Jean Henry Dunant (1901) and Theodore Roosevelt (1906) are the two Laureates who clearly fall outside any of the categories mentioned so far. Dunant, who founded the International Red Cross in 1863, had been more or less forgotten until a campaign secured him several international prizes, including the first Nobel Peace Prize. The Norwegian Nobel Committee thus established a broad definition of peace, arguing that even humanitarian work embodied "the fraternity between nations" that Nobel had referred to in his will. Roosevelt was the twenty-sixth president of the United States and the first in a long series of statesmen to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He received the prize for his successful mediation to end the Russo-Japanese war and for his interest in arbitration, having provided the Hague arbitration court with its very first case. Internationally, however, he was best known for a rather bellicose posture, which certainly included the use of force. It is known that both the secretary and the relevant adviser of the Nobel Committee at that time were highly critical of an award to Roosevelt. It is thus tempting to speculate that the American president was honored at least in part because Norway, as a new state on the international arena, "needed a large, friendly neighbor - even if he is far away," as one Norwegian newspaper put it. Even if, or perhaps rather because, the prize to Roosevelt was controversial, it did in some ways constitute a breakthrough in international media interest in the Nobel Peace Prize.
Have to admit I sometimes use “English” for “British” out of annoyance with the Scotch Nat cucks, who pretend to be nationalists but wish to destroy the United Kingdom, and take Scotland into the intimate embrace of the EU where they will have a much smaller (essential zero) voice than they have in Britain: a Britain that they have often, in effect, ruled through powerful ministers including Prime Ministers MacDonald, MacMillan, Home, Blair, and that Brown turn, wh0 called an old woman a bigot for objecting to the genocidal flood of immigration promoted by Brown’s cuck Labor Government.
The eminent Jewish theologian and philosopher, Martin Buber , had a lifelong interest in psychoanalysis, and may have attended the same Eranos conference with Jung in 1934. In 1952 Buber and Jung exchanged letters regarding a paper Buber had published entitled “Religion and Modern Thinking”. In his rejoinder, Buber claimed that Jung had strayed outside his realm of expertise into theology by asserting that God does not exist independent of the psyches of human beings. He concluded that Jung was “mystically deifying the instincts instead of hallowing them in faith”, which he called a “modern manifestation of Gnosis”.