October 14, 2025 • 10 mins
The best way I know to illustrate how arbitrary the Nobel prizes are, is the example of the Academy Awards. When the Hollywood industry elites gather each year to award Oscars, they’ll issue awards for the “best actor and actress” and for the “Best picture”, etc. Does that mean that the best actor over the previous year was the actor or actress was issued the award or that the “best picture” released during the year is what the Academy says it is? Of course not, right? It’s what members of the Academy say is so. As we know, it’s a highly subjective process. Nobel prizes are no different. They’re highly subjective prizes awarded by select insiders that hold no empirical significance.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Your questions, Brian's answers. It's time for today's Q and
A of today. This is the Brian mud Show.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Yeah, Today's Q and A The history of the Nobel
Committee and who's on it. This is brought to you
by Melisa Dashes. Check mark collections each day feature and
listener questions sent by one of these methods to me,
Email me Brian Mud at iHeartMedia dot com, hit me
up onsocial at to Brian Mud Radio may also use
the iHeartRadio talkback feature. We'd love it if you would
(00:34):
show us some love. Go into the iHeart app. Make
us your number one preset. While you're in there, make
the Brian Mudshow podcasts. You're number two preset. I want
you never listen miss anything, always there for you on demand.
And while you're in there, look for a little microphone button.
See it, tap it you mainlay down a message right there.
Maybe topicer question for a future Q and A. Today's
(00:55):
note this one, Dear Brian. I believe it was on
your morning show that I heard that the people of
Norway have the power to decide what the world leaders
would consider to be an international prize for peace. In
the light of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. We can
only recognize the Peace Award as being the bias of
a nation of liberals. The prize to Barack Obama for
(01:17):
doing nothing is another example of a liberal prejudice. Do
the people of Norway deserve to decide who is the
world's peacemaker? Surely Norway does not have the right to
make this choice. They overrate themselves. Thank you for all
you do. And I think that today's is instructive in
a couple of respects. The background of the Nobel Prize,
(01:41):
I think is something that not a lot of people
are familiar with, and so walking you through it, I
think is going to be instructive.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
And yes, it is beyond hilarious.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
You take a look at how a decision doesn't age. Well,
you have the Nobel Prize not given to Trump, which
was this slam dunk choice on Friday, and then on
Monday you have one of the most historic days of
peace in world history.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
It just where you literally.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Had, you know, leaders from countries around the world nominating
Trump publicly in real time. But the greatest thing of all,
there's little doubt that the awarding of the Nobel Peace
Prize to Maria Karina Machado, the opposition leader to Nicholas Maduro.
There's a little doubt that it was somewhat hilarious. Not
(02:31):
that she isn't a courageous and great person herself, but
I mean, she'd spend the last year in hiding out
of necessity for her own safety. And meanwhile, what Trump
has been doing since he took office. On that note,
the greatest indication of the absurdity of the Nobel Prize
(02:54):
was that Maria Karina Machado herself said this.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Not only has he being involved in only a few
months in solving eight wars, but his actions had been
decisive to have the persuaded now at a first hold
of freedom after twenty six years of tyranny.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
She dedicated the award to Trump, saying that he deserved it.
So the winner said that Trump should have had it
now diving into this thing. The realization of what's happened
here speaks as much as anything to the validity or
(03:38):
even significance at the Peace Prize. I was trying to
think of what the best way to illustrate the point
would be, and I think the Academy Awards are are
a really great example question for you, do you care
about the Academy Awards?
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Do you actually give a rip who wins?
Speaker 2 (03:54):
An Oscar, I can tell you that I've never watched
the Academy Awards and I couldn't care for thirty seconds
of my life who wins?
Speaker 1 (04:00):
But never has happened? Never what happen?
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Can imagine a universe in which would I would spend
time doing something that assigned some kind of importance to
that type of thing. On that note, the Academy does
what they issue awards every year to the best actor,
best Actress, best Picture, best at whatever else. Now does
that actually mean that it's the best actor or actress
(04:24):
over the previous year though actually won.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Does it means the best picture? Actually?
