August 12, 2025 • 29 mins
People-powered, AI-Generated
Season 4, Episode 15
In our 15th episode for Season 4 we deep dive into how only certain people can nominate Trump for a nobel prize but a nomination can also point out the hypocrisy and critique why Trump's peace deals are performative and lack substance and discuss other reasons why he should not get the nobel peace prize.
To read the article discussed in this episode:
https://guywolf070425.substack.com/p/the-nobel-paradox-how-nominating?r=5d8qd2
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:15):
Fashions are black. It's not just old history spread
fear and tearing down biloccracy.
They say to shout. They want control and hate.
Everything's wrong. It's never too late.
No all fashions. No more lies.
We fight for freedom. We're no bad lies.
(00:35):
You are a light man, the Founder's way.
Liberty's life is here to fame. It's not like your socialism
game. Fascism, fire.
It's a different way. There you go, crushing all this
and we know truth rises prevent.No more fascism, no more lies.
(01:00):
We fight for freedom with no fair lies.
You are a wise man. The Founder's way.
This life is here to stay. It's not marks or socialism.
Game fascism. Fire is a different flame.
Authoritarian rule crushing off the scent.
(01:23):
We know the truth. Resist, prevent.
No offences, no more lies. We fight for freedom with no bad
lies. Newer life and the founders way
liberties. Life is here to stay.
Fear and mega feet their hate but unity can change our fate. 7
(01:45):
mountains strong and tall, justice and truth will never
fall. Civic education stand up prouds
Independent media shout it loud.No father risk systems.
Power in our hands. Together we'll rebuild our
lands. No more fashions, no more lies.
(02:09):
We fight for freedom with open eyes.
No enlightenment to founder's way.
Liberties like this here to stay.
No more fashions, No more lies. No man lies.
And which rise, rise, rise? How do we, you know, effectively
(02:47):
confront these really complex societal issues, especially when
the the usual methods just seem to fall short?
Think about it. How do we actually shine a light
on uncomfortable truths? Not by shouting, not by
debating, but maybe just by holding up a mirror, letting the
world see clearly. That's a huge strategic
question, isn't it? I mean, we're swimming in
(03:09):
information, and direct challenges often just get
written off as, you know, partisan noise.
So finding a way to make people genuinely see something, reflect
on it, and maybe reevaluate thattakes a really sophisticated
approach, often something counterintuitive.
Exactly. And that is precisely the kind
of deep dive we're doing today. We're looking at a topic that's
touching so many corners of the globe, the rise of
(03:29):
authoritarianism. But here's the twist, the angle
that really caught my eye. We're going to break down this
truly surprising, almost audacious proposal, one that
aims to unmask this trend using,believe it or not, one of the
world's most prestigious awards.Yeah, it sounds completely
chaotoxical at first glance. It does.
But what's really fascinating here, I think, is how this idea
(03:49):
tries to leverage an existing, globally recognized system.
You know, one we normally associate with really positive
achievements, noble ideals, and use that system to create this
moment of profound public reflection.
It's like an invitation to look past the surface, past the PR,
and really scrutinize the actions, the motivations, the
impacts. Right, using the framework
(04:11):
itself to prompt a deeper look. Exactly.
So our mission today, our deep dive, it's centered on this
really intriguing, almost subversive strategy.
It's laid out at a piece called The Nobel Paradox, how
nominating Trump for the Peace Prize could unmask global
authoritarianism. We're going to really unpack how
this seemingly absurd, maybe even provocative idea proposes
(04:32):
using irony not just as a joke, but as a serious strategic tool
for public education. A new form of resistance?
Maybe The whole point is to try and force society to confront
these difficult, often ignored realities about unchecked power,
what authoritarianism actually looks like.
So it's about understanding a more nuanced way to engage in
(04:52):
activism and critical thinking, especially now when we're just
bombarded with information constantly.
Precisely. And OK, let's unpack this
fascinating concept. It's definitely not what you'd
expect, but honestly, here's where it gets really
interesting, analytically speaking.
Yeah. What's fascinating is how it
deliberately pushes us to reevaluate definitions, you
know, public perceptions. We think Nobel Peace Prize, and
(05:13):
immediately certain ideals come to mind, cooperation, democracy,
reconciliation. This proposal just throws a
wrench in that. It forces us to ask, what do
those ideals really mean when you set them against actions or
policies that seem completely, well, opposite to them?
It's like a kind of conceptual judo move.
Systemic Jiu jitsu, Yeah, using the awards own prestige, it's
(05:35):
own criteria to shine a light onthe nature of power itself.
It's quite clever. OK, so let's get right to the
core idea, the really bold part.The source suggests
intentionally nominating Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now, I know for a lot of you listening, the immediate
reaction is probably, wait, what?
Why on earth? And yeah, that's totally
natural. Understandable.
(05:55):
Absolutely. But the key thing here, the lens
we have to see this through, is that this is not meant as an
endorsement, not a celebration, not in any way.
The piece explicitly calls it anact of sharp, intentional irony,
right? The whole purpose, according to
the source, is to turn this incredibly famous award into a
mirror, a really potent, unflinching mirror.
(06:18):
And the goal, it says, is to force society globally to
confront what it calls the hypocrisy of rewarding a bully.
It's a deliberate subversion. And the desired outcome, they're
very clear about this. It's not just about exposure.
It's meant to spark a huge global conversation.
Yeah, about the dangers, the pervasiveness of unchecked
authoritarian power. It's trying to cut through all
(06:39):
the usual political noise. You know, the echo chambers we
all live in. Instead, it wants to engineer
this moment of cognitive dissonance really for a massive
audience, make people question what peace building even means,
what leadership means, what international cooperation looks
like. Disrupting that passive
acceptance we sometimes fall into.
Exactly stimulating active critical thought.
(07:02):
That's the absolute key to understanding it, isn't it?
The nuance, the distinction, Thesource is absolutely clear.
This isn't glorification. It's not validation.
No, it's about using the Nobel system itself strategically,
using its rules, its prestige to, as the P says, strip away
illusions. Like peeling back the layers of
(07:23):
spin or perception. Yeah, to vividly show what
unchecked authoritarianism really looks like.
