Recently I published an essay in which I zoomed in on the role of 'Experts', and I added a video in which the learned presenter explained why it was a horrible idea to pursue policies on nothing but 'Good Intentions'. Today I want to expand on that to say a few words on the role of 'traitors'. I'm being called a 'traitor' whenever I offer my 'qualified' opinion on controversial matters, if that opinion diverts from the authority imposed consensus. In which 'qualified' has no other meaning than: 'Based on the knowledge I have acquired, and being honest'. In that same essay on 'Experts' I directed my readers to a video in which the presenter, a former decorated American career officer with an academic background, offered proof of the fallibility of 'Experts' in his own field of expertise, in that case two former generals, now acting as media stars.
My 'qualified' opinion may be wrong, like that of *everybody* else, including the 'qualified' opinion of any 'Expert'. I do not lie and cheat, and therefore I'm no traitor, but a 'Truth-Teller', in which 'Truth' has to be seen as an attempt to stick as close as possible to observable facts, explaining how it will influence important developments, and therefore possibly painful. I'm not repeating narratives force-fed to me by anyone. And I stay away from calling people who disagree with me 'names' so as to portray them as the 'enemy', unless it becomes obvious that they are not 'ignorant' while acting in 'criminal' ways.
If a person is not 'ignorant', and acting in 'criminal' ways, that person becomes a 'person of interest'. Why is that individual betraying his or her country, and/or the people in that country? First of all, there are those who betray to get rich. They are the predators, acting alone, or in small elitist groups, feeding off the 'masses', and to Hell with the people, and everything else. Next are the individuals who find themselves 'trapped'. They act in ways which are harmful, or against the penal code in a country, without actually betraying anyone. Often acts of corruption. 'If I scratch your back, you can scratch mine, and nobody will notice'. Unless that individual is a guy or gal running spies. The 'Epstein Saga', set up as a 'honey trap', and with every act to prevent being exposed as a corrupt individual, the traitor is sucked in deeper.
And the last group consists of 'ideologues' and 'adventurers', of which the 'ideologues' are stubborn, while the 'adventurers' will likely drop the ball the moment they may start to feel the heat.
Missing from this short list are the 'Bots', the non-persons, run from 'Troll-Farms' flooding the internet hunting opponents of questionable policies and wars, driven by 'scripts', to make life miserable for these opponents, or merely to keep them busy in the equivalent of a cage-fight, so they can't do any research, or reach out to the people under threat. And their nitwit human 'copy-cats', following 'trends' 24/7, completely unaware of what they are doing. This latter conflicted group may cheer for leaders and organisations which are instrumental in the wars they say they abhor. They are stupid, irrespective of IQ or level of education. They mainly betray themselves, and their loved ones, as well as the victims of that war, without knowing it.
Traitors driven by 'ideology' and the 'adventurers' are more dangerous than the others. 'Experts' lying to the people are a dangerous lot. Willy OAM, the Australian former soldier who fought in Afghanistan, and who went to Ukraine in 2022 offering support to that country after the war broke out, today presenting video's on YT with useful analysis, is bitter about propagandists, lying about *everything' related to that war to win the 'hearts and minds' of those who are sure to end up dead, or paying the bills, since the war itself is going sideways. That 'Information Warfare' part should follow developments 'on the ground' from his professional point of view, or it will confuse those doing the fighting, which is bound to have serious, unpleasant consequences.
Clearly Willy and I do not see 'eye to eye' on what triggered this war in the first place, but I fully agree with him on that observation that propaganda cannot shape the battlefield. We are both targeted by activists, and 'Bots', no doubt, who accuse us of being 'Vatniks', without any of them *ever* engaging in meaningful debate. While he, and I, despite our differences, see how various individuals shaping policy are betraying the soldiers, and the people they are supposed to lead and serve.
*Real* traitors, knowingly and willingly betraying the people, are a *VERY* serious danger, especially in a war. Both a shooting war, and in an economic war. Betrayal is often intended, and baked in the cake before the shooting starts, or before the economic war is declared, and considered 'smart' when there is a need to overcome resistance among the 'sheep'. If the war is successful, everybody on the winning side agrees that the traitors were 'smart cookies' instrumental to bringing victory, *even* if many people died unnecessarily from an objective point of view, because diplomacy was never even attempted. The side losing consists of nothing *but* traitors after the war ends, but that is clearly not the correct way to look at it. That is hate doing the talking.
Spy-agencies on all sides look for traitors in other countries all the time, and the most valuable are assigned personal 'handlers'. The value of a traitor changes with the tide, and if a traitor is no longer valuable to an agency, that agency *may* decide to give him or her a 'free pass' and a 'new identity' out of gratitude. Or that agency may decide to end his or her life to prevent that traitor from talking, or throwing him or her under the bus to serve as a martyr if that traitor was long since exposed as an agent of a foreign power anyway, while making it look like the country he or she betrayed killed that traitor. In that capacity the traitor is more useful dead than alive, and no longer a burden or risk, clearing the path for a successor. Ideologically motivated traitors are notoriously difficult to control, and ideal to turn into a martyr after they are no longer useful.
Traitors may fall from windows, get poisoned, or they are gunned down, or blown up, or they are themselves betrayed because they are more useful in prison, or hanging from the gallows than in the employ of the power which exploited them. Whenever a person dies who is recognised as a traitor, or an individual 'critical' of the regime in his or her own country, the very first question on everybody's lips should be: 'Who Benefits?'.
Most traitors conspiring against their own country, and the people they are a part of, are *never* caught. Less so when they are high up in the hierarchy, 'leaking' and 'directing', 'profiteering', and 'steering' decisions in a direction which is going to lead to defeat for sure, but not for them. When caught lying and cheating, and spilling the beans to nefarious parties working against the best interest of the people, they can pretend that they were merely stupid. Honest to God, they had the best intentions! They *really* thought that the plan to overextend and unbalance Russia would work. They *truly* believed that cutting Europe off from affordable energy would bring the continent prosperity. And who could have thought that this fence and minefield they built to keep the Russians out could come in handy when you wanted to keep the Europeans in?