Speaker 4 (04:30):
One?
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Now it means that the cabal of the Academy, people
they're inside club, got together and said this person, which
we've also often known has been done out of woke
politics and any number of other things over the years.
Right now, I mean, some of the winners are deserving,
and I'm sure I'm not suggesting otherwise. But the point
is it's an entirely subjective process by an insider group
(04:55):
of people from the industry. Nobel Prize are no different
at all. They are highly subjected prizes awarded by select
insiders that hold no empirical significance. The background the Nobel
Prizes and the committees Nobel Prizes trace the origins back
(05:18):
to Alfred Nobel. He was a Swedish chemist and the
big thing that he ended up doing that ended up
making him wealthy in his day, he invented dynamite, the
inventor of dynamite and during his lifetime, and bad pun
(05:39):
would be that it exploded the proliferation of dynamite. You
had ninety different factories that ended up being built worldwide
that he had a hand in after the invention of dynamite,
and then obviously it was used in warfare, and you
had more people dying more quickly because of his invention
(06:02):
than anything else previously, and that earned him the nickname
Merchant of death. So here is the great irony. Alfred
Nobel of which the Peace Prize is named was the
merchant of death in his day. Now he was said
(06:24):
to be a humanitarian and was conflicted about what he
had done by inventing dynamite, how it was being used
for warfare and everything else.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
And so a year before he ended up dying.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
He put into his last will and testament that his
estatee should be converted into a fund to establish annual
prizes for quote, those who in the preceding year shall
have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. And the awards
were to be in five fields physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine,
(06:59):
literature and peace. Those were his interests. Okay, so this
is the inventor of dynamite, his trust and the awards
that are issued off of it. Ultimately, what ended up
happening is that the family didn't really know how to
carry it out, They didn't want to necessarily, and they
(07:20):
were worried that his estate would end up collapsing with
all the resources going into this thing. So you had
a government, the Swedish government that stepped in and they
allowed for the creation of the Nobel Foundation in nineteen
hundred as a private, tax exempt institution that would be
headquartered in Stockholm. And so with this special status that
(07:44):
had the government's blessing, you had the Nobel Committees that
were established. The inaugural Nobel Prizes were awarded on December
tenth of nineteen oh one, that was the fifth anniversary
of offered Nobel's death, and that's why to this day
the actual awards are handed to the winners on December tenth.
(08:06):
And you've had them issued every year, with the exception
of two periods during World War One and then also
World War two. One point there you had actually had
the occupation of Norway by the Nazis in nineteen sixty eight,
yet a sixth prize in economic science that was added.
(08:26):
And so you take a look at all of this
over time what the Nobel committees have done. The process
is private, so nominees and deliberations, votes, everything that remain
secret for fifty years. And they say they do this
to shield the process from lobbying or bias. And each
award has its own committee. The committees have four or
(08:48):
five members on each one of them, and they're said
to be representing the committee members rotating pools of global talent,
but in reality Scandinavian dominance persist on these committees. All
current Peace Prize Committee members, for example, are Norwegian.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
So that's the ball of wax And and Nortia in a nutshew.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
And why Norwegians have outsized influence in the Nobel process.
I mean it'd be no different than like, you know,
if Warren Buffett ended up dying and converting his wealth
into a trust, that would be like the Buffet Awards
for excellence or something. Would it mean anything to you?
