Home The Nobel Appeasement Prize
Home The Nobel Appeasement Prize

The Nobel Appeasement Prize

Quick, name the greatest peacemaker of the 20th Century who never received a Nobel Peace Prize? The wrong answer given by Foreign Policy magazine is Gandhi. The right answer is British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Churchill would strike many as an odd choice for a Nobel Peace Prize. Didn't he preside over the bloodiest war of the 20th century that was fought around the world. A war that left millions dead and entire nations in ruins. And that of course is exactly the point. By resisting Hitler, Churchill brought peace to Western Europe and to every part of the world threatened by Nazi Germany. By contrast Gandhi did nothing but advise England to surrender, to let the Nazis occupy their cities, rather than "taint" themselves with violence.

Both Churchill and Gandhi wanted peace, they just wanted different kinds of peace. Churchill wanted a secure peace for England and Europe by defeating the Nazis. Gandhi wanted a sham spiritual peace by surrendering to the Nazis, letting them do their worst and priding himself on being better than them. Churchill wanted to hold the moral high ground by taking the strategic high ground. Gandhi wanted the moral high ground by waving the white flag of surrender. These radically different notions of what peace is are at the heart of our problems today.

A notion of peace that rewards the Gandhis over the Churchills, rewards appeasement over resistance. It promotes the idea that throwing your hands up in surrender is better and nobler than reaching for a gun to defend yourself and your family with. That is the significance of the Norwegian committee awarding Obama a Nobel Peace Prize, which should be renamed the appeasement prize.

The Nobel committee cited Obama's speech about a "World Without Nuclear Weapons" as his qualification for receiving the award. Naturally this does not mean that the United States will actually prevent the Hitlers of tomorrow from getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Rather it means that the United States and countries reasonable enough to follow its lead will give up nuclear weapons. Leaving them exclusively in the hands of madmen, tyrants and terrorists. That is the self-destructive Gandhian ideal that the Committee and Obama want to promote... surrender, helplessness and impotence are the points on the moral compass of pacifism.

Naturally Obama did not get the Nobel Peace Prize for anything he actually accomplished. But this actually makes him a worthy successor to Jimmy Carter, whose unwanted "diplomacy" enabled North Korea to continue developing nuclear weapons, and Al Gore who made a movie telling others to live simply, without ever following his own advice. Both accomplished little except to make empty speeches and handicap those who actually wanted and want to do something constructive. Without Carter's intervention, half of Asia might not be constantly waiting for the bomb to drop. And what Carter did for Kim Jong Il, Obama is supposed to do for the Islamists, a grand devil's bargain to enable mass murder in the name of peace.

In the face of Nazi terror, Gandhi advised England to surrender, arguing that fighting the Nazis was worse than losing to them. There is a free world today only because England, America and the remains of the civilized world disregarded Gandhi's "noble" ideas and did the right thing by fighting the Nazi war machine instead. Gandhi's ideas would not have made the world civilized, as so many today insist, they would have made the world Nazi. That is the simply truth, perverted by those who brand the armies of the free world as Nazis, and real Nazis, as victims.

Those who would apply Gandhi's ideas today to restrain and throttle the use of force against terrorism, would produce not a world free of cruelty or violence, but a world broken under the Islamist boot, a world without freedom, without kindness, mercy or hope. And where the Bush Doctrine emphasized the right of America to defend itself and the world, the Obama Doctrine emphasizes multilateral diplomacy and a willingness to negotiate until the bombs begin falling, and probably all the way until doomsday itself.

The Nobel Peace Prize has a long history of rewarding the false diplomacy of the leaders of killers like Le Duc Tho, Sadat, Desmond Tutu, Gorbachev, Mandela, Arafat and their enablers like Pauling, Kissinger, MacBride, Peres, Kim Dae Jung, Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, El Baradei and of course Barack Obama. The Nobel Peace Prize does not foster peace, it fosters only appeasement. Little wonder that UN agencies won the Nobel Peace Prize six separate times. And if there is any group of organizations more useless and more disabling to the free world than the UN, look and be fairly certain that they have their own Nobel, already or pending.

In 1947, after all the American, Canadian, British and Australian soldiers who had died fighting to liberate and bring peace to Europe-- the Nobel Committee instead handed over the award to the pacifist anti-war Quaker American Friends Service Committee. This was after giving the award to the ICRC in 1944 whose conduct during the war had bordered on Nazi collaboration. After the end of a war which saw Norway itself occupied and liberated and protected from Nazi and Soviet troops, the Committee saw fit only to go on promoting the same old pacifist doctrine of appeasement first.

