Thor v. Gore

Quick! Think of three Nobel Peace Prize recipients. Go! OK, I picked three because that is the number I could think of without consulting Google: Teddy Roosevelt, Yassir Arafat, and Nelson Mandela.

I can't help but wonder if they come to mind because they actually helped the cause of peace. Mr. Roosevelt brokered peace in the Russian-Japanese War a century ago. That seems simple enough. Mr. Mandela avoided armed conflict in South Africa by championing non-violent resistence to the racist policies of Arparteid. Mr. Arafat (jointly with Yitzak Rabin) won for negotiating with his Israeli counterpart in an effort to settle the decades long struggle between Palestinian Arabs and Jews (this despite a lifelong record of violence).

So here you have one man who established peace, one man who kept peace, and one man who sought peace. In my mind, these all seem relatively germaine to the concept of the Nobel Peace Prize. Today we learn that Albert Gore, Jr. and an United Nation's committee no one in the world has heard of before today have been awarded this year's prize.

I am sure a lot has and will be said about the idiotic incongruity of a "peace" prize being awarded to an hysterical Hollywood fear-mongerer and a bunch of global wind-bag-bureaucrats, but I just couldn't help add my 2 cents. I have to conclude that in the vacuous value system of modern Europe, leading thinkers lack the historical and moral compass to rationally think through issues of conflict, war, and peace. I truly believe the Norwegian Nobel committee, like much of 21st Century European society, has become so disengaged from any notion of principle, that it no longer even understands the concept of peace.

War involves fighting for a cause; a cause involves valuing something so desperately that one is willing to sacrifice; sacrifice implies a grander purpose to life and a concept of legacy. When life no longer has purpose other than existence, that existence paradoxically becomes more important. It is, after all, all that one has. Without purpose, there is little to value and ultimately nothing for which to sacrifice.

In that context, war becomes an irrational concept. From such a world view, principled stands in defense of causes are capable only through the actions of madmen. The very idea of standing and fighting for something--anything--ceases to make sense at all. In the end, such an idea becomes analogous to suicide: Something so profoundly foreign to the human instinct, that it can only be understood in terms of disbelief.

This is the state of European--and much of American-- intelligentsia. They have become hysterically opposed to George Bush, because they are incapable of viewing his principled stands in any context other than irrational insanity. They are dubious of the armed forces, because their bravery and penchant for sacrifice is alien.

Therefore, recognizing the legitimacy of the quest for true peace--which is NOT the same as the absence of war-- becomes by proxy a recognition of the rationality of war. Because they cannot embrace the glory of human will, they increasingly succomb to the scurge of human laziness. Because they cannot stand on principle, they increasingly stand on the vagaries of cultural whims. Because they cannot fathom war, they increasingly do not recognize the importance of peace.

And in these warped minds, the concept that an Oscar winning documentary about melting glaciers equates to the bravery of Nelson Mandela, somehow comes into sharp relief. The truly frightening thing is that in a world where nothing is worth fighting for, everything will ultimately be fought over. In a world without principles, the only language that will prevail, is the language of force.

Perhaps the Norwegians should consult Norse mythology: Thor--the god of war-- was a hero because he made life for humans possible by defeating the race of giants. War and peace each have their role in human events. We forget this at our peril.