Dehai News

https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/daniel-davis-demonstrates-how-profoundly

https://theduran.com/daniel-davis-demonstrates-how-profoundly-fraudulent-the-u-s-

Daniel Davis Demonstrates How Profoundly Fraudulent the U.S. Empire Is

2  November 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36LxPXW67EY

“Shameful Militarization of the Nobel Peace Prize /Lt Col Daniel Davis”

1 November 2025

0:03

The Nobel Peace Prize

0:04

is supposed to be the highest award

0:06

given for those who were doing the best

0:08

to seek peace that they're trying to

0:11

say, "Hey, we see all this violence

0:13

going on and there's a better way.

0:15

That's what it's supposed to be. As a

0:16

matter of fact, let me just show you

0:18

what it actually is physically,

0:20

definitionally supposed to be. Here's

0:22

what the Nobel Peace Prize is supposed

0:24

to be all about:  “In his will, he

0:25

established this prestigious honor in

0:27

1901 to be awarded to those who have

0:30

made the most significant contributions

0:32

toward creating a better, more

0:33

harmonious planet. The criteria for the

0:36

Nobel Peace Prize, as outlined in Alfred

0:38

Nobel's will, are both specific and

0:40

profound. The prize is awarded to those

0:42

who have done the most for and

0:44

fraternity between nations by fostering

0:46

cooperation and resolving conflicts

0:48

through dialogue, the abolition or

0:50

reduction of standing armies,

0:52

championing global disarmament efforts,

0:54

and the holding and promotion of peace

0:56

congresses, creating vital platforms for

0:59

negotiation.”

1:01

Okay, that's what Alfred Nobel wanted.

1:05

That's what he set up this whole peace

1:07

prize to be. And that's what it used to be

1:09

probably a long time ago now. It used to

1:11

actually be that. And over the last

1:14

decade or so, maybe a couple decades, I

1:16

think it's become more political. Um,

1:20

and and I think that uh it's it's more

1:22

like the idea that people just say,

1:24

"Hey, let's use the Nobel Peace Prize.

1:26

I'm talking even about the the Nobel

1:28

Prize Committee themselves, uh,, to to try

1:30

to give uh messages."

1:33

That's not what it was supposed to be

1:35

about. And then, unfortunately, that

1:37

cheapens it. And so, over a period of

1:40

time, it's become a lot less important.

1:42

It it's become a lot less prestigious,

1:44

and really it's not even taken seriously

1:46

by people. Now, however, I think because

1:50

of the 2025 award, it is now probably or

1:54

possibly in any way, become irredeemably

1:57

compromised. Now, I think it is it is

2:00

more of just an outright joke. Here,

2:03

first of all is the announcement of the

2:05

winner for 2025.

2:07

“The Nobel Peace Prize for 2025

2:11

goes to a brave and committed champion

2:15

of peace.

2:17

To a woman who keeps the flame of

2:20

democracy burning amidst a growing

2:23

darkness.

2:25

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has

2:27

decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize

2:31

for 2025

2:33

to Maria Corina Machado.

2:38

She is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize

2:41

for her tireless work promoting

2:43

democratic rights for the people of

2:47

Venezuela and for her struggle to

2:50

achieve a just and peaceful transition

2:54

from dictatorship to democracy.”

2:58

So she is a champion of peace. So he

3:02

says. She has tireless work advancing

3:06

democracy. First of all, there was

3:08

nothing in the Nobel Peace announcement

3:10

uh in the prize itself. He said anything

3:12

about democracy. It said about getting

3:15

rid of standing armies. It said finding

3:17

dialogue. Those were the things that it

3:19

talked about. He didn't even mention

3:20

that. And then he says that yes this is

3:23

a person who is moving to use peaceful

3:26

process to move from de dictatorship to

3:29

democracy. Right? You caught that. Now

3:32

then, let's see. And I think it was just

3:34

yesterday, the winner was asked, "Do you

3:37

advocate the use of force and violence

3:41

to achieve your peaceful transition?"

3:43

“Do you support US military strikes on

3:46

the territory of Venezuela as part of

3:48

what you call a process? I believe that

3:52

the increase in pressure and the

3:54

escalation that's taking place is the

3:57

only way to force Maduro to understand

4:00

that it's time to go.”