It's almost like a surgical approach, using the system's own
spotlight to light up the shadow.
Precisely. It takes the massive global
attention that a nomination likethis would inevitably get and
weaponizes it not to validate the person, but to make everyone
critically re examine the award criteria themselves and maybe
(07:45):
our own assumptions about legitimate leadership.
It's a calculated risk, for sure, but one designed to
trigger a much deeper public reckoning with power.
And adding to that pressure, there's a really critical
deadline here, which just highlights the urgency of even
considering this. The window for submitting Nobel
Peace Prize nominations closes on January 31st, 2026. 2026 OK,
(08:08):
so. This time frame, this window for
potential action, however bold or counterintuitive it sounds.
It's open now, but is closing fast.
This isn't just theory, it's time sensitive.
Yeah, that deadline changes it from just an interesting thought
experiment into something concrete, a specific limited
chance for eligible people or groups to actually do something,
to intervene strategically in this whole global discussion
(08:30):
about authoritarianism. The deadline itself makes the
tactic more potent in a way. OK, so for anyone listening who
maybe isn't super familiar with the insurance and outs of the
Nobel Peace Prize, let let's quickly cover the basics.
The award Alfred Nobel's will. It's given to the person or
group who's done the most or thebest work for fraternity between
nations, reducing armies, promoting peace congresses.
(08:54):
It's a very specific high ideal.It is aiming for concrete
efforts toward harmony, disarmament.
And what's really interesting and actually crucial for this
whole strategy to even be possible, is how broad the list
of eligible nominators is. It's not some tiny secret
committee like you might think, no.
Not at all. The source points out university
(09:14):
professors across lots of fields, members of governments,
parliaments, past Peace Prize winners themselves, leaders of
certain international organization they can all
nominate. That wide eligibility is a huge
point, and here's another fascinating detail that feeds
right into the strategy. The names of the people who
nominate they aren't made publicby the Nobel committee for 50
(09:35):
years 50. 50 years. That's yeah, that's significant.
It offers this huge layer of discretion, protection really
for anyone thinking about doing something this bold, this
ironic. So theoretically, someone can
make this powerful statement without immediate public
blowback, personally or professionally.
Exactly. It allows for a kind of covert
(09:56):
activism, but with potentially very overt public impact.
That secrecy is a strong shield,definitely.
It gives tactical flexibility, but it also means the full
impact, especially the public education part, really depends
on whether the nominators chooseto go public with their
reasoning. Right, that's the trade.
Off So you've got this spectrum,anonymous symbolic act on one
end, totally open teaching moment on the other and.
(10:18):
It's important to remember this idea.
While it feels really audacious,it's not completely out of left
field in Nobel history. The source makes a really good
point that controversial figureshave been nominated before,
often explicitly to make a point, to spark a debate.
These past instances kind of frame the act of nominating as a
form of, well, political theater, a stage for making
(10:42):
broader statements, not just simple endorsements.
Yeah, the prize history is complex, full of nominations
that were less about celebratingpeace achievements and more like
commentaries on the times, sometimes highlighting figures
who were and still are intenselydebated.
This proposal kind of builds on that tradition, but it it
(11:02):
amplifies, it repurposes, it turns nomination from potential
honor into pointed ironic exposure.
It's like an escalation of that political theater idea.
Calculated escalation exactly. You know, as we're digging into
this, I can almost hear some of you listening, thinking, wow,
this feels really risky. Why get more attention to
someone many find problematic? Or just feeling tired, Maybe
(11:24):
cynical, Wondering if anything like this can actually change
the big picture. Yeah, exactly.
And you're absolutely not alone feeling that that sense of
powerlessness against these big global trends, It's
understandable. That skepticism is totally
valid. I mean, the idea of using a
system in a way that could seem to legitimize someone
controversial, that's a real concern.
It's a strategic tightrope, no doubt.
(11:45):
It is a very real concern, but the source offers a pretty
powerful counter argument grounded in history.
It states pretty clearly that history is full of examples
where nonviolent creative acts of protest, especially those
clever moves that turn the presser's own stage into a
spotlight, have actually succeeded.
They've shifted public opinion. It suggests that sometimes the
(12:07):
best way to challenge power isn't head on confrontation,
which can get dismissed easily. Right.
Or just absorbed by the system. But by cleverly reframing the
narrative itself, redirecting the focus.
That really clicks with the principles of strategic
nonviolence. You know, like the work of Gene
Sharp, using the opponent's strengths, or in this case, a
(12:27):
platform meant for honor to instead highlight problems,
expose contradictions. Tactical jiu jitsu for public
perception. Exactly.
Letting the system's own weight work against its unintended
effects, its intellectual leverage, Moral leverage, not
physical force. OK, so let's dig deeper now into
the specific strategies the source suggests for actually
doing this, for unmasking truth this way.
(12:50):
And these aren't just guesses, they're linked to science and
real world tactics. The first one, maybe the most
psychologically interesting, is using irony as a disarming truth
teller. The Irony engine, yeah.
And this isn't just fluff. It sites research Lamar and
colleagues, 2009 International Journal of Public Opinion
Research. Their work suggests satire and
(13:10):
irony can actually bypass defensiveness and force people
to rethink beliefs. Which is huge in today's
polarized world, right? Because when you directly
challenge someone's core beliefs, especially political
ones, the defenses just shoot upinstantly.
Yeah, you get selective hearing,motivated reasoning, outright
dismissal. But satire, Irony.
They create this little flicker of confusion, maybe amusement,
(13:32):
and that can briefly disarm the defenses.
It creates this tiny window for actual critical thought before
the walls go back up. A cognitive bypass.
Exactly. So the application here is a
nomination, if it's framed with careful precinct language, could
make the public and journalists pause, make them question the
legitimacy of honoring someone whose record seems to contradict
(13:54):
peace building. It's about creating that initial
wait, what moment, That intellectual jolt that makes you
lean in, curious, instead of shutting down.
Right. It provokes inquiry, not just
reaction. You could think of, say, a
clever ad that uses humor for a serious issue.
Instead of just saying this is bad, it shows the bad in a
context that makes it seem absurd, undeniable.
(14:17):
Grabs attention differently thanjust lecturing.
