Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

White Powder, Dark Legacy – Part II: The Merchant of Death and the Price of Redemption


How a Mistaken Obituary and a Life Built on Explosives Gave Birth to the Greatest PR Cover-Up in the History of Peace

By Marivel Guzman | Akashma News


Obituary of Infamy: The Death That Wasn’t

A golden Nobel Peace Prize medal cracks open to reveal barbed wire and artillery shells — a symbol of concealed violence beneath the myth of peace.
Digital illustration generated by AI | Concept by Marivel Guzman | Akashma News

In 1888, death knocked — but not for Alfred Nobel. It came for his brother Ludvig. Yet in a tragic twist of error, a French newspaper published an obituary for Alfred instead, bearing the now-infamous title: “Le marchand de la mort est mort” — “The Merchant of Death is Dead.”

The obituary condemned him in no uncertain terms: “Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding more ways to kill people faster than ever before, died yesterday.” The paper, mistaking identity and fate, did not just misreport a death — it ignited a legacy crisis.

For Alfred Nobel, a man who held over 350 patents and presided over a transcontinental web of explosives and weapons factories, the headline struck deeper than any criticism he had ever faced. It wasn’t just public shame — it was a preview of how history would remember him–not as a benefactor of science, but as a harbinger of death. And he couldn’t allow that.

Thus began the most elaborate act of image laundering in modern history — the founding of the Nobel Peace Prize.

This moment didn’t inspire him. It terrified him. Within a few years, Nobel would write a new will — not to change the world, but to clean his name.

But contrary to the romantic mythology crafted by mainstream biographies and fanfare, Nobel’s creation was not born from an epiphany or a deep-seated yearning for peace. It was an act of strategic repentance — a calculated move to offset a violent empire with a philanthropic afterlife. The Peace Prize became a posthumous shield, not a symbol of his ideals, but a buffer against the damning truth of his industrial legacy.

Obituary of Infamy: The Death That Wasn’t

In April 1888, the Journal des Débats, a prominent French newspaper, ran an obituary that would echo through history—not for its tribute, but for its mistake. The paper believed Alfred Nobel had died while visiting Cannes. In truth, it was his brother Ludvig who had passed. But it was Alfred’s name, Alfred’s face, and Alfred’s legacy that graced the page under a damning headline:

“Le marchand de la mort est mort”
“The Merchant of Death is Dead”

Rather than a eulogy, it read like a public indictment.

It portrayed Nobel not as a man of science or innovation, but as a profiteer of carnage—a man who had made his fortune by engineering tools of destruction, and whose legacy would be written in blood, not ink.

This public misfire was no trivial error. For Nobel, it served as a preview of judgment day, not in a religious sense—he was a committed atheist—but in the court of public memory. The shame was immediate, and perhaps for the first time, irrevocable.

Though Nobel never publicly acknowledged the obituary’s impact, the timeline is telling. Within months, he began drafting revisions to his will. And by 1895—one year before his death—he completed a legally binding testament that redirected the bulk of his vast fortune not to family, not to science, but to the creation of a peace prize.

But not just peace — he included prizes for chemistry, physics, medicine, literature, and economics. Peace was almost an afterthought — tucked among disciplines that, ironically, had already helped refine warfare. This wasn’t about peace — it was about legacy control.

Contextual Anchor:

At the time of Ludvig’s death and the mistaken obituary, Alfred Nobel:

Held over 355 patents globally

Operated more than 90 factories tied to weapons, projectiles, and explosives production

Accumulated wealth through arms contracts from major European powers

Calling him a “man of peace” would be like calling an arms dealer a conflict resolution expert.

“He did not fear Hell. He feared being forgotten – or worse, remembered as what he truly was”
Marivel Guzman, Akashma News

Peace for Sale: Nobel’s Will and the Reinvention of a Warmonger

On November 27, 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his third and final will at the Swedish-Norwegian Club in Paris. It was brief, startlingly vague, and — for a man obsessed with precision — surprisingly open to interpretation.

In just over 1,200 words, Nobel allocated 94% of his vast fortune (roughly $200 million USD in today’s value) to establish annual prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature — and Peace.

But the wording of the Peace Prize bequest was as elusive as his character:

“…to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

On paper, this sounds noble. But in practice, it was a clause written without structure, oversight, or clarity — ripe for manipulation.

The Peace Clause: Loopholes, Ambiguity, and Historical Irony

Unlike the other prizes, which had clear scientific or literary criteria, the Peace Prize was rooted in subjective terms: “fraternity,” “peace congresses,” “abolition of armies.” Nobel did not name a peace foundation, a review committee, or even a political framework to define these goals.