Yet had the British and Americans decided that a non-violent negotiated solution was best-- Norway would have gone on being ruled by Nazi Germany until the end of time. In a truly ironic paradox, had England and America been governed by the ideas that the Nobel Peace Prizes sought to instill, the prizes, whose disposal was halted by WW2, would never have been given any, except perhaps and most appropriately to Vidkun Quisling.

And that in sum total is what the Nobel Peace Prize amounts to, a trophy for the murderers cunning enough to get what they want at the negotiating table, and their pet Quislings. It is only fitting that Obama who has left Eastern Europe naked in the face of Russian aggression, given Iran an open invitation to use endless delaying tactics while developing nuclear weapons, enabled Chavez's Marxist expansionism across South America and is preparing to cut a deal with the Taliban themselves-- receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Not for what he has done, but for what he has not done... by way of omission, stand up to evil.

Obama has made appeasement look cool, which is all that the committee really values in a patsy, figureheads to turn into heroes and make the morally indefensible ideas of pacifism more palatable. Gandhi's ideas on their own are laughable, but when combined with a saintly figure somehow seem credible as a quasi-religious virtue. Obama's ideas are equally laughable, but when combined with his manufactured image, were accepted by large numbers of Americans.

Protesting that Obama has done nothing to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize misses the point. It is precisely because Obama has done nothing, but give ridiculous speeches, that has was given the Nobel Peace Prize in the first place. Doing nothing is the greatest virtue of pacifism, to lift your hands high and let the enemy have his way with your country is exactly the sort of high moral notion that the Nobel Peace Prize. Just ask the various League of Nations officials, random pacifists and disarmament promoters who received the award in the 1930's, until Hitler's armies swept across Europe, temporarily putting an end to the awards.

The Nobel Peace Prize is no high honor, it is pacifism's highest honor to the conscious and the misguided appeasers. To receive it is to paint a giant target on your own country's back. A "Kick Me" sign a hundred feet tall lighting up the night sky. A white flag waving high.

"As the world celebrates International Day of Non-violence, US president Barack Obama today said America has its roots in the India of Mahatma Gandhi." PTI

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions." - Gandhi


  1. On second thought, I don't want a Nobel Peace Prize after all. I'd be in horrible company and known for being in such company throughout the ages.


    This Nobel affair is another chink in Obama's plsatic armor. I've heard a lot of analysts saying that now that comedians are ridiculing him as a Nobel winner Obama is getting more negative PR than ever. And people on the left, right and center are coming together in ridiculing Obama and pointing to his nakedness so to speak.

    Same as with his meddling in the Gov. Paterson election. Dems, Repubs, and independants united against Obama.

    It's a good thing.

  2. We have no roots in Gandhi's beliefs. What silliness.
    Italy and Germany made good bed partners. Both idiot nations.

  3. Anonymous13/10/09

    Perhaps we need a Nobel War Prize.

  4. Sad that we live in a world in which righteousness and morality need to be awarded at all:(

    Well one good thing-old dunderhead Obama will never receive the Arrow of Light Award from the Boy Scouts of America, scouting's highest award.

    In fact Obama never would have cut it as a boy scout. He'd choke trying to say an oath that begins with "On my honor."

    The average American Boy Scout is more worthy of receiving an award for peace.

  5. Gandhi, who demanded that India be for the Indians, but Judea not be for the Jews.
    Gandhi, who said the Jews should be happy to be slaughtered by the Nazis because it would let prove their moral superiority.
    Gandhi, who insisted there could be no war with Nazi Germany, despite the unprecedented oppression, but that isolation would show them what's what.
    Gandhi, who [too many rude words to include in one post, feel free to insert your own particular favorites here].
    It would take ten thousand reincarnations in ten thousand forms each ten thousand times more vile than the last for him to even begin to ever make up for the sins of his hubris.

