The Nobel Peace Prize Committee Apparantly Doesn’t Know There’s A Genocide Going On

                 

I find it odd that, during a time of an active genocide and an impending world war between The Western world and other nuclear powers, the Nobel Committee has decided to give this year’s peace prize to Maria Corina Machado. In fact, I find it more than odd, it is a joke. A sick joke.

According to Afred Nobel, who established the Nobel awards, the Peace Prize should go to one “who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.” Let us then judge how Maria Corina Machado best embodies these standards, as compared to people who have been working to bring peace to active war zones and end genocide. People like Greta Thunberg, Francesca Albanese, or perhaps one of the hundreds of Palestinian journalists who have been killed reporting on the destruction of Gaza. Their bona fides are self-evident and need not be explained. I’m sure there are many equally or even more worthy candidates of which I am not aware, but let’s start with these people. They have risked (or given their lives) to the ending of wars, and dared to stand up against the principal powers in this world who have a self-professed goal of global domination.

According to the Nobel Committee itself, Machado was given the award due to “her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela”. Even if we take this claim by the Committee at face value, how does this qualify her for a peace prize? A democracy prize, perhaps, if such a thing existed, but not a peace prize. Nonetheless, this is what they lead with.

Every sentence of their explanation for Machado winning the prize is worthy of both comment and contempt, but let me just highlight a few. They proceed to laud her commitment to democracy without bothering to say how this relates to the qualifications for a peace prize as elucidated by Mr. Nobel. Instead, they call her a unifying voice. Which would be an indicator of her work towards peace, but the full quote from the announcement calls her “a unifying force for the opposition”. Which is to say, a main belligerent in the battle for control of the Venezuelan government, one in which the opposition party is not averse to using violence, as could be seen in the coup which she supported and in the street violence which occurred during the protests she encouraged. It can perhaps best be seen in Machado’s choice of allies, Donald Trump and the United States (which is actively blowing up Venezuelan vessels in international waters) and Israel (which is antithetical to everything the Nobel Peace prize ought to represent, killing people in Gaza, The West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, Qatar, Iran, and Syria).

The committee’s justification as to why Machado more than anybody on the planet deserves a peace prize continues with the repetition of the word “democracy”, as though that word is anything more than a propaganda talking point in this day and age. If the word does not mean a government expressing the will of the people, then of what value is it to the average citizen? Like a vampire, the western world has sucked from the word “democracy” any vestige of meaning or vitality. Who now talks of the right of Palestinian people for self-determination?

The rest of the apologia is an attack on the Venezuelan government that could have been hurriedly written by a tenth-grader the night before the essay was due. It stands as an embarrassment not only to the peace prize committee but to the Nobel Foundation at large and Western civilization as a whole. It is the death knell of reason and any appearance of integrity amongst western institutions.

Yes, the Nobel Peace Prize committee managed to avoid giving the prize to Donald Trump, but there was no bigger winner in their decision than him, save perhaps oil company executives. In fact, Machado dedicated her Peace Prize to Donald Trump (and presumably to the war in which he is about to engage in with Venezuela). It was actually quite a clever move on their part, because it allowed Trump and the faction of the ruling elite he represents to have a kumbaya moment with the liberals. You see, just as conservatives need a strong man authoritarian to bow down to, liberals still require institutions of authority to whom they can relinquish their reasoning abilities and personal autonomy. If the Nobel Foundation says someone is worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, their decision must have great gravitas. The system has spoken. Many people express the idea that even a broken watch is right twice a day, and for liberals, Trump is always right on issues of imperialism.

Siege has always been a vital part of war, the deadlier part, especially for women, children and the elderly. In the modern era, The United States has used sanctions as a form of siege warfare, preventing fuel, food and medicines from entering countries such as Iraq, Iran, Syria and Venezuela, killing millions. Machado has urged The United States to maintain its deadly and destructive sanctions against Venezuela. Against her own people.

For those of us with no vested interest in either of our political parties nor the neoliberal ideology they both represent, the Nobel Peace Prize has irredeemably become a laughingstock. Knowing how wrong they can be and how blind to infinitely more important issues of war and peace they are leads one to question the prizes they are handing out in the fields of literature, in economics, and even the hard sciences.

