The post itself contains a fascinating historical precedent that maps pretty well to the current situation:

Knut Hamsun (Literature Prize 1920): In 1943, the Norwegian author Knut Hamsun travelled to Germany and met with Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. After returning to Norway, he sent his Nobel medal to Goebbels as a gesture of thanks for the meeting. Goebbels was honoured by the gift. The present whereabouts of the medal are unknown.

it's quite incredible that trump put himself on the list of autocrats being given others prizes

Hum... the word "autocrat" might be too polite, and some in the Trump fan club might actually not understand it's meaning completely.

I would suggest "fascist", instead.

I'll give you that.

ps: there should be a discussion on the overall group behind him too (project25, techbros, orban links etc)

The current prime minister of India once announced that he has Ph.D. in "all of the political science". Asked for proof, they produced his degree from Delhi University. No one who got their degree at that place during that time can't recall seeing him in the classroom!

But that's nothing compared to this man. I usually avoid his news but seeing him grabbing fifa peace price wasn't a good sight.

The fifa prize was a very public bribe: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/us-attorney-droppe...

What does Jimmy Kimmel have to do with anything? Plus, citation needed.

Kimmel is still on the MAGA troll sanction list.

I don't have a dog in that fight. Not the bipartisan stuff. My main resentment against Kimmel is how he seems to be prioritised in my YouTube suggestions.

YouTube videos are not citations. Just went looking for the video and couldn't find it thanks to YT's useless search function. I was forced to endure ten minutes of his hack journalism. More proof he is a mouth for hire. He said the exact opposite about FIFA when they gave Trump a peace prize.

He's not a journalist. He's an "entertainer", and a total non sequitur in this context.

Since when is Jimmy Kimmel a journalist? He hosts a late night talk show.

He is now presenting op-eds on YouTube.

An op-ed is an outside opinion piece published by a news organization, historically in a print newspaper or magazine.

It's irrelevant if he's giving his opinion on a subject in a YouTube video; it's still not journalism (and it's not even an op-ed, since he's effectively self-publishing).

I don't consider Kimmel a journalist anymore than I consider him funny — all his jokes were written for him. He helmed a failing TV show, for which he was being paid millions.

None of that stops him from trying to present himself as a journalist or a comedian.

I know what an op ed is. You don't need to tell me. It doesn't have to be in print anymore. (You obviously looked up that definition somewhere.)

Your entire argument hinges on the claim that he's presenting himself as a journalist. He's not doing that. You're not arguing in good faith and it's clear you have an axe to grind - so I'm going to disengage now.

Not to downplay the Modi thing but ... honorary Ph.D.s are handed out left and right, and it's common for politicians to just buy one. They mean very little, and making that into a scandal is just showing lack of creativity to show the real scandals, of which there should be plenty.

In his defence, Modi's was external degree - i.e remote degree - so no one sees in the class room.

Convenient.

Common

People from non-privileged backgrounds in India often have so called "correspondence" degrees (remote), the privileged will not empathize.

A now-deleted reply challenged this claim, so I went to search, and it seems to be a melange of three different facts?

Narendra Modi is said to hold a BA awarded by Delhi University in 1978 (or possibly 1979?). The veracity of that has been disputed.

He is also said to hold an MA awarded by Gujarat University in 1983, where the provided exam transcript[1] marks him “external” (i.e. remote) and includes the curious phrase “entire political science”. The veracity of that has been disputed as well.

Finally, he was offered[2] a honorary doctorate (of what, I haven’t been able to ascertain) by Southern University in Louisiana in 2014, but declined.

(I haven’t been able to find any references to him claiming to hold a PhD in English-language sources.)

[1] http://www.gujaratuniversity.org.in/web/NWD/NewsEvents/2000_...

[2] https://wwwcfprd.doa.louisiana.gov/boardsAndCommissions/Meet...