Yeah, it engages more reflectivepart of the brain.
Less being told what to think, more being guided to figure it
out yourself. OK strategy #2 turning these
nominations into public education tools.
This goes back to the secrecy point we mentioned.
While the nominators names are kept secret for 50 years, they
can choose to publicly release their nomination letters, and if
(14:38):
they do, these letters become public documents.
And that's where the transparency becomes incredibly
powerful. The letters could explain point
by point how specific authoritarian actions actually
harm peace. Not promote it.
Right. So the nomination Act itself
transforms from just symbolic into a detailed, teachable
(14:59):
moment for millions, A structured way to educate people
globally about the real consequences of eroding
democratic norms or unchecked. Power.
It's not just symbolic. It's like a public curriculum.
Publishing the letter gives people specific, reasoned
arguments for why certain actions undermine peace, all
under the umbrella of the gravitas of the Nobel Prize
Context. It's sophisticated teaching
(15:21):
applied to activism, using this high profile global event, the
Nobel process, to spread a detailed critical analysis to a
huge audience, turning politicalaction into collective learning.
OK, strategy three. This one's crucial in today's
information mess, reclaiming thenarrative before it gets
twisted. Yeah, pre bumping almost.
Exactly. The source really stresses the
(15:41):
importance of making the ironic intent openly critical from the
start. Absolutely essential, because
otherwise the risk is huge. The nomination could easily be
spun as a real endorsement by the very people it's critiquing.
Which completely defeats the purpose.
Totally. If that critical irony isn't
crystal clear from day one, the target could just embrace it,
(16:02):
claim it as an honor, and neutralize the whole thing.
Turn it into a PR win. You have to control that initial
interpretation. And this focus on first
impressions, It's backed by solid psychology.
The source cites Tversky and Kahneman 1981, the framing of
decisions. Their work confirms that first
impressions anchor how later information is processed.
Anchoring effect. So what does that mean for
(16:23):
controlling the conversation around this kind of nomination?
It means setting the stage first, taking the lead on how
the message is understood right from the get go.
That guides everything that follows.
Precisely. If the first frame people see is
clearly, this is ironic criticaldesign to show hypocrisy.
Then all the news reports, the analysis.
The public reaction afterwards gets filtered through that
(16:44):
critical lens. But if that first frame is weak
or ambiguous, it leaves this huge opening for spin, for
propaganda. It's about setting the cognitive
stage before the opposition can a proactive move in the
perception battle. OK.
Moving to the 4th strategy, connecting global struggles, the
source really hammers home the point that authoritarianism is
(17:05):
on the rise in many countries. This isn't just isolated
incidents, it's a connected global trend.
And that global view is vital for seeing the bigger picture
here, a really visible, widely reported ironic act like this
nomination. It could have potentially link
activists across borders. It helps shift the view of
authoritarianism from just a local problem in country X or Y
(17:26):
to being recognized as a connected global issue.
It can foster the sense of shared concerns.
Shared is solidarity among people.
Facing similar pressures worldwide creates a share of
language. Yeah, connecting this to the big
picture really underscores how shared strategies, even symbolic
ones, can empower movements everywhere.
It becomes a universal protest language.
(17:47):
A unifying symbol sends a message of solidarity.
It gives a common reference point.
Activists in one country dealingwith an authoritarian leader can
point to this global ironic nomination and say, see, we're
not alone. This isn't just our problem.
It's part of a bigger pattern that needs unmasking.
It validates their fight globally.
And the 5th strategy brings us back to protecting the
(18:08):
nominator, sharing safety flexibility.
We touched on this, but it's worth repeating because it's key
to enabling action. Nobel rules secret for 50 years
unless the nominator chooses to go public.
And that flexibility is paramount.
It lets eligible people act withdifferent levels of visibility
privately, anonymously, publicly, transparently or in
(18:29):
coalition with others. Right, providing layers of
safety and impact. Yeah, so maybe a professor fears
backlash. They can act anonymously, but
someone else may be a former leader or a big institution.
They might be safer speaking outpublicly and can amplify the
message without putting others at risk.
It creates multiple ways to get involved.
(18:49):
OK, so we've unpacked the theory, the psychology, the
strategy. Now let's get really practical.
How could this actually work? The source provides an overview
of three different nomination letter templates.
Not just vague ideas, but actualframeworks, concrete language,
showing how the irony could be built right into the formal
nomination. Yeah, these templates are super
(19:10):
useful. They show how this sharp,
intentional irony, the engine ofthe whole thing, can be embedded
in the official language, turning a bureaucratic form into
a tool and resistance. Okay.
Template one private critical nomination.
This is for nominators who want anonymity but still want to make
that symbolic point contribute without public exposure.
The key language is really precise.
(19:30):
It says the nomination is explicitly not an endorsement of
his leadership. Crucial qualifier.
But rather, a critical acknowledgement of the paradox.
It calls the nomination a mirror, highlighting the
fragility of global standards for peace and stressing the
urgent need to reaffirm the values the Nobel Prize
represents. The value there is providing
(19:52):
that protected way to act. It acknowledges the prizes
prestige but immediately turns it to a critical purpose, forces
the committee and anyone who sees the letter later to
confront that uncomfortable gap between the ideals and the
actions being examined. An internal challenge.
Then template two public educational nomination.
This is for those willing, maybeeven eager, to use the
(20:15):
nomination publicly as a teaching moment.
Maximum transparency for maximumimpact.
Exactly. The language here stresses the
reasoning is not celebratory butcautionary.
It directly invites the public to confront the contradiction
between peace as a universal goal and the actions of leaders
whose policies and conduct contradict those goals.
And importantly, it doesn't justmake vague claims, it uses
(20:35):
specific examples from the source material.
Things like withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, the
Iran nuclear deal, inflammatory rhetoric that fueled domestic
unrest. Concrete actions.
Yeah, concrete actions held up against the Nobel vision of
fraternity between nations makesthe contradiction undeniable.
And the intended impact is clearly stated.