  6. sammish13/10/09

    I am not sure about all the fuss about this Nobel peace price discussion and Obama. I do not care much about whether Obama deserves it or not. I let the experts who pass judgments do that, since they seem to be more incline to do so and took it upon themselves to pass judgments if only they knew who were the past recipients of this mediatized fake event and whether they deserved it. This does not mean that I agree with certain Obama's foreign policies issues, but the Nobel, well he can have it all as far as I am concerned. He can put on his head and dance with it. He can sit on it and crush it or he can use it as a napkin if he wants to eat on it or he can use it as toilet tissue to clean his ass with it. All this stuff about whether he deserve it or not is meaningless. It is superfleous to his bad or good policies. It seems that people are against him receiving the price because of his personality or political position on certain issue or because he is Obama...One can be against him for any reason not just one...but for the peace price it is a non-issue..Sultan Knish you know better than that..

    The question is to whom can this price be given to beside Obama? Is there someone out there who really deserve it without inciting hatred, derision and contempt from some corners of this waxy speudo-intellectual punditry?

    I cannot beleive all this talk and bla bla of NOTHING and nonesense. Talking about a peace price, I was thinking about BiBi Netanyahu. He is trully an advocate of peace in the Middle East (was in the past, and will be in the future). He has been around for a long time, shook hands with the worst recipient of Nobel peace price Arafat to whom this price gave a green light to call for the third,or fourth or sixth (who is counting) intifadah which cause innocent deaths, sufferings and destruction...

    Even your beloved peace loving South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, winner of the Nobel peace price, has called Israel an Apartheid and racist state, and advocates even now suicide bombers and armed struggle for the Palestinian, not as terrorists but freedom fighters... How is this for a peace price hey!!!

    I think there is a disconnect here. Sultan Knish you should know better...

  7. Anonymous13/10/09

    Here is a essay on Gandhi, you may have not seen


  8. Anonymous,

    Yes I'm familiar with the article, but I do urge everyone who isn't to read it.

  9. Sammish,

    I'm not sure exactly what your point is.

  10. Anonymous13/10/09

    OMG you're so wrong, Knish. I hope you'll be brave and fair enough to post this, though. Listen: Obama's not "doing nothing"... give him some time, for heaven sake! He's not lifting his hands high and "let the enemy have his way". Bush had 8 years and he hadn't got a Nobel prize... which is right, because his policy was stupid and wrong. Tell me, what did mr Bush get from his isolation and non-diplomacy dealing with countries like Nkorea, Syria, Iran and Cuba? Tell me one positive thing. Did it helped the people living in those countries? Actually no. North korea got nukes, Castros still leading Cuba and Iran elected some more radical president then in the past.

    Now, Obama is much smarter and knows that talkings and negotiatings are better than a war. He also know that he must pressure israel if he wanna reach any stable peace there. And he's not afraid to tell this loud. That's why I think he deserved his prize. The prize will also pressure him not to start any war in the future, which is good for the world.

  11. Sammish--I think I understand what you're point is.

    As for a person who would have been worthy of the prize and all of its benefits would be hard to find because such people tend to be entirely selfless and work out of the limelight, unless it is to make genuine pleas to help the world understand an issue (think of Elie Weisel who continues to warn the world about racism and anti-Semitism in particular).

    Weisel has spent most of his adult life educating the world about the Holocaust and genocide.

    You should read his speach upon winning the Nobel prize, which is include in his book Night. The year they gave him the award they got it right.

    The Nobel Peace Prize focuses attention on a particular cause. It's a free pass to credibility on an issue, not to mention the money the prize recipient gets. Obama in winning the peace prize has added (I believe) another $100,000 to his war chest (no pun intended) for the next election.

    The Nobel committee helped to make Weisel the official voice of the Holocaust and genocide; Mother Teresa the official voice of extreme poverty; Al Gore the official voice of global warming; Ghandi of pacifism. Now Barack Obama the official voice of...? You can fill in the blanks.

    His prize and the money he'll get is a huge campaign donation from the Nobel committee. And it's an endoresment of everything he stands for, which will sadly influence generations of kids since years down the road teachers will teach about him as the first African American president to win the Nobel prize.

    The Nobel prize is the Academy Award of the political world. Sometimes they get it right and give it to someone who is truly worthy of it but usually it's just the leader of a cause the committee happens to believe in a given year.

    One year it's the poor in Calcutta (Mother Teresa) another year it's a young president who sympathizes with Muslims and goes around giving sermons about peace rather than actually doing something to achieve true peace.

    There's no objectivity at all. Personally, I think this year they should have created a new category for Obama--the Zaza Gabor Famous for Being Famous Award. Famous for being famous and nothing else fits Obama perfectly.

  12. Anonymous13/10/09

    Outstanding article as always, Sultan!

