3 ms·

>There isn't a single group of people more motivated than the Scientologists Motivated maybe, but nation state actors have a much harder time. The WSJ just ra

>There isn't a single group of people more motivated than the Scientologists Motivated maybe, but nation state actors have a much harder time. The WSJ just ran an article yesterday about how difficult it is for the US to rebuild espionage networks in China after a relatively large bust a decade ago[1]. The Soviet Illegals program never included that many people, it's fiendishly difficult to get people into influential positions of a hostile government. It's much easier for a cult who has access to tons of already citizens to just get a job somewhere. I mean, with all the religious protections, they could do it half openly almost. Case in point, the fact that Scientology still exists as an entity despite all these bizarre operations probably wouldn't work for many other actors [1]https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/american-spies-confront-a-new-formidable-china-5c384370 https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/american-spie...

roenxi 3y ago
While anything is possible, hypothetically speaking, if the US had rebuilt their spy network quite quickly (or it wasn't hit that badly) what would you expect to see? I draw your attention to the fact that the WSJ is not, in fact, a reliable guide to the US clandestine programs. We might even expect the US officials to lie and claim that their spy networks are disrupted as a convenient form of misdirection. The game theory suggests that at almost literally no point should countries want their papers trumpeting that their foreign spy networks are extensive, robust and well established to the point where they survived an attempt at disruption. Especially if that were true.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  That's very true. In general, any information coming out more or less directly from a secret agency, from any state, can only be trusted to mean "the agency wants this message to be heard". It is absurd to believe public statements by people who are paid to hide the truth. Their motivation for stating something is never going to be "because that is true" (even when it is!), it is always calculated. And it's pretty clear that the WP doesn't have its own operatives monitoring US intelligence and Chinese counter-intelligence inside China. So they're getting their information directly from US intelligence (or, very unlikely, from Chinese intelligence).

roenxi 3y ago

While anything is possible, hypothetically speaking, if the US had rebuilt their spy network quite quickly (or it wasn't hit that badly) what would you expect to see? I draw your attention to the fact that the WSJ is not, in fact, a reliable guide to the US clandestine programs. We might even expect the US officials to lie and claim that their spy networks are disrupted as a convenient form of misdirection. The game theory suggests that at almost literally no point should countries want their papers trumpeting that their foreign spy networks are extensive, robust and well established to the point where they survived an attempt at disruption. Especially if that were true.

tsimionescu 3y ago
That's very true. In general, any information coming out more or less directly from a secret agency, from any state, can only be trusted to mean "the agency wants this message to be heard". It is absurd to believe public statements by people who are paid to hide the truth. Their motivation for stating something is never going to be "because that is true" (even when it is!), it is always calculated. And it's pretty clear that the WP doesn't have its own operatives monitoring US intelligence and Chinese counter-intelligence inside China. So they're getting their information directly from US intelligence (or, very unlikely, from Chinese intelligence).