I am the one who disputed the claim and later deleted - I was conflicted between keeping HN largely free of political reddittery (and chose to downvote instead), and fact-checking.

> The current prime minister of India once announced that he has Ph.D. in "all of the political science".

This didn't happen, at least publicly and on record. The previous dispute was around his distance education Masters; which isn't hard to believe or hard to get. They don't attend regular classes.

Considering his approval rating is still in low 40s, and not 0, tells you volumes about the average American mind.

Before leaving the house, I find it helpful to imagine the median intelligence level in my geographic area (local, or country as a whole) and then recall that about half the population has a level below that point.

The issue isn't intelligence per se. It's ignorance (often willful ignorance), dogmatism, media illiteracy, political illiteracy, etc. There are many intelligent (but evil) people in the Trump administration and not every Trump voter is a dunce. Framing them all as stupid isn't useful, because it doesn't help us understand and counteract what's happening.

I agree with this. I was describing what, for me, is something akin to a stoic practice.

For many Americans (on both sides) politics is not about policy.

It's about tribalism and nihilism. Decades of political disfunction (defined by the failure of elected leaders to enact policy broadly supported by voters) has lead to a loss of faith in the ability of government (as currently structured) to deliver anything. If government (and other institutions) have failed to deliver anything to someone, it's understand why they may not care about its destruction.

That was my main learning from the last election: The difference between Americans and Europeans truly is much greater than I'd ever expect.

I really thought that it was impossible for Trump to get elected again. Everyone was warned, yet they wanted him back.

My brother, Giorgia Meloni is Italian PM and Marine Le Pen got 42% of the vote in 2022.

Do not underestimate latent European fascism, which is easily promoted using the same issue: immigrants. Most countries have a not-quite-majority for doing their own version of Ice, including shooting civilians.

The pendulum swings. It was less than a 100 years ago that the roles were quite literally reversed.

Of democracy, thats a feature, not a bug. The people spoke, the people received.

There is no flaw in the principle of that process. Its as old as time. Pontius pilate, 2000 years ago, had the exact same headache.

I keep reading in the news that Trump now polls the lowest ever for any US president, then I check Nate Silver and he's been hovering around the same value for the last 90 days or so.

Not to help you with your sleeping patterns but: a toddler that could overnight decide to instruct US hosting providers and other infrastructure companies that they can no longer serve EU customers, that the .COM registry domains can only be registered by US entities, that any country owes the US any part of its territory 'or else'. The Nobel Prize is a footnote, it should have never happened, but there are much worse threats on the horizon.

The "or else" is actually on rather shaky grounds considering the national debt. For the sake of argument if certain countries decided to stop buying US treasury bonds the federal state would be insolvent about 5s later. Certainly a default of that size would destroy the economy in every single country pretty much except maybe Cuba and North Korea.

The EU (and Europe) will have to lean East until Germany remilitarizes. US will find itself alone with enemies on all sides.

You're suggesting semi-rational behavior from a non-rational actor. That might not work out.

Everything he does is on shaky ground. The whole idea is to confuse and destabilize so none of them can get contested in time.

They did mention the toddler in question is leader of a major power, so I don't think what you're saying is going to surprise GP.

Most leaders of major powers are reasonably sane. This one may wake up in the middle of the night with a bad case of indigestion and order it so.

I'm pretty sure that if any one of those three comes to pass a lot of people will be surprised and caught flat footed.

And there will be nobody that stops it.

Yeah, every time something like this happens, it becomes more necessary to boycott US services simply because you cannot guarantee their continuity or non politicization.

Have you ever wondered why poor countries are often littered with statues of their leaders?

A life of wealth, 0 consequences and only yes-men around you tends to produce these self absorbed people.

There's a newspaper photography cliché: "Person walks past a huge mural of [dictator]". I have noticed since the 90s and often wondered if a few of these images might be manipulated (replacing the background would be the easiest thing in the world).

