What do the Norwegians put in their water? Petter Eide, who has represented the Socialist Left Party in Norway’s Parliament, Storting, since 2017, has nominated the American group Black Lives Matter for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize.
He’s following in the footsteps of former Norwegian Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, who ran the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, a.k.a. the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, in 1992. That was the gathering that, first of all, imposed formulas for bureaucratese quotas for (what they called) making our environment more sustainable, and, secondly, imposed strong censorship on all climate scientists who dared express doubts or had questions.
That conference was followed by the so-called Kyoto Protocols, adopted in 1997, to confirm the figures drawn from the thinnest of airs at Rio five years earlier.
All that in the name of the Socialist International, of which Ms. Brundtland had been a vice-president at the time.
Norway, for reasons of her own, has been parading in this direction for years.
Many may remember the name Fjotolf Hansen born Anders Behring Breivik, a.k.a. Andrew Breivik. He had been warning his government and his parliament about the dangers of supporting pro-Palestinian terrorists. His country’s authorities would not only ignore him, they would harass him for his warnings.
Frustrated beyond acceptable levels, Breivik first detonated a van bomb inside his country government’s quarters (Regjeringskvartalet) in the capital city of Oslo, and then proceeded to the Utøya Island where he would kill 69 participants of a Workers’ Youth League summer camp.
Of course, the camp’s activities were far from peaceful: these people were preparing to go to war on behalf of Palestinian terrorist organizations. They were preparing for war, and they got it sooner than they thought they would.
As could have been expected, the Norwegian government, with most mainstream media all over the world following suit, would describe Breivik as a far-right extremist.
Labelling people, using derogatory names to describe those they disagree with, has been a longstanding tradition with socialists in all of their permutations.
Petter Eide’s explanation of his reasons to nominate self-professed Marxist looters and terrorists for the Nobel Peace Prize is filled with the usual clichés, too.
The Black Lives Matter movement, thus MP Eide, has been calling for systemic change in relationships between race groups, and its message has spread around the world.
That the movement’s own name is perfectly racist in and of itself, does not matter. Not to Norwegian MP Petter Eide.
The fact that the Black Lives Matter movement founders, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, make no secret of their Marxist leanings is not a real issue so far as MP Eide is concerned. The millions of innocent deaths and regimes bordering on outright slavery matter not, either.
Besides, in a number of eyes that are shifted firmly to the left, Black Lives Matter demonstrations have been peaceful assemblies, mostly. A group that calls itself Armed Conflict Location and Event Data claims that most of the Black Lives Matter events were as peaceful as peaceful can get. In fact, they claim that some 93 per cent of Black Life Matter’s events involved no serious harm to people or property.
Tell THAT to 100 per cent of those who had witnessed the unadulterated looting, robbery and lobbying first-hand.
The Nobel Peace Prize history is nothing if not uneven. It has been pretty obvious throughout its years of existence that politics (politicking, even) have been the driving force behind its committee’s decisions.
Why would Archbishop Desmond Tutu receive it in 1984? For his role in playing up to the bleeding hearts who knew nothing about South Africa?
Why would Mikhail Gorbachev be so honoured in 1990? For his role in the breakup of his country which he never anticipated and still hadn’t come to terms with?
Why would a convicted terrorist-turned-president Nelson Mandela be the recipient in 1993, together with Frederik Willem de Klerk who got him out of jail even though he must have been aware that this step would ruin his country?
Why would Yasser Arafat, another convicted terrorist-turned-chief of a terrorist organisation, receive it together with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1994? For an accord that would lead nowhere, only to cost way too many innocent lives, and they both had known it from the moment they sat down at opposite sides of the table?
And how about the 2002 winner James Earl Carter, the U.S. president who helped the Iranian imams to take over their country, thus sparking an unheard of before wave of terrorism?
Why did former U.S. vice-president Al Gore win the prize in 2007? For his outright hypocrisy in his so-called drive for sustainable climate, making sure he would earn enough on the naïveté of many, so that he won’t be forced into a poorhouse because of his effort?
And how about former U.S. president Barrack Hussein Obama who won the prize in 2009, even before the ink on his oath of office had a chance to dry?
These are the most recent and outrageous examples of politicking.
Now, MP Petter Eide wants to add one more.
How it works
Any politician who serves at a national level in his country can nominate a candidate, and the nominee can live and work anywhere else in the world.
The letter accompanying the nomination must not exceed 2,000 words of praise for the candidate. February 1 is the deadline for submissions. The selection committee prepares a shortlist by the end of March. The winner is chosen in October, and the award is presented December 10, the anniversary of Alfred Nobel’s passing.
Nobody knows how many nominations the committee can expect this year. It got 300 of them last year, and selected the World Food Programme out of 300 nominations.
Not many expect former U.S. president Donald J. Trump to win, however. The rhetoric emanating from Oslo suggests that nobody cares about the fact Trump had helped broker peace treaties in the Middle East, making several formerly implacable foes of Israel sign accords of mutual recognition and respect. So far as this nomination goes, it was submitted by another Norwegian MP, Christian Tybring-Gjedde. The reaction was swift: Tybring-Gjedde, you see, belongs to the far right (whatever THAT is). The reasons for the nomination notwithstanding, the nominator’s alleged views seem to have disqualified his nominee, even before the committee had a chance to read the nomination papers.
MP Petter Eide concludes his nomination: “Awarding the peace prize to Black Lives Matter, as the strongest global force against racial injustice, will send a powerful message that peace is founded on equality, solidarity and human rights, and that all countries must respect those basic principles.”
So: what do the Norwegians put in their water?