    However, you need to review the text before publishing as there are quite a few typo mistakes starting at "Both accomplished except to make empty speeches and..."

    I hope you don't mind me mentioning it. Your articles are superb and I don't want them to be weakened by typing errors. I am English, of course, and could be accused of just being pedantic!

    Best wishes!


  13. Have you seen this Video?


  14. Anonymous13/10/09

    PS you don't have to publish my last comment. It was just for thee really.

  15. Anonymous,

    Bush liberated the bulk of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    He didn't resolve North Korea, but that was a disastrous policy dating back from the Clinton era. Castro's tenancy was an Eisenhower, JFK problem.

    Arguing that Bush didn't do anything because he didn't solve every problem in the world is stupid.

    Finally can you name what exactly Obama did to deserve the award?

  16. Paul, yes I'm aware that typos crop up. It's hard to produce unpaid full length articles on a daily basis without that happening.

    Thanks for the correction

  17. Bush wasn't bad. He got the job done.
    In a few months Obama has plunged the US into eternal debt and downfall.
    The nation will never recover and his lies about taxes and health care are legion. He has no shame.

    He got the prize because America's enemies want to put a rubber stamp on the dismantling of American democracy.

  18. Perhaps Bush should have gotten the prize, too. After all, early on in the Iraq war the media covered the numerous atrocities that were happening under Sadaam's regime. Thousands killed and tortured.

    Aside from the matter of WMDs, the crimes against humanity were also an issue, which most would choose to ignore.

  19. I guess, it depends on the point of view, under which each person criticises the Nobel Peace Prize. I found yours very interesting and I'm afraid, that indeed the committee's criteria, on which the winner is chosen, are mostly based on an appeasement policy rather than on the resistance one. But one cannot blame them, because if you say "peace", for most of the people it means no use of weapons of any kind, and that leads more to the pacific attitude, which in case of Obama might actually mean, that he is a suitable winner. Even though we will probably see more on that later. Lorne

  20. Actually, I disagree on Bush.

    What Bush did, is to move on Iraq with largely insufficient force. Insufficient to achieve the goal of transforming it into an outpost of the Free World in the ME, like what was done with Japan.

    Better to have left Saddam in power, than creating the Shi'a radical crescent and shifting power in the whole region to the Mullahs' advantage.

    He didn't even bombed Iranian military installations, thus enabling their mad dash to the BOMB. And for THAT his name will live in infamy.

    Obama is empty suit figurehead of the idiot fascist "realist"-in-name-only faction currently in power in Washington, since 2007 (at least) with their forged NIE report and fabricated AIPAC fake "spies" scandal.

    Elections has got NOTHING to do with THAT. Both admins, 2nd Bush and now Obama, implement the policies of Baker/Hamilton commission: ACCOMMODATE Iran and PACIFY Israel.

    BOTH of them. Obama AND Bush (who was another empty suit figurehead anyhow).

  21. The amount of troops was sufficient, had the Pentagon, rather than the State Department, controlled the occupation.

    Instead the recreation of Iraq failed or was deliberately sabotaged from the start, creating room for the initial Baathist attacks, to turn into a large scale terrorist problem and mini-civil war.

  22. Sultan - as you say in your other recent article about Saudi influence in Washington, they certainly didn't want no free society created in Iraq.

    Bush always was the Saudis' man in Washington.

    The current outcome, unfavorable to the Saudis though it may be, might just be the least evil from their POV - not the planned in advance outcome. They are just humans too, "winging it" as they go. Who knows?

    A conspiratorial mind would see all this as a confirmation to the existence of some brilliant minds in American Evil (really!) Establishement, preparing their future Fascist Empire.

    In any way, I don't see Bush as nowhere as positive figure as he's sold to us. He owes his business to silent Saudi "investors"; he haven't freed Pollard; and HE DIDN'T STOP the Iranians NUKE program.

    All in all, he's a failure, just like the US is, as a whole. Same isolationist proto-fascist elites still rule it, just as they were in the 1930s, and the masses couldn't care less. MORE, they support the isolationist pandering to the tyrants, deeply immersed in their pacifist delusions (those that seem to give a damn).

    Of the rational, determined, clear thinkers, the US has managed to produce a precious FEW.

  23. I certainly don't see Bush as an overwhelmingly positive figure, particularly in terms of what he should have accomplished. But compared to Obama... it's a whole other story.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like