I mean, maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. But that's
all we're talking about here. That's effectively all the new
(09:31):
Bell Prizes are. People have just assigned greater significance to
them over time.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
Donald Trumps America.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
President Trump's is an epidemic of left wing and Antifa
inspired violence is escalating.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
These are agitators, anarchists, and they're paid, and you'll find
that out.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
You'll be finding it out very soon.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
Last month, the President designated Antifa is a domestic terror
organization directing federal agents to disrupt operations, and individuals funding them.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Probably some of the people I know, some of the
people I dine with. But if they do, they're in
deep trouble.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
At a roundtable this week with independent journalists documenting riots
in Portland, Oregon and elsewhere, President Trump accused news outlets
of ignoring Antifa. If you give a great answer, they
don't put her on.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
If you give a horrendous answer, or even if you
get give a great answer. They make it sound like
it's not a great answer. They're very just outs.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
The President has been blocked at court at least temporarily
from deploying National Guard troops to Portland at the White House,
Jared Halpern, Fox News,
Your questions, Brian's answers. It's time for today's Q and
A of today. This is the Brian mud Show.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Yeah, Today's Q and A The history of the Nobel
Committee and who's on it. This is brought to you
by Melisa Dashes. Check mark collections each day feature and
listener questions sent by one of these methods to me,
Email me Brian Mud at iHeartMedia dot com, hit me
up onsocial at to Brian Mud Radio may also use
the iHeartRadio talkback feature. We'd love it if you would
(00:34):
show us some love. Go into the iHeart app. Make
us your number one preset. While you're in there, make
the Brian Mudshow podcasts. You're number two preset. I want
you never listen miss anything, always there for you on demand.
And while you're in there, look for a little microphone button.
See it, tap it you mainlay down a message right there.
Maybe topicer question for a future Q and A. Today's
(00:55):
note this one, Dear Brian. I believe it was on
your morning show that I heard that the people of
Norway have the power to decide what the world leaders
would consider to be an international prize for peace. In
the light of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. We can
only recognize the Peace Award as being the bias of
a nation of liberals. The prize to Barack Obama for
(01:17):
doing nothing is another example of a liberal prejudice. Do
the people of Norway deserve to decide who is the
world's peacemaker? Surely Norway does not have the right to
make this choice. They overrate themselves. Thank you for all
you do. And I think that today's is instructive in
a couple of respects. The background of the Nobel Prize,
(01:41):
I think is something that not a lot of people
are familiar with, and so walking you through it, I
think is going to be instructive.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
And yes, it is beyond hilarious.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
You take a look at how a decision doesn't age. Well,
you have the Nobel Prize not given to Trump, which
was this slam dunk choice on Friday, and then on
Monday you have one of the most historic days of
peace in world history.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
It just where you literally.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Had, you know, leaders from countries around the world nominating
Trump publicly in real time. But the greatest thing of all,
there's little doubt that the awarding of the Nobel Peace
Prize to Maria Karina Machado, the opposition leader to Nicholas Maduro.
There's a little doubt that it was somewhat hilarious. Not
(02:31):
that she isn't a courageous and great person herself, but
I mean, she'd spend the last year in hiding out
of necessity for her own safety. And meanwhile, what Trump
has been doing since he took office. On that note,
the greatest indication of the absurdity of the Nobel Prize
(02:54):
was that Maria Karina Machado herself said this.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Not only has he being involved in only a few
months in solving eight wars, but his actions had been
decisive to have the persuaded now at a first hold
of freedom after twenty six years of tyranny.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
She dedicated the award to Trump, saying that he deserved it.
So the winner said that Trump should have had it
now diving into this thing. The realization of what's happened
here speaks as much as anything to the validity or
(03:38):
even significance at the Peace Prize. I was trying to
think of what the best way to illustrate the point
would be, and I think the Academy Awards are are
a really great example question for you, do you care
about the Academy Awards?
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Do you actually give a rip who wins?
Speaker 2 (03:54):
An Oscar, I can tell you that I've never watched
the Academy Awards and I couldn't care for thirty seconds
of my life who wins?
Speaker 1 (04:00):
But never has happened? Never what happen?
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Can imagine a universe in which would I would spend
time doing something that assigned some kind of importance to
that type of thing. On that note, the Academy does
what they issue awards every year to the best actor,
best Actress, best Picture, best at whatever else. Now does
that actually mean that it's the best actor or actress
(04:24):
over the previous year though actually won.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Does it means the best picture? Actually?
Speaker 4 (04:30):
One?
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Now it means that the cabal of the Academy, people
they're inside club, got together and said this person, which
we've also often known has been done out of woke
politics and any number of other things over the years.