A photo journalist can ‘manipulate’ such images into being without manipulating anything.

You just go to the huge mural with your camera and wait for someone to walk by.

isn't that crazy that the United States revert to that level in less than 10 years ?

Trump taking the peace prize from Machado is a page out of Putin's playbook when Putin stole a superbowl ring from Bob Kraft, the owner of the Patriots. US secret service had to get involved and tell Kraft to drop the issue and let Putin have it.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/heres-how-vladimir-putin-...

> "I took out the ring and showed it to [Putin], and he put it on and he goes, 'I can kill someone with this ring,'" Kraft said in 2013. "I put my hand out and he put it in his pocket, and three KGB guys got around him and walked out."

> Despite the fact that Putin walked off with the ring, Kraft still wanted the $25,000 piece of jewelry returned. However, he ended up giving up on his quest to get the ring back when White House called and told Kraft that starting World War III over a Super Bowl ring probably wouldn't be the best idea.

> "It would really be in the best interest of US-Soviet relations if you meant to give the ring as a present," Kraft said he was told on the White House call in 2005. "I really didn't [want to]. I had an emotional tie to the ring, it has my name on it. I don't want to see it on eBay. There was a pause on the other end of the line, and the voice repeated, 'It would really be in the best interest if you meant to give the ring as a present.'"

> Days later, a statement came from Kraft, and all of the sudden, the owner's stolen Super Bowl ring was now officially a "gift" to Russia.

> "I decided to give him the ring as a symbol of the respect and admiration that I have for the Russian people and the leadership of President Putin," Kraft's 2005 statement said.

That moment actually has a better Trump analogy, the time Trump stole the FIFA Gold Club World Cup trophy and FIFA had to eventually decide to make a statement that they were giving it to Trump - which is unlike anything that’s ever happened before for a FIFA trophy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/football/comments/1lzzsmc/trump_kep...

The first comment in your link says the opposite:

> Doing my sad job of having to defend Trump (sadly):

> He did not "kept" for himself. FIFA that decided to keep it in the white house

> It is normal for champions to receive and keep a replica during and after the awards. Happens, for example, in the World Cup, Champions League and Libertadores.

> Probably, FIFA will take the trophy back eventually and keep it in Switzerland just like the WC one.

> This is political tabloid click/ragebait.

Yes, there has. It's no joke.

Are you saying that bombing multiple countries for little to no reason, trying to force a regime change in Venezuela, and threatening to steal Greenland by force isn’t peaceful????

It’s not right. Until you have carpet bombed a place, Kissinger style, are you really worthy of the prize?

https://theconversation.com/henry-kissingers-bombing-campaig...

Well duh, he’s got the peace prize ticked off already, thanks to FIFA.

Now he’s aiming for the war prize.

Obama was a war monger and still got the peace prize.

In his defense, he got it before he did any of that. Before he did much of anything except get elected, really. Which was apparently sufficient.

(Everyone, including Obama, was pretty flummoxed by that prize.)

No, Kissinger was far, far worse than any other recipient of the peace prize.

Quote from Gary Bass, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University and author of "The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide:"

"In at least one crucial part of the world, Kissinger’s legacy is fixed: In South Asia, Indians and Bangladeshis widely remember Kissinger as an unusually cruel and cold-hearted person. As they bitterly recall, he and Richard Nixon firmly supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship throughout its bloody crackdown in 1971 on what today is Bangladesh, sending some 10 million Bengali refugees fleeing into India. In one of the worst atrocities of the Cold War, Pakistan’s junta brushed aside the results of a democratic election, killed awful numbers of Bengalis and targeted the Hindu minority among the Bengalis. (Bangladesh is now the eight-largest country in the world, with a population larger than Russia or Japan, as well as a major Muslim country with considerable strategic importance in South Asia.) On the White House tapes, Kissinger sneered at Americans who “bleed” for “the dying Bengalis.”

