#31: The Real Message of Obama's Nobel Prize

Barack Obama is a president without either credentials or achievements. Yet, mirabile dictu, he continues to be treated as a prodigy. This is not only true for the media “of record”, it is true of non-media institutions once (quite long ago) thought respectable. Today, the Nobel Peace Prize was given to this papier maché product of the most corrupt political entity in the U.S., the Chicago Democratic Machine. This is a regrettable phenomenon, but one that should more be understood than lamented and deplored.

It is the sheer absurdity of the awarding that should capture our attention and call for some kind of explanation, whether at the social, psychological, or political level. What, it should prompt us to ask, could possibly have motivated this? The Nobel Committee’s official statement can be summarily dismissed as risibly disingenuous pap, so what’s the real scoop? We were already a bit stunned that a figure so purely ridiculous as the “community organizer” (read “radical left-wing agitator”) should ascend to the highest office in the land on the sole qualification of being half-black, so we should have been prepared when he was gratuitously awarded this honor. Giving him the Peace Prize is no less laughable than had the Committee awarded Idi Amin the Prize for his ground-breaking research in modern mathematics. One astute commenter on the story put out by the NY Times suggested that the Beatles should now also receive the prize for Give Peace a Chance.

We’re puzzled and offended: Obama simply doesn’t deserve the prize; but perhaps that wasn’t a mistake, perhaps it was actually the point.

As always in the progress of human affairs, events likely have multiple causes, yet it seems to me that one major, if not the major, motivation for this award is just barely contained Leftoid rage and hatred. Now, it needs hardly to be reviewed that the Nobel committee is ultra-left activist in commitment and awarding policy. After all, remember, the Prize has previously been awarded to Jimmy Carter (outspoken anti-Semite and arguably worst president in U.S. history), Arafat (arguably the most successful terrorist in history), and Algor (aka Al Gore, who may turn out to be one of the architects of the American world-historical decline).

But even given that, and even given the deranged, screaming rage that is so often associated with it, exactly how does giving the Prize to Obama figure into the equation?

I think it is intended, perhaps not at the conscious level (so little that occurs in the minds of Leftoids is conscious), as a kind of impotent insult not only to conservatives everywhere, but to George Bush in particular. For in the modern Leftoid’s mental economy, insult figures as high as reason does to conservatives. In fact, insult may justly be considered the Leftoid analogue of conservative reason: it is to the common Leftoid as reason is to the conservative (sorry, there are no common conservatives). But how does this insult work?

This kind of insult increases in ferocity the higher the honor and the lower the merit of the recipient. The clue lies in precisely what it is about the awarding of the prize that offends conservatives and all other people with more than half of a still-functioning brain: it is precisely the lack of merit of the recipient. What, we want to cry out, has this utterly unaccomplished non-entity achieved to merit this (high, but tarnished) honor? And the answer is a resounding nothing. Thus, what offends is the glaring unfairness of an unearned award! There’s more to this than one might think.

What divides conservatives and Leftoids is the way they interpret the notion of “fairness.” For the Leftoid, the “fair” distribution of the world’s goods is one that gives an equal portion to absolutely everyone or one that distributes portions in accordance with people’s “needs” (where those are determined by a central agency); for the conservative, the “fair” distribution of the world’s goods gives a portion to every person in proportion to what they deserve (where that is determined by what they have earned). The notion of “merit” is to be understood in terms of “desert,” where “to have merit” is equivalent to “deserving.” Conservatives, thus, perceive the giving of this award as unmerited, undeserved, unearned, and finally unfair. And herein lies the insult.

The tacit “message” of this award that the Nobels were attempting to scream at conservatives and with which it should actually have been openly introduced is this:

We, the Nobel Prize Committee, spit on your stupid merit; we spit on your values; we spit on your heroes; we spit on your stupid, stupid, stupid history. We spit on your Christianity, we spit on your patriotism, we spit on everything about you. And Barack Obama’s merit is that he is not you!

This man is our hero: he has none of your stupid merit; satisfies none of your stupid values; and doesn’t emerge from your stupid history. In giving our award to this new, wonderful, truly undistinguished and undeserving BLAAACKKK man, we PISS on everything you love!

We hereby award this Prize to Barack Obama for his wonderful work as the embodiment of Un-America.

For the Nobel Committee, Obama is himself the insult, but just in case someone should have failed to appreciate that, the Prize is intended to illuminate it.

All of this could have been pretty bad, but it’s really not. After all, it comes from Norway, which isn’t really country, it’s just a holiday destination. Remember that Norway fell to the Nazis in 1940 and remained under Nazi control till 1945, governed by a pro-Nazi puppet government throughout that time. All in all, Norway is not, and has never been, a player in anything of international importance. And after all is said and done, it was the U.S. and Britain that saved its sorry little ass for future sanctimonious Nobel Prize anti-American sniping.

As far as the Nobel Committee and its awards is concerned, it is best described as The Little Train that Couldn’t or perhaps as The Rat that Roared.