The result? The Norwegian Storting (Parliament), not even mentioned in the will, quickly took ownership of the Peace Prize selection. This was a deeply political body — and its decisions over the next century would prove that “peace” was often awarded to military leaders, imperialists, and proxy-war apologists.

Contradictions Worth Highlighting:

Nobel left no requirement for transparency, allowing for secrecy in deliberations

Several Peace Prize recipients have been presidents, prime ministers, or military commanders — figures whose nations were actively at war at the time of the award

War criminals like Henry Kissinger, and preemptive invaders like Barack Obama, were laureates — mocking Nobel’s stated goal of reducing standing armies

Delucidation:

The Peace Prize was never designed to ensure peace. It was structured to protect Nobel’s name. By tying his fortune to an institution of “fraternity,” Nobel placed his legacy into a protective shell — a fortress of moral authority, guarded not by ethics but by gold and global ceremony.

“The man who gave the world dynamite also gave it a gold medal for pretending not to use it.”
Marivel Guzman, Akashma News

Laureates of Hypocrisy: When Peace Was Awarded for War

Alfred Nobel’s Peace Prize, supposedly intended to reward efforts to abolish war and promote fraternity between nations, has repeatedly fallen into the hands of those whose legacies are soaked in blood, surveillance, or strategic silence. Instead of honoring peacemakers, the Nobel Committee has often decorated power brokers, political opportunists, and even perpetrators of violence — all under the gilded mask of diplomacy.

Here are just a few of the most glaring contradictions:

Henry Kissinger – 1973

“Awarded for negotiating the Vietnam ceasefire.”


While Kissinger accepted the prize, the war raged on for two more years. Secret bombings in Cambodia and Laos, orchestrated under his authority, left millions dead and destabilized Southeast Asia. The irony was so grotesque that Le Duc Tho, his Vietnamese counterpart, refused the prize altogether.

Barack Obama – 2009

“For extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy.”


When awarded, Obama was barely in office. He would go on to expand drone warfare, authorize more arms sales than any president before him, and oversee NATO’s intervention in Libya, which led to the total collapse of a sovereign state.

Menachem Begin – 1978

“For peace negotiations with Egypt.”

Begin, former commander of the Zionist militant group Irgun, had overseen bombings, assassinations, and ethnic cleansing campaigns during Israel’s founding years. The group’s 1946 attack on the King David Hotel left 91 dead. Peace with Egypt was strategic, not moral.

Aung San Suu Kyi – 1991

White Powder, Dark Legacy: Alfred Nobel’s War for Peace**

This investigative feature revisits the life of Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, through a critical lens. It explores the contradictions between his contributions to warfare and his later public image as a benefactor of peace. Through analysis of Nobel’s writings and industrial empire, the piece dismantles the myth of a man driven by pacifism and reveals instead a legacy rooted in calculated power and destruction.

“For her non-violent struggle for democracy.”


Initially a global symbol of resistance, she later became complicit in the genocide of the Rohingya Muslims, defending the military’s atrocities at the International Court of Justice in 2019.

Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres – 1994

“For efforts to create peace in the Middle East.”


Both men had long careers in the Israeli military establishment. Peres was instrumental in establishing Israel’s nuclear weapons program, while Rabin oversaw brutal military operations during the First Intifada.

Delucidation:

The Nobel Peace Prize, designed by a man seeking to rewrite his own obituary, has itself become a tool of historical laundering — a way for empires to appear humane, for wars to be masked as diplomacy, and for the most powerful actors to be rebranded as peacemakers. It is no longer (if it ever was) a prize for peace — but a strategic endorsement, handed out by elites to other elites.

“When murderers receive medals, peace is no longer a goal — it’s a brand.”
Marivel Guzman, Akashma News

Nobel’s Final Invention: A Peace Prize for Empire

Alfred Nobel may have invented dynamite, but his most enduring creation wasn’t an explosive — it was a myth. A myth so powerful, so polished, so gold-plated, that it managed to detonate truth itself. The Nobel Peace Prize was never truly about peace. It was about reputation, redemption, and the reinvention of a man who built an empire on controlled destruction.

And in the century since his death, that myth has only expanded — weaponized by governments, legitimized by media, and sold to the world as a symbol of human progress. But behind the prize is a ledger of blood, a list of laureates whose hands were not clean, whose nations were not at peace, and whose policies deepened conflict under the banner of diplomacy.

The Peace Prize today stands not as a testament to peace, but as a trophy of power. It rewards the powerful for gestures, not consequences. It cloaks violence in statesmanship. It turns war into ceremony. And it does so using the name of a man who once feared being remembered as The Merchant of Death

But no medal can erase truth. No eulogy can sterilize legacy.
And no prize — no matter how prestigious — can silence the reckoning that comes when the myth begins to crack.