Serve as an educational lens forstudents, journalists, and
(20:59):
citizens to critically examine what true peace building
requires today. It's about fostering critical
thinking on a mass scale. It basically turns the
nomination submission into a public policy brief, using the
Nobel platform to spread a detailed critical analysis
dissecting why certain actions undermine peace, arming the
(21:19):
public with that knowledge. OK, Finally, template 3, the
Coalition statement nomination. This is for groups of eligible
nominators acting together to really amplify the message.
Definitely the key language hereis deliberate irony, aiming to
highlight the widening gap between the prizes ideals and
the troubling rise of authoritarian politics
worldwide. Collective intellectual force.
(21:41):
The emphasis is on that collective power, the source
says. Through this coordinated action,
the goal is to show how easily public honors can be weaponized
to legitimize harmful leaders. It's united front saying this
isn't just one person's opinion,it's a shared, considered
concern. And here's where it gets really
interesting, potentially really impactful.
(22:01):
That idea of collective action boosting one powerful, nuanced
message, the desired outcome from this combined statement?
It's explicitly meant to spark aglobal conversation about
integrity, accountability and the meaning of peace in the 21st
century. That's ambitious, but very
clearly articulated. Yeah, using the combined weight
and credibility of multiple institutions or respected
(22:22):
figures makes the point harder to ignore.
It says, look, this isn't fringe.
It's a strategic position taken by a substantial, reputable
group as undeniable intellectualgravitas.
OK, we've gone through the idea,the strategies, the psychology,
the templates. So what about action reflection?
For you listening right now, if you happen to be someone who is
(22:42):
eligible to nominate a professor, government member,
past laureate, certain organization leader, the direct
call to action here is craft andsend a nomination before January
31st, 2026. And if you feel safe doing so,
really consider publishing that letter.
Let the public read it, reflect on it.
It's more than just an idea to discuss, it's presented as a
(23:04):
concrete opportunity for strategic intervention using a
powerful existing platform. Now, if you're not eligible to
nominate, which is most of us, there's still a vital call to
action for you, for everyone, The source urges.
Everyone share this idea widely,talk about it in classrooms, on
social media, in community groups, over dinner.
The core principle is powerful public conversation is part of
(23:25):
the protest. That is such a crucial point.
The impact isn't only about formal nominations.
It also hinges on the wider public debate it generates.
If the idea itself, this Nobel paradox, gets talked about,
debated, understood critically, it serves its educational,
unmasking purpose. The conversation itself becomes
the catalyst. And one more time, that deadline
(23:47):
reminder. January 31st, 2026.
Mark it down. And maybe more importantly,
share this article. Share these ideas with anyone
you know who might be eligible to nominate Build Awareness and
Power Action. It's a strategic move to
maximize the ideas reach. The more people who get the
reasoning understand the potential impact, the more
likely eligible nominators mightseriously consider it.
(24:09):
And to bring it all together, the source uses this really
powerful historical parallel. It references Doctor Martin
Luther King Junior's 1964 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech,
where he said I accept this award today with an abiding
faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of
mankind. Powerful words.
And the source connects that statement about hope and resolve
to the core message of the Nobelparadox.
(24:32):
It argues that the real strengthof democracy lies in its ability
to confront hypocrisy without losing hope.
That's a really poignant connection.
It grounds the seemingly cynical, ironic act in a much
deeper faith. Faith in democracy, in reason,
in society's ability to change for the better.
It's about facing uncomfortable truths not with despair, but
with a conviction that truth, once unmasked, can lead to
(24:55):
positive change. Confronting reality with hope.
And it leaves us with this really provocative closing
image, a metaphor. Irony can be a scalpel, cutting
through propaganda without drawing blood.
Wow. Surgical.
Yeah, precise nonviolent intellectual incision into
narratives that seem impenetrable.
It's not about force. It's about precision.
(25:15):
And the final question the source poses, the challenge to
all of us is just. The question is, will we dare to
use it? It's more than a question, isn't
it? It's a challenge pushes us
outside our usual ways of thinking about protest, about
activism, about the tools we have for change.
Asks if we're willing to use unconventional, intellectual,
morally precise tools to educate, to spark reflection
(25:37):
when facing complex global challenges.
So we have taken a really deep dive today into the Nobel
paradox. We've explored how this
seemingly counterintuitive idea,using irony within a global
institution, could maybe serve as a potent tool, a way to
unmask rising authoritarianism and ignite these essential
conversations about power and peace.
(25:59):
It really offers a blueprint forcreative engagement, doesn't it?
Shows how even subtle strategic actions within existing systems
can create these powerful rippleeffects in public opinion, in
global discourse. It's about leverage.
We really encourage you, our listeners, discuss this, talk
about it with others, in person,online, share these ideas in
your networks, your participation in public
conversation. That is a vital part of building
(26:20):
the future you want to see. Your voice matters.
It's about being an active participant in shaping
understanding, not just a passive observer collective of
critical engagement. And if you found this deep dive
useful, if it made you think, please do consider liking it,
sharing it with someone else whomight find it interesting, and
subscribing to the deep dive. Your support truly helps us keep
(26:42):
doing these explorations and reach more curious learners like
you and. Remember that final thought from
the source? Sometimes the most peaceful
protest is to let hypocrisy speak for itself, loudly,
publicly, and undeniably. This deep dive certainly gives
us a framework for thinking about how that might be done.
What stands out most to you fromtoday's deep dive?
(27:23):
They want control and hate. It's never too late.
No more fascist, no more lies. We fight for freedom with no
fair lies. You are a lies man.
You found yours way. Liberty's life is here to stay.
(27:44):
It's not lies for socialism gainfascism fire.
It's a different way. It's a terrier Rd. crashing all
this salary. No truth rises prevent no all
fascist. No more lies.
We fight for freedom with no fair lies.
(28:05):
You enlightenment, the founder'sway.
Liberty's life is here to stay. It's not marks on socialism,
game, fascism. Fire is a different frame.
Authoritarian rule crashing off the scent.
We know the truth. Resist, prevent.
(28:28):
No affection, no more lies, fight for freedom with no bad
lies. New and life and the founders
way. Liberty's life is here to stay.
Fear and meger feed their hate but unity can change our fate. 7
mounts and strong and tall justice and truth will never
(28:50):
fall So if your education stand up proud.
Independent media shouted loud. Come Father, with systems power
in our hands, together we'll rebuild our lands.
