Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Visit Ovi bookshop - Free eBooks  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Ovi Greece
Ovi Language
Ovi on Facebook
The Breast Cancer Site
Murray Hunter: Opportunity, Strategy and Entrepreneurship
Stop human trafficking
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
The pseudo-science of whistleblowers The pseudo-science of whistleblowers
by Joseph Gatt
2021-04-30 07:06:26
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

Some theories have it that whistleblowers are “desperate”. Other theories have it that whistleblowers are “mentally unstable.”

That's not correct.

I've studied and investigated whistleblowers over the years.

Before I get started, is Yossi Gatt a “whistleblower”? Yes and no. No because I don't think I ever gave the enemy information I should not have given. Yes because there are a few things I revealed here and there from research, investigation and deduction. But no, because I think (God help me) I rarely ever betrayed anyone's trust in the last couple of decades. God be my judge.

whist0001_400Anyway, who are the whistleblowers, what is their profile, why do they betray their unit's trust?

Here's how it works.

A works for team Alpha. Team Alpha is competing and fighting with team Beta.

Team Alpha trusts A and believes A is a valuable member of team Alpha. Team Alpha loves A.

But, in truth, A loves team Beta, and does not really like team Alpha.

Team Alpha is confused, because A has the kind of profile that should make him love team Alpha, and does not have the kind of profile that should make him rub shoulders with team Beta.

Let me give a concrete example of a “war” I fought many, many years ago.

There was this guy, let's call him “A” who was a terrorist of sorts. Now I, Yossi, relied on “J” and “R” and “JF” and “L” and a few others to help me defeat A.

A was a terrorist of sorts, foul temper, and a real threat to the community. “J” and “R” and “JF” promised to side with me in defeating “A”.

But to my surprise, I later found out that “J” and “R” and “JF” had been double agents, and gave very, very, very detailed reports to “A” about my plans to neutralize him. So “A” had all the information he needed.

Why did “J” and “R” and “JF” betray me? I thought they were my friends, but truth is, they were not, and they liked “A” a lot more. “J” and “R” and “JF” hated me for my intellect, relaxed demeanor, and how a lot of work came easy to me. They preferred “A” whose struggles they could identify with better.

That is like “A”, “J” and “R” and “JF” struggled to think straight, and they did not like my straight thinking. So in the end, the four of them were counter-attacking and plotting something against me, when I thought the four of us were going to defeat “A.”

When “A” was eventually neutralized, “J” told me he did not really like “A” either and gave me a very negative assessment of “A”. Yet, years later, I found out that “J” was never really bothered with “A” and that he liked “A” all along.

So when you recruit soldiers, you want to make sure that they don't like the enemy all that much.

So, the story goes, most whistleblowers are people whose patriotism and love for the nation and love for the unit we grossly overestimate.

That is, in military units, when someone makes it obvious that he or she dislikes the unit or dislikes his/her job, we usually “put them in the closet” that is give them a kitchen job or a cleaning job, or put them in charge of simple administrative tasks, or give them teaching jobs or jobs related to recreational activities and the like.

But, there are people in units who we think are very patriotic, when in fact they really side with the enemy.

What are the signs?

-They “look comfortable” and smile a lot and look “happy” but they do not overtly praise their job or their country.

-They never talk about what makes the country good or great. They rarely if ever say anything positive about the country.

-They might “jokingly” pull people's legs and make half-jokingly negative comments about the people in the unit.

-They rapaciously criticize the enemy, but their criticism of the enemy is really criticism of the country in disguise.

-They might complain a lot. Complain about the food, about the environment, about the weather.

-When handed information or intelligence, they listen very carefully, ask a lot of questions, but rarely give suggestions on how to handle the operation. Or if they do give suggestions, suggestions will involve the group or unit's behavior. Normal people usually only suggest moves for individual purposes.

-One sign to look out for: there's a mismatch between their values and the unit's values or the country's values. For example, an “honest” and “truth telling” soldier in the Arab world could well end up betraying the nation. A “pathological liar” in the US or Israel is likely to betray the unit in a country that more or less values honesty.

-It's not just the truth and lies. An educated soldier in the Arab world is likely to betray his nation. A middle school drop out in Israel or the US is more likely to betray the nation than a soldier who graduated high school.

-And it's not just education. A gay soldier in the Arab world is more likely to betray his nation. A racist soldier in the US or Israel is more likely to betray, because their racist views don't fit into the unit.

You get the idea.


    
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(0)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi