was kept in slavery conditions on a coffee plantation, which was false, nor does she seem to have participated in any agricultural activity with her family whatsoever in her village. She has systematically turned what were in reality conflicts between Amerindians as a struggle against white oppression and for indigenous rights.
As usual in these cases, her only response to accusations of lying has been to scream “racism!” Later, after having a copyright dispute with the Venezuelan author of her book, she changed her mind and tried to blame her for any “mistakes” there are in the book. However, this convenient charge has also run into difficulties, since the Venezuelan writer defended herself by saying that every sentence in the book comes from recordings she made of Rigoberta Menchú that are still in her possession.
What is there to say of Nelson Mandela, who, as a young man, was in whiteface as part of his tribe’s rituals!
Seriously, however, unlike many identitarian dissidents in today’s Europe, he was not put in prison for a thought crime, but for terrorism. Not armed struggle, but indiscriminate terrorism, which involved victims of his own race who weren’t even involved in politics. Today as yesterday, black lives never matter if it is other blacks who take them.
Despite the way the media tries to portray Mandela, and despite all the movies about him featuring epic and solemn settings, as the founder and leader of a terrorist group, he dedicated himself to killing innocents without making any distinctions between men, women, or children. He was found guilty of 156 acts of public violence, including waves of bombings, many of them in public places, such as the Johannesburg railroad station bombing. Although it sent an observer, Amnesty International did not support him, claiming that he had received a fair trial and a reasonable sentence.
Unlike Timothy McVeigh, he was sentenced to life imprisonment as a show of clemency by the South African judicial system and as a way to avoid making martyrs out of scoundrels such as he. However, since the Western media is in the hands of Joe Slovo’s tribe, this was irrelevant in the long run, and he was turned into an idolized martyr anyway. When it comes to imposing a narrative, media ownership is more important than the facts themselves.
South African President Botha officially offered this future Nobel Peace Prize winner the opportunity to be released in 1985 in exchange for renouncing violence, which he flatly refused. Only two years earlier, the paramilitary wing of the African National Congress had carried out one of its most bloody attacks, the Church Street bombing, which killed 19 people and wounded 217. The group had also mined rural roads used by white farmers, killing at least 120 people, including black workers.
The killings and massacres were not directed exclusively against whites, either. Among their victims were other minorities, such as Indians, but also blacks of different ethnic origins or political affiliation. The Bisho and Boipatong massacres are just two examples of this.
Subsequently, without offering any concessions, and thanks only to South African white clemency and tremendous pressure from the Jewish media in the West, the South African government decided to release him and hand power over to the country’s black majority, which voted the old terrorist into the President’s office.
Even after his release from prison, he still allowed himself to sing, fist raised high, songs such as “Kill the Boer” alongside his Jewish colleague, Joe Slovo.
After being released for no reason and handed the presidency, Mandela turned a blind eye to the genocide of thousands of whites that ensued with the complicit silence of the same media that had hitherto been so concerned about human rights in the country. South Africa quickly and quietly became the country with the highest rape and murder rates in the world. And when it came to foreign policy, Mandela’s government was a supporter of genocidal anti-white regimes such as Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.
No wonder the United States listed the African National Congress as a terrorist organization and Nelson Mandela himself as a terrorist until 2008.
It is often said that behind a great man there is always a great woman. In this case, behind this criminal man there was a criminal woman. The wife of this wife abuser (at least with his first one), who was unfaithful by nature and a murderer to boot, was “Winnie” Mandela. She was even more radical than her husband, and a firm supporter of “necklacing” (burning people alive using rubber tires filled with petrol) suspected police informers and collaborators. While her husband was in prison, in addition to cheating on him, she dedicated herself to further radicalizing the party and supporting terrorism, including her own private terrorism, for which she established a group of thugs drawn from her bodyguards. She gave this group the name of the “Mandela United Football Club,” and she used it to commit a whole series of crimes, murders, and kidnappings.
She then presided over a reign of terror against her own relatives and neighbors, intimidating and punishing those she considered “apartheid collaborators” as well as her personal enemies. She took this as far as killing black children such as Stompie Sepei (SayHisName, remember!) as well as black women — out of jealousy, for having shared her lover. Winnie was implicated in at least 15 deaths. Her own infidelities were notorious; in fact, it was Nelson’s official excuse for getting a divorce. One of those with whom she was unfaithful to her imprisoned husband was the leader of his very “soccer team.”
Nelson Mandela, after his release from prison, separated from his wife so that her outbursts would not affect his political career. He nevertheless appointed her as a minister in his government, a position from which the “Mother of the Nation” had to resign after only 11 months for corruption (something she had already practiced in her own party long before), and was later convicted on hundreds of counts of fraud. She likewise associated with Israeli organized crime figures operating in South Africa. And, despite her rhetoric in favor of the poor, she always led a decadent lifestyle.
After all this, Winnie was still able to return to political life and to the South African parliament some years later. Her most enduring legacy is having mentored Julius Malema, former leader of the ANC Youth, who, after also facing various charges of corruption, fraud, and money laundering, founded a more radically anti-white party: the Economic Freedom Fighters. He now encourages white genocide and openly sings songs before stadium crowds about killing whites, just as Mandela and Joe Slovo had once done.
The same happened with Menachem Begin, founder of the Likud, who, as leader of the Irgun terrorist group, was the author of the bomb attack against the British Mandate forces in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, where he caused the death of 91 people. He was also behind the Deir Yassin Massacre in 1948, where his men massacred 254 Palestinian civilians in a single village. And these are just two examples among many.
Of course, Begin was awarded with a Nobel Peace Prize, after the Jews had awarded him the post of Prime Minister of Israel. The Jewish people are in the habit of rewarding those who have previously been noted for massacres and terrorist actions, far more often even than the Nobel Committee itself.
Begin’s book The Revolt is among the classics most studied by terrorist organizations around the world, including the Irish Republican Army and the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. He was implicated as the organizer of an assassination attempt against West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, but the Germans kept Jewish involvement secret. The five Israelis who were arrested were returned to Israel without having to face any charges. Begin’s role was reported in the memoirs of Elieser Sudit, one of the plot’s participants.
Menachen Begin received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978 for the Camp David Accords, but by 1982 he had already carried out his invasion of Lebanon, and had authorized the massacres of Sabra and Shatila, where between 1,500 and 3,000 Palestinian refugees were killed.
For “his efforts to end the war in Vietnam,” a war which the United States was unable to win, the Jewish Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize together with the Vietnamese diplomat Le Duc Tho. The latter was notable for being the only person to ever refuse the prize, and he did so precisely in protest at its being given to Kissinger, who went on to violate the truce the two had agreed upon.
Kissinger was also responsible for the indiscriminate bombing of the population of Cambodia, where the US Air Force dropped more bombs in 1973 alone than it had on Japan throughout the entire Second World War. These bombings and the alliance established with the Khmer Rouge were in turn essential for Pol Pot to come to power and his regime to kill more than a quarter of the country’s population.
Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Yasser Arafat
In 1994, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, his Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize for the Oslo Accords they had reached the previous year — and which ultimately failed.
The Jewish media have long reminded us of Arafat’s history with the militant group Fatah. In fact, the shabbos goy Kåre Kristiansen, who is more Zionist than the Israelis themselves, resigned from the Norwegian Nobel Committee in protest for having awarded the prize to Yasser Arafat, whom he labeled the “world’s most prominent terrorist.”
What is mentioned less often is that Yitzhak Rabin, as a Haganah officer, participated in and ordered the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during the Nakba terrorist campaign.
Yitzhak Rabin, as Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, “intentionally led Israel into war with Syria . . . because he thought this was the only way to prevent the Syrians from supporting Fatah attacks against Israel,” according to the historian and former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami.
As Defense Minister, Rabin led the sadistic repression of the First Intifada, which began as a protest against the murder of four Palestinian workers in the Jabalia refugee camp. They had been rammed by an Israeli military truck on December 9, 1987. It was precisely the First Intifada that the Oslo Accords had sought to end. Rabin continued to build new settlements, regardless of the peace agreements he had signed.
In the case of Shimon Peres, only two years after winning the Nobel Peace Prize he was responsible for the Qana Massacre, which led to the deaths of 106 civilians in a United Nations refugee camp in southern Lebanon.
Mother Teresa of Calcutta
If we consider peace as a means toward the end of avoiding pain, there is no doubt that Mother Teresa of Calcutta would be one of the least suitable people to receive a Nobel Peace Prize. She was also known as Tere-Saw, because of her praise of pain (in others) as a religious experience and due to her refusal to provide painkillers in her homes for the dying.
In these Teresa centers, diseases were not diagnosed, and no distinction was made between curable and incurable patients. All were assumed to be terminal patients, so syringes were reused, hygiene was non-existent, and those who could actually survive were put at risk of dying from infections or mere lack of proper treatment.
Attempts have been made to justify the appalling conditions of her mortuaries by comparing them to other Indian medical centers, but she was not a Hindu, nor was there a shortage of donations scarce, nor was any of ths related to her cult of suffering for religious reasons.
The Nobel Committee’s chutzpah and lack of sense has been increasing and, in 2016, in a clear case of J-bias, the Nobel Prize for Literature was awarded to the Jewish singer-songwriter Bob Dylan for “having created a new poetic expression within the great tradition of the American song,” making him the only musician to have ever received the prize.
Never before has anyone received a Nobel Prize in Literature for such scant written material — some song lyrics — and it is especially grating that he has been placed ahead of a multitude of actual poets and writers.
The discrediting of the Nobel Prize as a consequence of this kind of bias is twofold. In a case of poetic justice, those who do not deserve the prize usually despise it. As happened with Obama, Bob Dylan likewise scorned the prize that was supposed to honor him.
One member of the Swedish Academy, the writer Per Wästberg, accused Dylan of being “rude and arrogant” for ignoring the Nobel Committee’s attempts to contact him, and for his total indifference after the prize’s announcement — to the point that it was not even clear whether he would show up at the ceremony to collect it.
The Jew Albert Einstein, to give another example, similarly snubbed the academy after being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics.
But speaking of gratuitous Nobel prizes, and as further proof that not only Peace Prizes can be perverted, we cannot overlook Winston Churchill.
In both world wars, Churchill stood out for his attempts to either start wars or escalate them, irresponsibly dragging as many peoples as possible into the conflict — most especially the United States, if it would help him win.
In the First World War, Churchill, then Lord of the Admiralty, conspired with US President Woodrow Wilson to involve the United States in the conflict against Germany. The idea was, according to Churchill’s own correspondence, to attract as much neutral ship traffic as possible to the English coast in the hope that the Germans would attack one by mistake, which would in turn serve as a pretext in the eyes of American public opinion to enter the war that their President was waiting for.
In the Second World War, being the most vociferously warmongering politician against Germany (despite the fact that before 1938 he had dedicated great praise to both Hitler and Mussolini), he pushed Europe into the most devastating world conflict in history under the pretext of recovering the Dantzig corridor and defending a Polish independence that nobody cared about when the occupier was Soviet.
Given this record, the level of chutzpah required to give Churchill a Nobel Peace Prize was beyond any reasonable limit. Thus, in the end he was given a Nobel Prize . . . for Literature. Why not? After all, he had been a journalist for a while, and then wrote a memoir. It should moreover be remembered that many of Churchill’s most famous expressions and quotations are misattributions or outright plagiarism from other authors.
Even so, all the genocidal leaders of the Second World War’s victorious powers were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Roosevelt and Churchill, the warmongers who practiced massive aerial terrorism against residential neighborhoods; Truman, who dropped the atomic bomb; and even Stalin, the greatest mass murderer who ever existed in the white world. They received their respective nominations for such ridiculous reasons as their “efforts to end World War II,” as if there was anyone in the world who did not want to end the war (in their favor, of course).