No a fashions, no more lies. We fight for freedom with open
(29:13):
eyes. New enlightenment, the founder's
way. Liberty's life is here to stay.
No a fashions no more lies. New man lies them which rise,
rise, rise.
Fashions are black. It's not just old history spread
fear and tearing down biloccracy.
They say to shout. They want control and hate.
Everything's wrong. It's never too late.
No all fashions. No more lies.
We fight for freedom. We're no bad lies.
(00:35):
You are a light man, the Founder's way.
Liberty's life is here to fame. It's not like your socialism
game. Fascism, fire.
It's a different way. There you go, crushing all this
and we know truth rises prevent.No more fascism, no more lies.
(01:00):
We fight for freedom with no fair lies.
You are a wise man. The Founder's way.
This life is here to stay. It's not marks or socialism.
Game fascism. Fire is a different flame.
Authoritarian rule crushing off the scent.
(01:23):
We know the truth. Resist, prevent.
No offences, no more lies. We fight for freedom with no bad
lies. Newer life and the founders way
liberties. Life is here to stay.
Fear and mega feet their hate but unity can change our fate. 7
(01:45):
mountains strong and tall, justice and truth will never
fall. Civic education stand up prouds
Independent media shout it loud.No father risk systems.
Power in our hands. Together we'll rebuild our
lands. No more fashions, no more lies.
(02:09):
We fight for freedom with open eyes.
No enlightenment to founder's way.
Liberties like this here to stay.
No more fashions, No more lies. No man lies.
And which rise, rise, rise? How do we, you know, effectively
(02:47):
confront these really complex societal issues, especially when
the the usual methods just seem to fall short?
Think about it. How do we actually shine a light
on uncomfortable truths? Not by shouting, not by
debating, but maybe just by holding up a mirror, letting the
world see clearly. That's a huge strategic
question, isn't it? I mean, we're swimming in
(03:09):
information, and direct challenges often just get
written off as, you know, partisan noise.
So finding a way to make people genuinely see something, reflect
on it, and maybe reevaluate thattakes a really sophisticated
approach, often something counterintuitive.
Exactly. And that is precisely the kind
of deep dive we're doing today. We're looking at a topic that's
touching so many corners of the globe, the rise of
(03:29):
authoritarianism. But here's the twist, the angle
that really caught my eye. We're going to break down this
truly surprising, almost audacious proposal, one that
aims to unmask this trend using,believe it or not, one of the
world's most prestigious awards.Yeah, it sounds completely
chaotoxical at first glance. It does.
But what's really fascinating here, I think, is how this idea
(03:49):
tries to leverage an existing, globally recognized system.
You know, one we normally associate with really positive
achievements, noble ideals, and use that system to create this
moment of profound public reflection.
It's like an invitation to look past the surface, past the PR,
and really scrutinize the actions, the motivations, the
impacts. Right, using the framework
(04:11):
itself to prompt a deeper look. Exactly.
So our mission today, our deep dive, it's centered on this
really intriguing, almost subversive strategy.
It's laid out at a piece called The Nobel Paradox, how
nominating Trump for the Peace Prize could unmask global
authoritarianism. We're going to really unpack how
this seemingly absurd, maybe even provocative idea proposes
(04:32):
using irony not just as a joke, but as a serious strategic tool
for public education. A new form of resistance?
Maybe The whole point is to try and force society to confront
these difficult, often ignored realities about unchecked power,
what authoritarianism actually looks like.
So it's about understanding a more nuanced way to engage in
(04:52):
activism and critical thinking, especially now when we're just
bombarded with information constantly.
Precisely. And OK, let's unpack this
fascinating concept. It's definitely not what you'd
expect, but honestly, here's where it gets really
interesting, analytically speaking.
Yeah. What's fascinating is how it
deliberately pushes us to reevaluate definitions, you
know, public perceptions. We think Nobel Peace Prize, and
(05:13):
immediately certain ideals come to mind, cooperation, democracy,
reconciliation. This proposal just throws a
wrench in that. It forces us to ask, what do
those ideals really mean when you set them against actions or
policies that seem completely, well, opposite to them?
It's like a kind of conceptual judo move.
Systemic Jiu jitsu, Yeah, using the awards own prestige, it's
(05:35):
own criteria to shine a light onthe nature of power itself.
It's quite clever. OK, so let's get right to the
core idea, the really bold part.The source suggests
intentionally nominating Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now, I know for a lot of you listening, the immediate
reaction is probably, wait, what?
Why on earth? And yeah, that's totally
natural. Understandable.
(05:55):
Absolutely. But the key thing here, the lens
we have to see this through, is that this is not meant as an
endorsement, not a celebration, not in any way.
The piece explicitly calls it anact of sharp, intentional irony,
right? The whole purpose, according to
the source, is to turn this incredibly famous award into a
mirror, a really potent, unflinching mirror.
(06:18):
And the goal, it says, is to force society globally to
confront what it calls the hypocrisy of rewarding a bully.
It's a deliberate subversion. And the desired outcome, they're
very clear about this. It's not just about exposure.
It's meant to spark a huge global conversation.
Yeah, about the dangers, the pervasiveness of unchecked
authoritarian power. It's trying to cut through all
(06:39):
the usual political noise. You know, the echo chambers we
all live in. Instead, it wants to engineer
this moment of cognitive dissonance really for a massive
audience, make people question what peace building even means,
what leadership means, what international cooperation looks
like. Disrupting that passive
acceptance we sometimes fall into.
Exactly stimulating active critical thought.
(07:02):
That's the absolute key to understanding it, isn't it?
The nuance, the distinction, Thesource is absolutely clear.
This isn't glorification. It's not validation.
No, it's about using the Nobel system itself strategically,
using its rules, its prestige to, as the P says, strip away
illusions. Like peeling back the layers of
(07:23):
spin or perception. Yeah, to vividly show what
unchecked authoritarianism really looks like.
It's almost like a surgical approach, using the system's own
spotlight to light up the shadow.
Precisely. It takes the massive global
attention that a nomination likethis would inevitably get and
weaponizes it not to validate the person, but to make everyone
critically re examine the award criteria themselves and maybe
(07:45):
our own assumptions about legitimate leadership.