"Kissinger’s actions in 1971 were clouded by his own ignorance about South Asia, his emotional misjudgments and his stoking of Nixon’s racism toward Indians. Kissinger’s policies were not only morally flawed but also disastrous as Cold War strategy. As U.S. government officials presciently warned him, a Pakistani crackdown would result in a futile civil war with India sponsoring the Bengali guerrillas, creating the conditions for Soviet-backed India to rip Pakistan in two—a strategic defeat for the United States and a strategic victory for the Soviet Union. And don’t forget that Kissinger knowingly violated U.S. law in allowing secret arms transfers to Pakistan during the India-Pakistan war in December 1971. Despite warnings from White House staffers and State Department and Pentagon lawyers that such arms transfers were illegal, Nixon and Kissinger went ahead, with Kissinger saying that doing so was “against our law”—a scandal of a piece with an overall pattern of lawlessness that culminated with Watergate."

Kissinger was a horrific choice. You get no quarrel from me on that. But the Obama thing was ridiculous and they should have waited longer before giving him it.

Sure, and no one was more surprised than Obama, but he was self-aware in his graceful acceptance. You should read his speech [1]

In the context of Nobel's history of controversial awards, your complaint sounds like a petty grudge against Obama.

[1] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remark...

Why wait longer was he going to become more black than he already was?

Maybe to see what he would do in his presidency? There's a thought.

He got the prize before he did much mongering though.

Also he didn’t try to overthrow an election he lost.

> He got the prize before he did much mongering though.

He and Nixon did plenty of mongering already in 1971, when they firmly backed and tried to cover up Pakistan's military atrocities in what is now Bangladesh. 10 million refugees didn’t prevent the Nobel committe from giving him the prize in 1973.

I think you might be replying to the wrong comment. I was talking about Obama. I do not believe Obama was doing a lot with Nixon in 1971, considering he would have been like 10 years old at that point.

Not defending Kissinger at all.

Oh, I see, sorry!

The peace prize is supposed to be about international matters. But somehow many people overlook his warmongering which comes close to Dubya's. Also his Standing Rock betrayal was disgusting.

I agree that Obama wasn't as great as a lot of people make him out to be, but what does that have to do with the current situation?

How about Wilhelm II, the last German Kaiser? Some strong parallels - both were thin-skinned, both were idiots with a short attention span, both damaged relations with traditional allies (in Kaiser's case, these allies were also his relatives), both yielded large power aimlessly. Hopefully Donnie does not start a world war....

Personally I give it a year or less, at the pace things are going.

There is a difference though: Kaiser’s power was un-checked. Currently there are some GOP senators who are looking to check Donnie’s ambitions. a couple of GOP senators said they will not even look at Donnie’s candidate for Fed Chairman role until the current investigation into Jerome Powell stops. And two other GOP senators are pushing a resolution to prevent Donnie from attacking any NATO countries.

Let’s see how it goes.

Some people care about good institutions and would like to preserve them.

Thin skinned, self-absorbed? Kaiser Wilhelm II comes to mind.

I’ve started to refer to it as the “Tony Soprano presidency”. It fits so much of the logic.

But Tony was a good businessman and also regretted entering certain aspects of the family business.

My vote is for 13 year old boy's fantasy presidency.

A convenient explanation for Trumps ephebophilia/pedophilia.

Nah, I was thinking more of busty (adult) blondes, owning a massive business and conducting international affairs like an eighties action movie.

Hum... There some irony for it being a peace prize, but giving it to Trump doesn't make it the worst on that list.

Did we have to discuss this?

Machado gave Trump her medal, there's no much more to it.

Henry VIII* or Louis XIV?

> Henry VII

What do you have against Henry VII? From Wikipedia he seems to have been a good king.

He was a clever king, but no one good could be king of England for more than about 18mths in those days.

I think that the parent probably meant Henry VIII.

Yep sorry fixed typing too fast missed an I