4:03

The only way to force Maduro to

4:06

understand that it's time to go. So,

4:10

because you don't like him and this is

4:12

of course an opposition political figure

4:14

inside Venezuela

4:16

uh who was a very good friend of the

4:18

United States and was very closely tied

4:20

in even with the vice president and now

4:22

then when asked you just got the Nobel

4:26

Peace Prize which look talks about the

4:28

disarmament this talks about diminishing

4:30

armies using dialogue instead of

4:33

violence that's the literal definition

4:35

of the word and your first statement is,

4:39

yeah, I'm for all of this military power

4:41

that I just described to you just a

4:42

minute ago about all of this this

4:44

aircraft carrier, uh the the frigots,

4:47

the destroyers, the missile carriers,

4:50

all the airplanes with all of its lethal

4:52

ordinance and and these Marines that are

4:54

apparently ready to storm ashore

4:56

somewhere, take some kind of military

4:59

action, kill people on the ground.

5:02

That's your answer. That's our Nobel

5:05

Peace Prize winner, folks. That's not a

5:08

Nobel Peace Prize. There's nothing peace

5:09

about that at all. That is just another

5:11

political opposition figure that wants

5:14

to use violence to overthrow an existing

5:16

government that they don't like. You can

5:18

argue that he didn't win uh legitimately

5:21

the election. Many in most in the West,

5:24

maybe everybody in the West claims he

5:25

didn't. There are others in the in the

5:27

world and certainly they do claim that

5:28

no, it was legitimate. It doesn't even

5:31

matter. I don't know the answer. I I I

5:32

don't know if it was legitimate or not.

5:34

What I do know, however, is that is the

5:37

government that is in place right now. I

5:39

also know and actually Mr. Barnes

5:42

validated this on our show yesterday

5:44

from a legal perspective that even if

5:47

that is true and who can say with any

5:49

authority if it is, but even if it were

5:52

there is no legal authority that exists

5:56

in international law in any kind of

5:58

national law in the United States that

6:00

says an another government from another

6:03

country separate can just say I don't

6:06

like the elections that you held so I'm

6:08

going to kill the guy that's sitting in

6:10

the office of the of the president. It

6:13

just doesn't exist.

6:15

And and now then you're talking about a

6:17

revolution where you're an opposition

6:19

figure and you want to rise up and kill

6:21

the guy in charge or force him out by

6:23

whatever means and you're you cool with

6:27

using American military power to do

6:29

that. Why wouldn't they? But this sounds

6:32

really similar. If it sounds familiar to

6:34

you, it should because this is not too

6:36

dissimilar to what the United States did

6:38

in Libya in 2011. You may remember

6:42

Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of

6:44

State, infamously says, "We came, we

6:45

saw, he died." Haha. And what a what a

6:48

fun time that was. And and how many

6:51

people in Libya died as a result of

6:53

this. So there was an opposition at the

6:56

time. There was a resistance to Gaddafi.

6:59

We did support it with military power.

7:02

The United States and a number of other

7:03

countries, especially with air power,

7:05

and helped knock down his uh his

7:08

ability, Gaddafi's ability to defend

7:10

himself. And then he ends up getting

7:12

just brutally slaughtered in the streets

7:13

in the most horrific way. And to this

7:16

day, there still are competing

7:18

governments inside Libya. And they've

7:22

they went on to well over a decade of of

7:25

effective civil war uh and all kinds of

7:28

violence and dis disunityity. And of

7:30

course that keeps the country from ever

7:31

healing and moving on and becoming

7:33

better and having a a si a single

7:35

government that can protect its people.

7:38

Now we're sitting here potentially going

7:40

to do the same thing here. And do we

7:41

have to go back to Iran 1953 when we

7:45

unseeded that one with the CIA? we

7:48

helped to overthrow the illegally

7:49

elected government or do I need to go to

7:51

2014 when we helped overthrow the

7:53

legally elected government in Ukraine,

7:56

Yanukovich, and then put in somebody

7:57

that we wanted and then that set the

8:00

stage for a civil war in Ukraine for

8:01

eight years and the war we still suffer

8:03

through today?