“Alfred Nobel didn’t invent peace. He invented a prize to hide from what he’d done — and gave the empire a medal to wear while doing the same.”

Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, dreamed of peace, and built a legacy that fuels both.

White Powder, Black Legacy–Part I: Alfred Nobel’s War for Peace

In Part III of White Powder, Dark Legacy, Akashma News peels back the curated legacy of Alfred Nobel, diving into his unpublished writings and private contradictions. Was the Nobel Peace Prize born out of conscience or calculation? With sharp analysis and rare archival reflections, this installment exposes the ghost behind the medal—where regret, fear, and strategic reinvention collide.

White Powder, Dark Legacy – Part III: The Ghost Behind the Medal Nobel’s Private Writings: Regret, Fear, or Reputation Manage

Anonymous petitions U.S. to see DDoS attacks as legal protest


Posted on January 10, 2013 by Akashma Online News

Source CNET

The hacking group claims DDoS attacks are like the Occupy movement — only instead of physical spaces, they’re occupying the Internet.

It’s hard to imagine a group that adheres to anarchic ideology would want its actions legalized under U.S. law. But that is exactly what Anonymous is doing.

The loose-knit group of hackers submitted a petition to President Obama this week asking that distributed denial-of-service attacks be recognized as a legal form of protest.

The petition, which is posted on the White House’s “We the People” Web site, claims that DDoS attacks are not illegal hacking but rather a way for people to carry out protests online. Similar to the Occupy movement when protesters pitched tents in public spaces, the petition says DDoS attacks also occupy public spaces in order to send a message.

With the advance in internet techonology [sic], comes new grounds for protesting. Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS), is not any form of hacking in any way. It is the equivalent of repeatedly hitting the refresh button on a webpage. It is, in that way, no different than any “occupy” protest. Instead of a group of people standing outside a building to occupy the area, they are having their computer occupy a website to slow (or deny) service of that particular website for a short time.As part of this petition, those who have been jailed for DDoS should be immediatly [sic] released and have anything regarding a DDoS, that is on their “records”, cleared.

Anonymous has claimed responsibility for many DDoS attacks over the years, the majority of which had political overtones. For example, in an effort to defend WikiLeaks in 2010, the hacking group launched a slew of DDoS attacks on companies, government agencies, and organizations it believed to be “impairing” WikiLeaks’ efforts to release classified information.

This year, Anonymous has also led DDoS campaigns against Syrian government Web sites for the government’s alleged shutdown of the Internet; and it has conducted a “cyberwar” against the Israeli government in protest of government attacks on Gaza.

The U.S. government may be hard pressed to accept Anonymous’ plea. Just yesterday, news hit that the massive DDoS campaign that has been targeting several U.S. banks is most likely being waged by Iran. It seems that it would be difficult for the U.S. government to accept this cyberattack as merely a legal form of protest.

Since Anonymous doesn’t have any particular structure or leader, it’s unclear who in the movement actually sent in this petition and agrees with what it’s asking of the government. So far, the request has gained little traction. It needs 25,000 signatures just for Obama to respond, and as of this writing it has only 729 signatures.

Whether Anonymous gets the ear of Obama or not, it’s looking like the group’s DDoS attacks will continue. Earlier this month, Anonymous announced, “Expect us 2013,” and said that it has no plans of slowing down. “We are still here,” it warned.

A Letter From A Concerned Citizen: Dear Mr President

October 10, 2011 2 comments

Posted on October 10, 2011 Akashma News
From Facebook by Hiam Tabbarah-Odds on Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 12:57pm

AN EMAIL I HAVE RECEIVED, UNFORTUNATELY IT HAS NO SIGNATURE, BUT IS WORTH READING. IT NEEDS NO AUTHENTICATION AND SHOULD BE THE ADDRESS OF EVERY AMERICAN TO THE PRESIDENT OR TO ANY PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

Dear Mr. President,

I am neither an expert on history nor a political activist; I am just an average American who is gravely concerned about the direction I see my country taking. I know you inherited a snake-pit of problems when you first took the oath just three years ago, but somehow when you said ‘Yes, we can!’ I believed you could find a way to return our country to its basic beliefs in liberty and justice for all.

I grew up being proud to be an American, inspired by Patrick Henry’s heroic words of ‘Give me liberty or give me death’, instilling in me a belief that liberty was indeed worth dying for. My grandfather enlisted in the army in 1914, thinking that his involvement would help make it the war to end all wars. Then just twenty-five years later, my father enlisted in the navy with the belief he was fighting against imperialism and tyranny. I am still proud of my grandfather and father for they left the safety of America to fight for the freedom of others.