It's a calculated risk, for sure, but one designed to
trigger a much deeper public reckoning with power.
And adding to that pressure, there's a really critical
deadline here, which just highlights the urgency of even
considering this. The window for submitting Nobel
Peace Prize nominations closes on January 31st, 2026. 2026 OK,
(08:08):
so. This time frame, this window for
potential action, however bold or counterintuitive it sounds.
It's open now, but is closing fast.
This isn't just theory, it's time sensitive.
Yeah, that deadline changes it from just an interesting thought
experiment into something concrete, a specific limited
chance for eligible people or groups to actually do something,
to intervene strategically in this whole global discussion
(08:30):
about authoritarianism. The deadline itself makes the
tactic more potent in a way. OK, so for anyone listening who
maybe isn't super familiar with the insurance and outs of the
Nobel Peace Prize, let let's quickly cover the basics.
The award Alfred Nobel's will. It's given to the person or
group who's done the most or thebest work for fraternity between
nations, reducing armies, promoting peace congresses.
(08:54):
It's a very specific high ideal.It is aiming for concrete
efforts toward harmony, disarmament.
And what's really interesting and actually crucial for this
whole strategy to even be possible, is how broad the list
of eligible nominators is. It's not some tiny secret
committee like you might think, no.
Not at all. The source points out university
(09:14):
professors across lots of fields, members of governments,
parliaments, past Peace Prize winners themselves, leaders of
certain international organization they can all
nominate. That wide eligibility is a huge
point, and here's another fascinating detail that feeds
right into the strategy. The names of the people who
nominate they aren't made publicby the Nobel committee for 50
(09:35):
years 50. 50 years. That's yeah, that's significant.
It offers this huge layer of discretion, protection really
for anyone thinking about doing something this bold, this
ironic. So theoretically, someone can
make this powerful statement without immediate public
blowback, personally or professionally.
Exactly. It allows for a kind of covert
(09:56):
activism, but with potentially very overt public impact.
That secrecy is a strong shield,definitely.
It gives tactical flexibility, but it also means the full
impact, especially the public education part, really depends
on whether the nominators chooseto go public with their
reasoning. Right, that's the trade.
Off So you've got this spectrum,anonymous symbolic act on one
end, totally open teaching moment on the other and.
(10:18):
It's important to remember this idea.
While it feels really audacious,it's not completely out of left
field in Nobel history. The source makes a really good
point that controversial figureshave been nominated before,
often explicitly to make a point, to spark a debate.
These past instances kind of frame the act of nominating as a
form of, well, political theater, a stage for making
(10:42):
broader statements, not just simple endorsements.
Yeah, the prize history is complex, full of nominations
that were less about celebratingpeace achievements and more like
commentaries on the times, sometimes highlighting figures
who were and still are intenselydebated.
This proposal kind of builds on that tradition, but it it
(11:02):
amplifies, it repurposes, it turns nomination from potential
honor into pointed ironic exposure.
It's like an escalation of that political theater idea.
Calculated escalation exactly. You know, as we're digging into
this, I can almost hear some of you listening, thinking, wow,
this feels really risky. Why get more attention to
someone many find problematic? Or just feeling tired, Maybe
(11:24):
cynical, Wondering if anything like this can actually change
the big picture. Yeah, exactly.
And you're absolutely not alone feeling that that sense of
powerlessness against these big global trends, It's
understandable. That skepticism is totally
valid. I mean, the idea of using a
system in a way that could seem to legitimize someone
controversial, that's a real concern.
It's a strategic tightrope, no doubt.
(11:45):
It is a very real concern, but the source offers a pretty
powerful counter argument grounded in history.
It states pretty clearly that history is full of examples
where nonviolent creative acts of protest, especially those
clever moves that turn the presser's own stage into a
spotlight, have actually succeeded.
They've shifted public opinion. It suggests that sometimes the
(12:07):
best way to challenge power isn't head on confrontation,
which can get dismissed easily. Right.
Or just absorbed by the system. But by cleverly reframing the
narrative itself, redirecting the focus.
That really clicks with the principles of strategic
nonviolence. You know, like the work of Gene
Sharp, using the opponent's strengths, or in this case, a
(12:27):
platform meant for honor to instead highlight problems,
expose contradictions. Tactical jiu jitsu for public
perception. Exactly.
Letting the system's own weight work against its unintended
effects, its intellectual leverage, Moral leverage, not
physical force. OK, so let's dig deeper now into
the specific strategies the source suggests for actually
doing this, for unmasking truth this way.
(12:50):
And these aren't just guesses, they're linked to science and
real world tactics. The first one, maybe the most
psychologically interesting, is using irony as a disarming truth
teller. The Irony engine, yeah.
And this isn't just fluff. It sites research Lamar and
colleagues, 2009 International Journal of Public Opinion
Research. Their work suggests satire and
(13:10):
irony can actually bypass defensiveness and force people
to rethink beliefs. Which is huge in today's
polarized world, right? Because when you directly
challenge someone's core beliefs, especially political
ones, the defenses just shoot upinstantly.
Yeah, you get selective hearing,motivated reasoning, outright
dismissal. But satire, Irony.
They create this little flicker of confusion, maybe amusement,
(13:32):
and that can briefly disarm the defenses.
It creates this tiny window for actual critical thought before
the walls go back up. A cognitive bypass.
Exactly. So the application here is a
nomination, if it's framed with careful precinct language, could
make the public and journalists pause, make them question the
legitimacy of honoring someone whose record seems to contradict
(13:54):
peace building. It's about creating that initial
wait, what moment, That intellectual jolt that makes you
lean in, curious, instead of shutting down.
Right. It provokes inquiry, not just
reaction. You could think of, say, a
clever ad that uses humor for a serious issue.
Instead of just saying this is bad, it shows the bad in a
context that makes it seem absurd, undeniable.
(14:17):
Grabs attention differently thanjust lecturing.
Yeah, it engages more reflectivepart of the brain.
Less being told what to think, more being guided to figure it
out yourself. OK strategy #2 turning these
nominations into public education tools.
This goes back to the secrecy point we mentioned.