8:05

How many times do we have to keep

8:10

repeating the same thing and hoping for

8:12

a different outcome every time? Now, I

8:15

know many like Lindsey Graham wants to

8:17

say, "Hey, well, it worked for uh

8:19

Noriega to get him. Uh, it worked in

8:22

Panama. It worked." So, it worked for

8:24

George Bush. It worked for Ronald

8:26

Reagan. Sure, they violated the law.

8:28

Sure, they violated the Constitution,

8:29

but it was a little thing. And it was in

8:31

and out. It was overquick. Bam. Done.

8:34

This is not Panama. This is not that

8:36

situation here. The conditions are quite

8:38

quite different here. And you're not

8:40

going to go. Number one, you don't have

8:42

the the element of surprise at all. and

8:44

you don't have the overwhelming

8:45

firepower, a lot of the conditions don't

8:47

exist there. Just militarily, it's not

8:50

the same situation. More likely, you're

8:52

going to get something like you did in

8:53

Libya. But, but even aside from how it

8:56

physically works out, understand this,

8:59

folks. The United States achieved great

9:02

power status obviously because of its

9:04

its economic and military power that it

9:07

had, but also because of the power of

9:10

its of its morality even. Now, I know a

9:15

lot of people just rolled their eyes

9:16

when I said that because they're

9:17

thinking, you know, the US has always

9:18

been uh an imperial power and they've

9:21

done a lot of bad things. Believe me,

9:23

I'm aware of that. But there have also

9:26

been considerable period times where we

9:28

actually did the right thing, at least

9:30

to a degree. Now then, the degree is

9:34

vanishing. Now then, we're not even

9:36

pretending to be a country governed by

9:38

the rule of law. We have said for a

9:40

couple of decades, you know, the

9:41

rules-based international order, the

9:43

United States is the indispensable

9:44

nation, etc. A nation for good. We used

9:47

that used to be the the uh tagline of

9:49

the Navy, a force for good is what we

9:52

used to say.

9:54

That was never fully true for for many

9:57

of the reasons I just outlined here. But

9:59

now, folks, we're getting into position

10:01

where we're not even going to pretend.

10:03

And and when you put off even the

10:06

pretense of following the rule of law,

10:09

you adopt a a more and more dangerous

10:11

situation to where I'm not going to be

10:14

constrained by any laws. And that is

10:17

where you get the seeds start

10:19

germinating for authoritarianism.

10:22

Now, a lot of people think, well, that

10:23

can't happen in America. We've got 250

10:26

years. We're about to celebrate our

10:27

250th year. Can't happen here. Yeah, we

10:30

can have some problems here and there

10:31

and we we push the envelopes, etc. But

10:34

we're that that doesn't happen in our

10:36

country. It's not like North Korea or

10:39

the the Soviet Union or something like

10:41

that or or or you know, communist China.

10:45

Not like Cuba, right? But that's how

10:47

these things start, friends. That's

10:50

exactly how they start. Now, we're not

10:51

just starting. We're moving beyond

10:53

start. the seeds are germinating and and

10:56

just power and people being what they

10:58

are throughout millennia of human

11:01

history. When they get power and when

11:03

they find out that there's no

11:05

consequence for violating the law, they

11:08

just keep going and accelerating

11:11

this. We got to get this caught. This is

11:13

not just a matter of how Trump is going

11:15

to operate politically the remainder of

11:17

his term depending on how this goes out.

11:19

This is a much bigger issue because this

11:21

is not just a Republican issue. This is

11:23

an American issue because these seeds

11:26

have been planted by both Republicans

11:28

and Democrats. I mean, you can go back

11:31

to I mean really even before you can go

11:34

back to George Bush the 19 the 41st

11:37

president and you can go to Clinton. You

11:39

can go to Bush 43. You can you go to

11:42

Obama. You can go to Trump the first one

11:45

definitely Biden and now then here Trump

11:48

the second term and you see it continues

11:51

to accelerate continues to deepen, it

11:54

continues to move in more dangerous

11:55

territory. We dare not keep these seeds

11:58

going. It is time to kill this at the

12:00

root. Pull them up. Poison the rest of

12:02

those seeds and get it stopped while we

12:05

still can because there could come a day

12:07

when even me making a video like this

12:10

could get me in trouble, could get me

12:13

arrested. I don't know. But that's where

12:16

we're heading, folks. We need to take

12:18

action now to make sure we never get to

12:20

that point. And one of the best things

12:22

we can do right now is to stop this

12:24

madness going into Venezuela to use

12:26

lethal military power when it's not

12:29

needed or legal. That's where we are.