Although neither my father’s nor my grandfather’s generations were able to being about the end to war, we as a nation have always been ready to fight for our own freedom as well as that of others. We have always admired any people who fought against the occupation of their nation, regarding the French resistance movement as especially inspirational. It seems the Palestinians who also live under occupation are not regarded as a people who have that same right.

Quite frankly, Mr. President, it appears to me that we no longer believe in justice and freedom for all, but only for those who can either be of financial benefit to us or for those who have the strongest lobby in Washington, D.C. How can we condemn UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and threaten to withhold millions of funds from them if they recognize Palestine as a valid member of the UN? Israel never had any problem when it asked for official recognition in the UN even though they were a nation created on land that was already populated by Palestinians. But Palestine, the land that is divided into shards of broken up city states, unable to even control who enters its own cities, its own borders or its own roads, is not seen as worthy of being part of the UN. And why? Because according to Israel, the Palestine Authority refuses to recognize it? I am sorry to tell you this, but they have recognized Israel over and over again. Are we suddenly deaf to anything a Palestinian says and open-eared for anything that comes from an Israeli? Why, might I ask, has Israel not recognized Palestine? Isn’t that a key to establishing a peaceful situation in the Middle East?

Just a quick look at UN Resolution 242 shows that Israel has been thumbing its nose at the UN for well over forty years. The preamble of this resolution makes it perfectly clear about the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security.” Does this not include Palestine or am I missing some tiny print that excludes them and only refers to Israel as having this right?

Let us not forget as well that this resolution also calls for the withdrawal of Israel’s armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict. Has that happened yet? All I see is the world turning a blind eye to what Israel continues to do, illegally entering into cities like Ramallah and Gaza claiming it is for security reasons. I wonder if we would feel the same if Mexican or Canadian troops violated the sovereignty of our borders with similar claims. I find it odd that Israel is the only nation in the world that is given carte blanche to do so.

I am confused between the America I thought we were, the nation that professes to stand for the rights of all, regardless of their religious beliefs, their color, their creed and the America I have seen over the past few years. I now see us as a 21st century Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde that one moment sends troops to fight for people’s rights and the next moment supports the strong-armed treatment of peaceful protesters when they stand against Israeli occupation.

Are we now a nation that stands like Caesar in the amphitheater of politics that either thumbs up or thumbs down the fate of a people? Is it thumbs up if we can benefit from what they have? Thumbs up if their lobby is so powerful we fear their power? Thumbs down if they are only fighting for freedom and independence? Thumbs down if they are Palestinian?

The people of Palestine need a voice in the United Nations which is an organization that my country fought very hard to establish in 1945. Let us not forget that all the Palestinians are asking for is to be recognized as the very nation the UN in Resolution 181 had tried to establish as far back as 1947. Yes, it was rejected by the Palestinians at that time because it meant giving up what was rightfully theirs in order to provide a safe haven for people who survived the holocaust in Europe. Now that the Palestinians have swallowed their pride, their wounds have scarred over and they are willing to accept that resolution, they are being denied. Have they waited too long? Was there an expiry date on the offer?

Why do we now oppose the recognition of Palestine if we tried to establish it over sixty years ago? What has changed? The people of Palestine lost everything when Israel came into being. They are an occupied people, like the French under the Nazis, but have we decided their resistance is wrong because it against the Israel? It can’t be because of religious differences because Palestinians are Jews, Muslims and Christians… but then you knew that already, right?

Why are we so afraid to stand up to Israel, the country that is the recipient of most of our tax money…the same country that blatantly ignores every UN Resolution concerning the Middle East…the same nation that contrary to UN orders, continues to build settlements and occupy land that is not rightfully theirs…the same country that openly practices state-supported terrorism of a people who, like David, throw stones at the Israeli Goliath who responds with tank fire, gas and bullets…the same country lead by a man who continues to openly insult you and our people? Netanyahu has consistently lied to the world about his intentions. He has done everything in his power to ensure that a Palestinian state is not created. Peace negotiations are nothing more than a cover to gain time to steal more land and water resources from the Palestinians. Mr. President, can you not see this or are you blinded by Israel’s control over whether you get re-elected or not?

Why do we allow ourselves to remain joined at the hip with a Siamese twin that is destroying our very core, our principles of human rights and justice? I am hoping you too can follow in the courageous footsteps of Presidents Eisenhower and Carter who stood up to Israel and said ‘No!’ Be the man who cuts this Gordian Knot and set us free!

Mr. President, do you really think our forefathers would be proud of what we have become? Don’t you think it is time to stand up to tyranny and break free of the chains that are holding us all back from supporting justice and freedom? Until that day, I shall weep for my nation and apologize to our forefathers for what we have become and for what we have done to our great nation.

With hope that you still can, I remain,

A Concerned American Citizen