The reality was the opposite. Churchill, after succeeding in getting war declared on Germany, resisted at all costs to end the conflict and dragged it out as long as he could in the hope of being able to involve half the world on his side. This was in order to avoid the stalemate peace that the Anglophilic leader of Germany offered him, even when Great Britain, after the fall of France, no longer had any chance of victory on its own. Roosevelt sought to provoke Germany and used Japan as a way to enter the war by the back door. Stalin was waiting for Germany and the Western powers to bleed out in the war so that he could attack when all were exhausted. So all of them prolonged the war, as uselessly as it was criminal, by demanding from Germany something never previously heard of: “unconditional surrender.”
Thus, Churchill was nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature. De Gaulle was nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature as well, although the Norwegian Committee settled for giving it to only one of them.
Those who did not receive a Nobel
At the same time, someone such as Rudolf Hess, who lost his freedom for 46 years and eventually his life for the crime of seeking peace (to his credit, at a time of absolute military hegemony in his country), was not only not awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, but was silenced and ridiculed. And yet no one has ever given so much to achieve peace. If he does not deserve the Nobel, no one does.
Mahatma Gandhi did not get one, either, despite his many nominations. Perhaps his support for the caste system, his awareness of race differences, and the fact that he was only interested in the rights of Hindus — whom he considered superior to blacks — had something to do with it. Nor did it his advocacy of maintaining the racial purity of all races help, which is why during his stay in South Africa he did not oppose apartheid. He rather fought for it to be extended to his own people, so that Hindus and blacks would not have to use the same facilities.
After the Munich Agreement, which was marked with great popular celebrations in the United Kingdom and France, Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, since 1934 the American Jewish writer Gertrude Stein had led a campaign in favor of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Hitler, for having suppressed the elements causing disunity within Germany. To this must be added all the efforts that were made at the international level to achieve a multilateral disarmament agreement and to put an end to the revanchism of the First World War, as well as the numerous generous offers of peace on an equal footing and without demands that were made once France and Great Britain had already declared war on Germany. All of these were scorned by the Western powers.
It is significant that before the war, in a situation of relative equilibrium, we have those who had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for genuine efforts toward peace such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. In the post-war period, when a unique New World Order had been established, the victors compensated themselves with nominations on the insane pretext of “their efforts to end the war.”
Unlike Obama, Donald Trump, the only US President in several decades who has not initiated any new wars, has not received any award, despite his impressive progress with North Korean, Russia, the Abraham Accords, and so on. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in several years during his term, but the Nobel Committee was too busy giving the prize to the likes of the Ethiopian black Abiy Ahmed, who 11 months later declared a war in his country, defying an international community that was demanding a greater effort at dialogue.
Some of the writers who, unlike Bob Dylan and Winston Churchill, did not receive the Nobel Prize for Literature include Henrik Ibsen, Leo Tolstoy, Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Miguel de Unamuno, Aldous Huxley, Carl Gustav Jung, Giovanni Papini, Jorge Luis Borges, Yukio Mishima, Martin Heidegger, Mircea Eliade, and others.
Ezra Pound was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature in no less than 14 different years. In fact, in 1959 Anders Österling, who was the Nobel Committee’s Chairman from 1947 to 1970, was quite explicit about the reasons why he refused to give the Nobel Prize to Ezra Pound. It was because his work propagated ideas that, according to him, “stand in stark contrast to the spirit of the Nobel Prize” — or at least the current one.
When in 1954 Ernest Hemingway received the Nobel Prize for Literature, he said that he would have preferred that it had been given to Pound instead of him. He said the same about the Basque author Pío Baroja, whose work he deeply admired and whom he visited on his deathbed. In fact, several of Pío Baroja’s disciples and epigones received the Nobel, such as Camilo José Cela, and they tirelessly asked for the Nobel for their master — but he never got it. I suspect that his book of essays entitled Communists, Jews, and Other Riffraff had something to do with it.