Like every other institution in the western world, The Nobel Peace Prize has managed to ignore the greatest problems in the world in order to focus on self-serving minutiae. That the very real and very pressing issues of genocide and war between nuclear powers do not factor into the Peace Prize Committee’s decision-making is beyond the pale. It is time for a new peace prize to be established, one that is not beholden to western interests. One that actually focuses on the central issue of peace rather than putting peace in a supporting role to issues of lesser import. A peace prize that more accurately reflects the Alfred Nobel’s intentions. Beyond that, a peace prize that helps to usher in enduring peace rather than propping up the very imperialism that makes war inevitable and opposition necessary.

You can help to support my work by purchasing my newest book, available here: https://www.amazon.com/Essays-Awakening-James-Rozoff/dp/B0FS274XXB/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0

Whether It Is Brian Or Jesus, We Have No Right To Impose Martyrdom On Others

 

There is a moral to be learned from the cross, whether you prefer the story as told in Monty Python’s Life Of Brian or the more traditional telling of it. In neither case was the person who was about to be crucified thrilled by the prospect. Brian yelled “Get me down!” Christ was a little more profound when he — knowing what lay before him — said “My Father, if it possible, let this cup pass me by. Still, let it be as you would have it, not as I.” (Matthew 26:39) You see, being an enlightened human being (for human HE was, though He was also God), Jesus appreciated the miracle and gift that is life, and really didn’t want to trade it in for pain and death. And yet I suppose he knew that a life that was not in accordance with higher principles was no life at all.

It takes an incredibly enlightened person to realize that. To realize that life is sweetest only when one lives uncompromisingly. That it is better to live a short existence as one with the universe than to live a long life out of tune with it.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Enlightened ones do not necessarily have to face crucifixion. If the burdens of an unjust world are not placed upon them, people of conscience do not have to choose between sacrificing their lives or their values. It is only when the evils of the world become great that those with integrity and courage are forced to rise up in order to defend their moral convictions.

That’s why enlightened people become teachers. Not only because they wish to share a great joy with others (the good news, as Christians would call it), but also because if they are able to awaken enough other people, they won’t have to bear the burden of acting morally on their own. Unfortunately for Jesus, the instruction he was sharing with his disciples and the world at large was a bit heavy for them at that stage of human development. I’m sure it must have been frustrating to know that those he chose to be his apostles were so uncomprehending as to his true teaching. His frustration is demonstrated when he returns from praying to God that the burden of martyrdom might be lifted from him, only to see that his followers couldn’t even stay awake for him for an hour.

The truth is, the burden COULD have been lifted from Jesus, if those around him had only bothered to share it. What is heavy work for one is lessened by the help of another, halved again by the help of two others, and so on. So that a burden, if lifted by enough hands, is no longer a burden at all but a joy. If some follower of Christ had had the ear of Pontius Pilate, or had the ear of the wife of Pontius Pilate, or of someone who had some sway with Pilate, he — by having the courage to speak up — could perhaps have changed the verdict placed upon Jesus.

A million different scenarios could be written where a person courageous enough to act upon Christ’s teachings might have prevented His crucifixion. A thousand people — each of them lifting in some tiny part the cross which Jesus was forced to carry — would almost surely have changed the outcome. Christ speaks to this when he says “Take my yoke upon your shoulders and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart. Your souls will find rest, for my yoke is easy and my burden light.” (Matthew 11:29–30) He’s not asking anybody to undertake some tremendous burden, he’s asking everybody to partake of some small part of it. Many hands make light work. Ask any cook, and they’d most likely to tell you that a little help clearing the table would be more helpful than praise from those sitting on the couch watching the game.

Now there will be some Christians who will object to this notion. They will say Jesus had to suffer and die that his role might be played out. But if people had been capable of taking up their cross and following in Jesus’ example, even if only slightly, such a sacrifice would not have been necessary. Jesus’ message would have gotten through to the masses without him having to sacrifice his life. It was they, his own followers, who demanded that sacrifice. Through their lack of willingness to stand up and share the burden, they placed it entirely upon His shoulders.