12:32

——

MY COMMENTS: The Peace-Prize winner Machado is the head of one of Venezuela’s three oligarchic families, and has always supported the U.S. Government’s efforts since Hugo Chavez was elected in 2002, to overthrow and replace Venezuela’s Government. Eva Golinger’s 25 February 2017 article “US Aggression Against Venezuela: Fact, Not Fiction” said:

A coup d’etat against Chávez was carried out on April 11, 2002. Documents obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) evidence a clear role of the U.S. government in the coup, as well as financial and political support for those Venezuelans involved.

A “lockout” and economic sabotage of Venezuela’s oil industry was imposed from December 2002 to February 2003.  After the defeat of the coup against Chavez, the U.S. State Department issued a special fund via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to help the opposition continue efforts to overthrow Chavez. USAID set up an Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI) in Caracas, subcontracting U.S. defense contractor Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI) to oversee Venezuela operations and distribute millions of dollars to anti-government groups. …

The Recall Referendum of 2004: Both NED and USAID channeled millions of dollars into a campaign to recall President Chavez through a national recall referendum. With the funds, the group Sumate, led by multi-millionaire Maria Corina Machado, was formed to oversee the efforts. Chavez won the referendum in a landslide 60-40 victory.

2005

After the victory of President Chavez in the recall referendum of 2004, the US toughened its position towards Venezuela and increased its public hostility and aggression against the Venezuelan government. Here are a selection of statements made about Venezuela by U.S. officials:

January 2005: “Hugo Chavez is a negative force in the region.” -Condoleezza Rice.

March 2005: “Venezuela is one of the most unstable and dangerous ‘hot spots’ in Latin America.” -Porter Goss, ex-Director of the CIA. …

In February 2014, the violent protests resume, led by Leopoldo Lopez and Maria Corina Machado, who openly call for the overthrow of President Maduro, and over 40 people are killed. Lopez turns himself in to authorities and faces charges for his role in the violence. The U.S. government calls for his immediate release. …

Anti-government leaders circulate a document for a “transitional government agreement” which warns President Maduro’s government is in its “final stage” and pledges to overhaul the entire government and socialist system in place, replacing it with a neoliberal, pro-business model. The document is signed by Maria Corina Machado, jailed opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez and Antonio Ledezma, mayor of Metropolitan Caracas.

Days later, a coup plot against President Nicolas Maduro is thwarted and 10 active Venezuelan military officers are detained. Antonio Ledezma is arrested and charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government and the U.S. State Department issues a harsh condemnation of his detention, calling on regional governments to take action against the Maduro administration. …

In 2009, the Nobel Peace Prize went to the newly elected U.S.  President Barack Obama for his mere rhetoric. He started his Presidency planning for the overthrows of Governments in Syria, Ukraine, and Libya, all of which ultimately succeeded and started wars there. On 9 March 2015 Obama declared “a national emergency” to overthrow Venezuela’s Government, and intensified U.S. sanctions against the country. On 3 July 2023, the Georgetown Public Policy Review headlined “US Sanctions are Robbing Venezuelans of Basic Human Rights” and documented that U.S.-and-allied sanctions had impoverished the Venezuelans. However, that’s not the U.S. Government’s view; and on 16 July 2018, a major voice of U.S. billionaires, Foreign Policy magazine, headlined “HOW VENEZUELA STRUCK IT POOR” and blamed Venezuela’s Government for that poverty, not America’s Government.

It has been a massive PR campaign by the billionaires, and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is clearly one of its many operative organizations.

For the Nobel Peace Prize to be so blatantly partisan for the U.S. empire and against its intended victims is more than outrageous.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.