Right now, I mean, some of the winners are deserving,
and I'm sure I'm not suggesting otherwise. But the point
is it's an entirely subjective process by an insider group
(04:55):
of people from the industry. Nobel Prize are no different
at all. They are highly subjected prizes awarded by select
insiders that hold no empirical significance. The background the Nobel
Prizes and the committees Nobel Prizes trace the origins back
(05:18):
to Alfred Nobel. He was a Swedish chemist and the
big thing that he ended up doing that ended up
making him wealthy in his day, he invented dynamite, the
inventor of dynamite and during his lifetime, and bad pun
(05:39):
would be that it exploded the proliferation of dynamite. You
had ninety different factories that ended up being built worldwide
that he had a hand in after the invention of dynamite,
and then obviously it was used in warfare, and you
had more people dying more quickly because of his invention
(06:02):
than anything else previously, and that earned him the nickname
Merchant of death. So here is the great irony. Alfred
Nobel of which the Peace Prize is named was the
merchant of death in his day. Now he was said
(06:24):
to be a humanitarian and was conflicted about what he
had done by inventing dynamite, how it was being used
for warfare and everything else.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
And so a year before he ended up dying.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
He put into his last will and testament that his
estatee should be converted into a fund to establish annual
prizes for quote, those who in the preceding year shall
have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. And the awards
were to be in five fields physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine,
(06:59):
literature and peace. Those were his interests. Okay, so this
is the inventor of dynamite, his trust and the awards
that are issued off of it. Ultimately, what ended up
happening is that the family didn't really know how to
carry it out, They didn't want to necessarily, and they
(07:20):
were worried that his estate would end up collapsing with
all the resources going into this thing. So you had
a government, the Swedish government that stepped in and they
allowed for the creation of the Nobel Foundation in nineteen
hundred as a private, tax exempt institution that would be
headquartered in Stockholm. And so with this special status that
(07:44):
had the government's blessing, you had the Nobel Committees that
were established. The inaugural Nobel Prizes were awarded on December
tenth of nineteen oh one, that was the fifth anniversary
of offered Nobel's death, and that's why to this day
the actual awards are handed to the winners on December tenth.
(08:06):
And you've had them issued every year, with the exception
of two periods during World War One and then also
World War two. One point there you had actually had
the occupation of Norway by the Nazis in nineteen sixty eight,
yet a sixth prize in economic science that was added.
(08:26):
And so you take a look at all of this
over time what the Nobel committees have done. The process
is private, so nominees and deliberations, votes, everything that remain
secret for fifty years. And they say they do this
to shield the process from lobbying or bias. And each
award has its own committee. The committees have four or
(08:48):
five members on each one of them, and they're said
to be representing the committee members rotating pools of global talent,
but in reality Scandinavian dominance persist on these committees. All
current Peace Prize Committee members, for example, are Norwegian.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
So that's the ball of wax And and Nortia in a nutshew.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
And why Norwegians have outsized influence in the Nobel process.
I mean it'd be no different than like, you know,
if Warren Buffett ended up dying and converting his wealth
into a trust, that would be like the Buffet Awards
for excellence or something. Would it mean anything to you?
I mean, maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. But that's
all we're talking about here. That's effectively all the new
(09:31):
Bell Prizes are. People have just assigned greater significance to
them over time.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
Donald Trumps America.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
President Trump's is an epidemic of left wing and Antifa
inspired violence is escalating.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
These are agitators, anarchists, and they're paid, and you'll find
that out.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
You'll be finding it out very soon.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
Last month, the President designated Antifa is a domestic terror
organization directing federal agents to disrupt operations, and individuals funding them.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Probably some of the people I know, some of the
people I dine with. But if they do, they're in
deep trouble.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
At a roundtable this week with independent journalists documenting riots
in Portland, Oregon and elsewhere, President Trump accused news outlets
of ignoring Antifa. If you give a great answer, they
don't put her on.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
If you give a horrendous answer, or even if you
get give a great answer. They make it sound like
it's not a great answer. They're very just outs.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
The President has been blocked at court at least temporarily
from deploying National Guard troops to Portland at the White House,
Jared Halpern, Fox News,
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com