While the nominators names are kept secret for 50 years, they
can choose to publicly release their nomination letters, and if
(14:38):
they do, these letters become public documents.
And that's where the transparency becomes incredibly
powerful. The letters could explain point
by point how specific authoritarian actions actually
harm peace. Not promote it.
Right. So the nomination Act itself
transforms from just symbolic into a detailed, teachable
(14:59):
moment for millions, A structured way to educate people
globally about the real consequences of eroding
democratic norms or unchecked. Power.
It's not just symbolic. It's like a public curriculum.
Publishing the letter gives people specific, reasoned
arguments for why certain actions undermine peace, all
under the umbrella of the gravitas of the Nobel Prize
Context. It's sophisticated teaching
(15:21):
applied to activism, using this high profile global event, the
Nobel process, to spread a detailed critical analysis to a
huge audience, turning politicalaction into collective learning.
OK, strategy three. This one's crucial in today's
information mess, reclaiming thenarrative before it gets
twisted. Yeah, pre bumping almost.
Exactly. The source really stresses the
(15:41):
importance of making the ironic intent openly critical from the
start. Absolutely essential, because
otherwise the risk is huge. The nomination could easily be
spun as a real endorsement by the very people it's critiquing.
Which completely defeats the purpose.
Totally. If that critical irony isn't
crystal clear from day one, the target could just embrace it,
(16:02):
claim it as an honor, and neutralize the whole thing.
Turn it into a PR win. You have to control that initial
interpretation. And this focus on first
impressions, It's backed by solid psychology.
The source cites Tversky and Kahneman 1981, the framing of
decisions. Their work confirms that first
impressions anchor how later information is processed.
Anchoring effect. So what does that mean for
(16:23):
controlling the conversation around this kind of nomination?
It means setting the stage first, taking the lead on how
the message is understood right from the get go.
That guides everything that follows.
Precisely. If the first frame people see is
clearly, this is ironic criticaldesign to show hypocrisy.
Then all the news reports, the analysis.
The public reaction afterwards gets filtered through that
(16:44):
critical lens. But if that first frame is weak
or ambiguous, it leaves this huge opening for spin, for
propaganda. It's about setting the cognitive
stage before the opposition can a proactive move in the
perception battle. OK.
Moving to the 4th strategy, connecting global struggles, the
source really hammers home the point that authoritarianism is
(17:05):
on the rise in many countries. This isn't just isolated
incidents, it's a connected global trend.
And that global view is vital for seeing the bigger picture
here, a really visible, widely reported ironic act like this
nomination. It could have potentially link
activists across borders. It helps shift the view of
authoritarianism from just a local problem in country X or Y
(17:26):
to being recognized as a connected global issue.
It can foster the sense of shared concerns.
Shared is solidarity among people.
Facing similar pressures worldwide creates a share of
language. Yeah, connecting this to the big
picture really underscores how shared strategies, even symbolic
ones, can empower movements everywhere.
It becomes a universal protest language.
(17:47):
A unifying symbol sends a message of solidarity.
It gives a common reference point.
Activists in one country dealingwith an authoritarian leader can
point to this global ironic nomination and say, see, we're
not alone. This isn't just our problem.
It's part of a bigger pattern that needs unmasking.
It validates their fight globally.
And the 5th strategy brings us back to protecting the
(18:08):
nominator, sharing safety flexibility.
We touched on this, but it's worth repeating because it's key
to enabling action. Nobel rules secret for 50 years
unless the nominator chooses to go public.
And that flexibility is paramount.
It lets eligible people act withdifferent levels of visibility
privately, anonymously, publicly, transparently or in
(18:29):
coalition with others. Right, providing layers of
safety and impact. Yeah, so maybe a professor fears
backlash. They can act anonymously, but
someone else may be a former leader or a big institution.
They might be safer speaking outpublicly and can amplify the
message without putting others at risk.
It creates multiple ways to get involved.
(18:49):
OK, so we've unpacked the theory, the psychology, the
strategy. Now let's get really practical.
How could this actually work? The source provides an overview
of three different nomination letter templates.
Not just vague ideas, but actualframeworks, concrete language,
showing how the irony could be built right into the formal
nomination. Yeah, these templates are super
(19:10):
useful. They show how this sharp,
intentional irony, the engine ofthe whole thing, can be embedded
in the official language, turning a bureaucratic form into
a tool and resistance. Okay.
Template one private critical nomination.
This is for nominators who want anonymity but still want to make
that symbolic point contribute without public exposure.
The key language is really precise.
(19:30):
It says the nomination is explicitly not an endorsement of
his leadership. Crucial qualifier.
But rather, a critical acknowledgement of the paradox.
It calls the nomination a mirror, highlighting the
fragility of global standards for peace and stressing the
urgent need to reaffirm the values the Nobel Prize
represents. The value there is providing
(19:52):
that protected way to act. It acknowledges the prizes
prestige but immediately turns it to a critical purpose, forces
the committee and anyone who sees the letter later to
confront that uncomfortable gap between the ideals and the
actions being examined. An internal challenge.
Then template two public educational nomination.
This is for those willing, maybeeven eager, to use the
(20:15):
nomination publicly as a teaching moment.
Maximum transparency for maximumimpact.
Exactly. The language here stresses the
reasoning is not celebratory butcautionary.
It directly invites the public to confront the contradiction
between peace as a universal goal and the actions of leaders
whose policies and conduct contradict those goals.
And importantly, it doesn't justmake vague claims, it uses
(20:35):
specific examples from the source material.
Things like withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, the
Iran nuclear deal, inflammatory rhetoric that fueled domestic
unrest. Concrete actions.
Yeah, concrete actions held up against the Nobel vision of
fraternity between nations makesthe contradiction undeniable.
And the intended impact is clearly stated.
Serve as an educational lens forstudents, journalists, and
(20:59):
citizens to critically examine what true peace building
requires today. It's about fostering critical
thinking on a mass scale. It basically turns the
nomination submission into a public policy brief, using the
Nobel platform to spread a detailed critical analysis
dissecting why certain actions undermine peace, arming the
(21:19):
public with that knowledge. OK, Finally, template 3, the
Coalition statement nomination. This is for groups of eligible
nominators acting together to really amplify the message.