I see this playing out in all aspects of society today. I see it on Veteran’s Day. People are quick to utter their appreciation for those who served, without lifting a finger to help them in any meaningful way. They offer them their gratitude in the same way they offer their god praise and prayers. They venerate veterans so that they do not have to do anything to lessen their burdens. They worship the warrior so that they do not have to work to prevent war.

I see it too on election day, where they performatively vote for their candidates and feel as if they have done some great task, wearing their “I Voted” sticker like a medal. They behave as though the politicians they vote for are more than mortal men so that they can place the burdens of running the country entirely on their shoulders. Voters need only vote, and to hate those who vote against them, those people who worship other gods. Voters want to believe their politicians will work miracles so that they won’t have to work at all. In this way, they do nothing and yet can consider themselves God’s chosen.

Martin Luther King would have been of little value were it not for the fact that the people themselves had risen up and were willing to participate in the movement. Even then, Dr. King was made to pay the ultimate sacrifice. Too many of us abandoned the cause after that, permitting King’s dream to be too long deferred, too imperfectly realized. Because it was easier to worship him than emulate him.

How much could be accomplished if the masses realized that in lifting a small part of the cross they might lighten the burden upon those willing to carry it, if necessary, alone. Thus we have people like Julian Assange, who was imprisoned for years for the burdens of witnessing the truth and protecting journalistic integrity. We have people like Aaron Bushnell, who are willing to die a most painful death in order to bring attention to those being burned alive and in other ways slaughtered with the help of each and every taxpaying U.S. citizen.

And yet there are those who would not move a finger to lighten the load of those with a greater compulsion to act upon their values. They could not perform the meagerest performative action, refusing to vote for those who were aiding in genocide. Even worse, they scolded those whose consciences would not permit them to do so.

The burden you lay upon people of conscience by doing absolutely nothing to prevent perhaps the worst of all imaginable crimes is not a light one. The refusal to vote for a political party in its abetting of genocide was merely the most obvious action people of conscience would take. That we could not stop a genocide with our vote — as if we were given any real hope of that — makes us ask ourselves what actions our consciences now prompt us to take.

This is not a light question which we ask ourselves. The cost now demanded of people of conscience will take them from the comfortable lives they had hoped would be their lot. But the cost of doing nothing in the face of great evil, they know, would be greater still. And so each of us must ask how far we feel comfortable in carrying the cross. It is a burden that would be light and easy if others realized how just a little courage and effort might help change the situation. It would be far preferable to saying afterwards what brave and selfless heroes were those willing to bear a burden that was everyone’s to share.

Maybe those you claim to worship don’t want to be worshipped. Maybe they just want a helping hand. Maybe they just want you to do a bit of the lifting. So that the cross is no longer a burden to them but a joy for all. If I may repeat the words of Gil Scott Heron:

“You alone have the wisdom to take this world and make it what it
Needs to be, wants to be, will be. Someday,
The day you understand
That there ain’t no such thing as a Superman.”

The Righteous Path Of The Righteous Party Of The Righteous Human Beings

 

I hold my friends to higher standards than I do others. That’s why I choose to be around certain people more than others, because I deem them to be more interested in doing the right thing. That’s why I might tell a friend he has had enough to drink and be less likely to tell a stranger at a bar the same thing. If I see a friend making bad choices, I want better for him and will weigh in on what he is doing. I also like to think he will appreciate my input even if he doesn’t agree with it. But even if he doesn’t immediately appreciate my advice, I still feel it is my obligation as a friend to give him my opinion.

I’ve always considered myself a Democrat. I cast my very first vote for Jesse Jackson in the primaries in 1984. I voted for Mondale in the general election that same year. I voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Bill Clinton in 1992. In fact, I have NEVER voted for a Republican candidate for any office even once in my life.

So please take all of that to heart when I offer opinions that are directed at Democratic voters. I want what’s best for you. You and I mostly have the same goals, though we seem to be choosing increasingly different paths in how we pursue them. When I offer an opinion or ask you to explain your behavior, know that it is YOUR values I wish to defend. When I criticize your tactics, it is because they are failing to produce the results both you and I wish to achieve. And if we disagree as to how to achieve those results, well, that is a subject for conversation and not repudiation.

