The Nobel Prize: way deadlier, more damaging and evil than dynamite

The Swedish chemist Alfred Nobel famously created his various prizes (Peace; Literature, etc) in a fit of a remorse at having invented dynamite. But from our precarious position at the beginning of the 21st Century, I think it’s now pretty clear to most of us which of his inventions has done the most damage. And it certainly ain’t those innocent explosives.

(to read more, click here)

One thought on “The Nobel Prize: way deadlier, more damaging and evil than dynamite”

  1. It wasn’t the invention that led to remorse, but (1) his carelessness with factory safety which led to workers and relatives being blown up, and (2) he sold dynamite to both sides in the Crimean War, which made him rich. The Nobel Prize is also diametrically opposed to scientific ethics, which is not political correctness via the consensus of a prize panel; science is supposed to be the one thing determined by facts, not motivated by fame or fashionable praise. Prizes pollute science with political consensus, motivating the kind of “100 Authors against Einstein” groupthink which believes that authority overrides fact, or that some spuriously-defined “consensus” of mainstream opinion is an alternative to fact. The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Joseph Rotblat’s Pugwash lies on the effects of nuclear weapons is a typical example. Pseudoscience for political purposes, ignoring the evidence for the effectiveness of simple civil defence countermeasures (not watching the bomb fall from the B-29 standing behind a window) in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and at nuclear tests, was a Cold War repetition of the lying exaggerations of conventional weapons effects in the 1930s for disarmament propaganda, which played into the hands of Hitler. See for details.

    These people use abusive and arrogant “science consensus authority” censorship, sneers, and “shoot the messenger” tactics to “defend” their lying. Their tactics are indecent and pseudoscientific, with a lot more in common with the tactics of Hitler and Stalin in dealing with dissent, than genuine humans. They know they’re lying; they’re doing it for political motives, otherwise they’d have a genuine unbiased review of the facts and respond to criticisms properly and fairly. No wonder the “pacifists” in the 1930s were fellow-travellers of the Great Dictator. This is a great danger, it was a danger during the Cold War (until Reagan’s “evil empire” speech told the “anti-nuclear” Reds that there was was a threat from dictatorship). The people who award prizes to liars who claim to be acting in the interests of humanity by lying, are repeating the errors of the past. Nobel Peace Prizes were awarded to the anti-civil defence “pro-pacifist” propaganda of the 1920s and 193os, e.g. Sir Norman Angell (author of The Great Delusion), Sir Austin Chamberlain, and others. Yes, I am bitter with such people, because the lessons of history are never learned, the errors are always repeated, and the people repeating them refuse to listen to criticisms for the same reasons that their predecessors did. They don’t care about facts.

Comments are closed.