Definitely the key language hereis deliberate irony, aiming to
highlight the widening gap between the prizes ideals and
the troubling rise of authoritarian politics
worldwide. Collective intellectual force.
(21:41):
The emphasis is on that collective power, the source
says. Through this coordinated action,
the goal is to show how easily public honors can be weaponized
to legitimize harmful leaders. It's united front saying this
isn't just one person's opinion,it's a shared, considered
concern. And here's where it gets really
interesting, potentially really impactful.
(22:01):
That idea of collective action boosting one powerful, nuanced
message, the desired outcome from this combined statement?
It's explicitly meant to spark aglobal conversation about
integrity, accountability and the meaning of peace in the 21st
century. That's ambitious, but very
clearly articulated. Yeah, using the combined weight
and credibility of multiple institutions or respected
(22:22):
figures makes the point harder to ignore.
It says, look, this isn't fringe.
It's a strategic position taken by a substantial, reputable
group as undeniable intellectualgravitas.
OK, we've gone through the idea,the strategies, the psychology,
the templates. So what about action reflection?
For you listening right now, if you happen to be someone who is
(22:42):
eligible to nominate a professor, government member,
past laureate, certain organization leader, the direct
call to action here is craft andsend a nomination before January
31st, 2026. And if you feel safe doing so,
really consider publishing that letter.
Let the public read it, reflect on it.
It's more than just an idea to discuss, it's presented as a
(23:04):
concrete opportunity for strategic intervention using a
powerful existing platform. Now, if you're not eligible to
nominate, which is most of us, there's still a vital call to
action for you, for everyone, The source urges.
Everyone share this idea widely,talk about it in classrooms, on
social media, in community groups, over dinner.
The core principle is powerful public conversation is part of
(23:25):
the protest. That is such a crucial point.
The impact isn't only about formal nominations.
It also hinges on the wider public debate it generates.
If the idea itself, this Nobel paradox, gets talked about,
debated, understood critically, it serves its educational,
unmasking purpose. The conversation itself becomes
the catalyst. And one more time, that deadline
(23:47):
reminder. January 31st, 2026.
Mark it down. And maybe more importantly,
share this article. Share these ideas with anyone
you know who might be eligible to nominate Build Awareness and
Power Action. It's a strategic move to
maximize the ideas reach. The more people who get the
reasoning understand the potential impact, the more
likely eligible nominators mightseriously consider it.
(24:09):
And to bring it all together, the source uses this really
powerful historical parallel. It references Doctor Martin
Luther King Junior's 1964 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech,
where he said I accept this award today with an abiding
faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of
mankind. Powerful words.
And the source connects that statement about hope and resolve
to the core message of the Nobelparadox.
(24:32):
It argues that the real strengthof democracy lies in its ability
to confront hypocrisy without losing hope.
That's a really poignant connection.
It grounds the seemingly cynical, ironic act in a much
deeper faith. Faith in democracy, in reason,
in society's ability to change for the better.
It's about facing uncomfortable truths not with despair, but
with a conviction that truth, once unmasked, can lead to
(24:55):
positive change. Confronting reality with hope.
And it leaves us with this really provocative closing
image, a metaphor. Irony can be a scalpel, cutting
through propaganda without drawing blood.
Wow. Surgical.
Yeah, precise nonviolent intellectual incision into
narratives that seem impenetrable.
It's not about force. It's about precision.
(25:15):
And the final question the source poses, the challenge to
all of us is just. The question is, will we dare to
use it? It's more than a question, isn't
it? It's a challenge pushes us
outside our usual ways of thinking about protest, about
activism, about the tools we have for change.
Asks if we're willing to use unconventional, intellectual,
morally precise tools to educate, to spark reflection
(25:37):
when facing complex global challenges.
So we have taken a really deep dive today into the Nobel
paradox. We've explored how this
seemingly counterintuitive idea,using irony within a global
institution, could maybe serve as a potent tool, a way to
unmask rising authoritarianism and ignite these essential
conversations about power and peace.
(25:59):
It really offers a blueprint forcreative engagement, doesn't it?
Shows how even subtle strategic actions within existing systems
can create these powerful rippleeffects in public opinion, in
global discourse. It's about leverage.
We really encourage you, our listeners, discuss this, talk
about it with others, in person,online, share these ideas in
your networks, your participation in public
conversation. That is a vital part of building
(26:20):
the future you want to see. Your voice matters.
It's about being an active participant in shaping
understanding, not just a passive observer collective of
critical engagement. And if you found this deep dive
useful, if it made you think, please do consider liking it,
sharing it with someone else whomight find it interesting, and
subscribing to the deep dive. Your support truly helps us keep
(26:42):
doing these explorations and reach more curious learners like
you and. Remember that final thought from
the source? Sometimes the most peaceful
protest is to let hypocrisy speak for itself, loudly,
publicly, and undeniably. This deep dive certainly gives
us a framework for thinking about how that might be done.
What stands out most to you fromtoday's deep dive?
(27:23):
They want control and hate. It's never too late.
No more fascist, no more lies. We fight for freedom with no
fair lies. You are a lies man.
You found yours way. Liberty's life is here to stay.
(27:44):
It's not lies for socialism gainfascism fire.
It's a different way. It's a terrier Rd. crashing all
this salary. No truth rises prevent no all
fascist. No more lies.
We fight for freedom with no fair lies.
(28:05):
You enlightenment, the founder'sway.
Liberty's life is here to stay. It's not marks on socialism,
game, fascism. Fire is a different frame.
Authoritarian rule crashing off the scent.
We know the truth. Resist, prevent.
(28:28):
No affection, no more lies, fight for freedom with no bad
lies. New and life and the founders
way. Liberty's life is here to stay.
Fear and meger feed their hate but unity can change our fate. 7
mounts and strong and tall justice and truth will never
(28:50):
fall So if your education stand up proud.
Independent media shouted loud. Come Father, with systems power
in our hands, together we'll rebuild our lands.
No a fashions, no more lies. We fight for freedom with open
(29:13):
eyes. New enlightenment, the founder's
way. Liberty's life is here to stay.
No a fashions no more lies. New man lies them which rise,
rise, rise.
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!