First, I would like to point out that you are currently supporting a candidate who has quite openly announced her intention to continue to support genocide in Gaza. I am going to presume that you and I find this less than ideal and would, in a perfect world, like to stop the indiscriminate killing of children, or at least lessen it. I think that there ARE things the Democratic Party could do to lessen the killing of children. Furthermore, I don’t think the uncritical support of what could legitimately argued to be a genocide is a choice the Democratic Party has to make in order to win the election. In fact, I would argue that the party’s support of genocide is going to cost them more votes than it is going to gain them.

I assume you are a supporter of the Democratic Party because you feel that they are the morally superior party. I also assume you feel yourself to be of a higher moral standard than others because you call yourself a Democrat. If both of my assumptions are true, then I would suggest that a moral party would do whatever it could to put a halt to genocide. That if said political party was not doing all in its power to stop a genocide, it wasn’t really all that moral of a party at all. Furthermore, if the preferred party of a morally righteous human being was not doing all it could to prevent young children from losing their limbs and lives due to an unrestrained bombing campaign, it is incumbent upon any morally righteous person to call them out on it.

I don’t hear people who plan to vote blue calling out the Harris campaign. Voters have the power to make her pay attention. I would go so far as to say you have not merely the power but the responsibility to use it. I would even go so far as to say that the blood of children is on your hands should you choose not to use the power you have to influence your chosen candidate to alter her stance on the ongoing slaughter of innocents. Again, this shouldn’t cost her the election, it would merely move her toward a more morally justifiable position on the Gaza problem and more in line with the general public. There is no downside to this, pragmatically or morally. We need not call those who disagree with you nonpragmatic purists.

You say Donald Trump would be even worse. That may be true, but that is hardly an argument against insisting your preferred candidate take a moral position that would not hurt her politically. Would it not be the pragmatic thing to do to push your candidate toward a position with which the majority of Americans agree? A Gallop poll from March of this year shows that 55% of Americans disagree with “the military action Israel has taken in Gaza.” Surely support for Israel has fallen further given all the atrocities we have witnessed since then, the murdered journalists, the incursion into Lebanon, the increased chances of a war with Iran. Furthermore, 75% of Democrats disagree with what Israel is doing. And yet they are planning on voting for a candidate that has shown no signs that she cares what Democratic voters think.

Or are they going to vote for her? Assuredly some of them are going to regard genocide as a red line. Some will choose not to vote for a Democratic candidate for President for the first time in their lives. How then, is it an effective strategy for Kamala Harris to support Israel without reservation?

It is the stated strategy of Democrats to get their candidate elected and then worry about getting that candidate to embrace the more progressive aspects of the left. This has been the strategy of Democrats for the past 30 years. It has been a spectacular failure. They have asked for nothing from those who claim they want to represent them, and have received exactly that. They have demanded nothing and gotten even worse than the bare minimum they expected. Of all the failed strategies that have ever been concocted, I can think of none that have been less unsuccessful. And yet Democratic voters persist, more avidly supportive of the strategy than ever before.

I am one of those whom establishment Democrat types often call a purist or an absolutist. And yet I cannot conceive of anyone more purist than one who adheres so utterly to such a failed strategy. Nor can I imagine anyone being more an absolutist than one who insists everyone else support a candidate who has never had popular support, and who is now neck deep in the blood of children whose only crime is inhabiting land which the Zionists want to possess for themselves. I cannot imagine a world in which someone who demands an end to such a situation is labelled a purist.

These are harsh words, I guess. Still, they are written by one who does not see you as an enemy but as a friend who has taken the wrong path. They are harsh words but they are spoken not in hatred but with concern. I get it, there are other issues to consider, but none that you will mention rise to the level of what is happening in Gaza right now. And I do not see it as realistic that a political party that is on the wrong side of genocide is going to be very interested in doing the right thing on the issues you’re most concerned about. Consider their fight to raise the minimum wage as but one example of their desire to fight for you.

Again, however harsh it may appear, my intent is communication, not condemnation. You need us as much as we need you. To consider us as your enemy rather than a concerned friend with whom you need to have a heart to heart chat would be, I feel, a mistake.