5 ms·

I wish I could find the source now where Barsky was very patiently trying to explain to some right wing podcast bro exactly WHY Bezmenov was full of shit becaus

by mdhb 2y ago

I wish I could find the source now where Barsky was very patiently trying to explain to some right wing podcast bro exactly WHY Bezmenov was full of shit because it was fairly definitive for any person with even a basic understanding of intelligence but I assure you it really wasn’t a “both sides” kind of issue.

rramadass 2y ago
Jack Barsky himself is suspect, Nothing is ever definitively "True" to an outside observer in these subjects. The "Deception" book mentioned above says this; ... Rocca now switched to a more conditional and hypothetical tone. "Soviet intelligence had demonstrated with the Trust a capacity for future deceptions." He spoke almost proudly of the Soviet adversary, as if he were discussing what a magician had proven he could do in earlier tricks. "It demonstrated it could control double agents, like Yakushev, in foreign countries and over extended periods of time." Yakushev was the classic "dangle" which, in the invisible intelligence war, is someone who, while loyally taking orders from his own intelligence service, feigns disloyalty to his country to attract the attention of the other side,like the bait on a fish hook. The dangle may even pretend to defect—in which case he is called a "dispatched agent." "Soviet intelligence also showed it could orchestrate events over the better part of a decade so as to turn these controlled agents into sources on which the West relied." This "orchestration" involved simulating evidence to make a fake underground credible ...
- mdhb 2y ago
  I’m not trying to be rude about this at all, I’m just going to point out that this particular topic is one that I’m absolutely certain I know of in much more detail than you do. I’m obviously familiar with what a dangle is and how it works both in theory and in practice but if you’re trying to imply Barsky was somehow a dangle I wouldn’t politely say you don’t know what you’re talking about at all. I’m not trying to give you a hard time about this but if you have some kind of compelling evidence beyond what you’ve read in a single book I’d ask you to share it. To suggest Barsky is somehow suspect is really at odds with not only all of the details of his story and his eventual arrest but also the entire professional community on the subject. It’s just not true.
  - rramadass 2y ago
    I am not being rude either but your claims do not mean anything (this is The Internet after all). As i point out no outside observer can know the "Definitive Truth" in these sort of subjects. That is why i pointed to resources which give you a framework to understand the domain and perhaps maybe have some level of confidence in the validity of your own understanding. The individual episodes like Jack Barsky etc. are not useful unless you have a bigger puzzle into which you can slot in these episodes to arrive at a bigger more complete and more meaningful picture. That was what i was hinting at above. You can believe whatever you want but then it is up to you to figure out how closely your "beliefs" themselves are real well before you use them to "interpret" the "Real World".
    - mdhb 2y ago
      That bigger puzzle you are talking about is a topic I’m extremely familiar with. You appear to have read 3 random books (none of which were written by anyone who worked in that field) at some point and are now relying on excessive use of quotation marks to make it seem more mysterious than it is. I’m not looking to debate you on this one, I was pointing out that I happen to know with an incredibly high level of confidence that what you are saying isn’t correct.
      - rramadass 2y ago
        You can claim whatever you want on the Internet. I have seen no evidence from you (links/articles/books etc.) regarding your knowledge of the subject domain and hence do not have to take you seriously at all. The resources i have listed are for the general public to get an idea of how to think about the overall subject domain and not some rah-rah storybook. People who study strategy/tactics/politics/psychology/warfare/operant conditioning etc. will understand what i am driving at while the others can ignore it as they please.
        mdhb 2y ago
        I have a very hard time believing you actually study “strategy/tactics/politics/psychology/warfare/operant conditioning etc” and also came up with that particular list of book suggestions. One is from a straight up fraud. Another is based on an series of interviews with the man who is widely known as the single worst leader the CIA has ever had because he was so paranoid and ever since they got rid of him they have spent every moment warning against ever having another person like him in a leadership position again. The other I don’t know but seems to be really aligned with this same ultra paranoid worldview but has nothing to do with actual professionals.

by mdhb 2y ago

rramadass 2y ago

Jack Barsky himself is suspect, Nothing is ever definitively "True" to an outside observer in these subjects. The "Deception" book mentioned above says this; ... Rocca now switched to a more conditional and hypothetical tone. "Soviet intelligence had demonstrated with the Trust a capacity for future deceptions." He spoke almost proudly of the Soviet adversary, as if he were discussing what a magician had proven he could do in earlier tricks. "It demonstrated it could control double agents, like Yakushev, in foreign countries and over extended periods of time." Yakushev was the classic "dangle" which, in the invisible intelligence war, is someone who, while loyally taking orders from his own intelligence service, feigns disloyalty to his country to attract the attention of the other side,like the bait on a fish hook. The dangle may even pretend to defect—in which case he is called a "dispatched agent." "Soviet intelligence also showed it could orchestrate events over the better part of a decade so as to turn these controlled agents into sources on which the West relied." This "orchestration" involved simulating evidence to make a fake underground credible ...

mdhb 2y ago
I’m not trying to be rude about this at all, I’m just going to point out that this particular topic is one that I’m absolutely certain I know of in much more detail than you do. I’m obviously familiar with what a dangle is and how it works both in theory and in practice but if you’re trying to imply Barsky was somehow a dangle I wouldn’t politely say you don’t know what you’re talking about at all. I’m not trying to give you a hard time about this but if you have some kind of compelling evidence beyond what you’ve read in a single book I’d ask you to share it. To suggest Barsky is somehow suspect is really at odds with not only all of the details of his story and his eventual arrest but also the entire professional community on the subject. It’s just not true.
- rramadass 2y ago
  I am not being rude either but your claims do not mean anything (this is The Internet after all). As i point out no outside observer can know the "Definitive Truth" in these sort of subjects. That is why i pointed to resources which give you a framework to understand the domain and perhaps maybe have some level of confidence in the validity of your own understanding. The individual episodes like Jack Barsky etc. are not useful unless you have a bigger puzzle into which you can slot in these episodes to arrive at a bigger more complete and more meaningful picture. That was what i was hinting at above. You can believe whatever you want but then it is up to you to figure out how closely your "beliefs" themselves are real well before you use them to "interpret" the "Real World".
  - mdhb 2y ago
    That bigger puzzle you are talking about is a topic I’m extremely familiar with. You appear to have read 3 random books (none of which were written by anyone who worked in that field) at some point and are now relying on excessive use of quotation marks to make it seem more mysterious than it is. I’m not looking to debate you on this one, I was pointing out that I happen to know with an incredibly high level of confidence that what you are saying isn’t correct.
    - rramadass 2y ago
      You can claim whatever you want on the Internet. I have seen no evidence from you (links/articles/books etc.) regarding your knowledge of the subject domain and hence do not have to take you seriously at all. The resources i have listed are for the general public to get an idea of how to think about the overall subject domain and not some rah-rah storybook. People who study strategy/tactics/politics/psychology/warfare/operant conditioning etc. will understand what i am driving at while the others can ignore it as they please.
      - mdhb 2y ago
        I have a very hard time believing you actually study “strategy/tactics/politics/psychology/warfare/operant conditioning etc” and also came up with that particular list of book suggestions. One is from a straight up fraud. Another is based on an series of interviews with the man who is widely known as the single worst leader the CIA has ever had because he was so paranoid and ever since they got rid of him they have spent every moment warning against ever having another person like him in a leadership position again. The other I don’t know but seems to be really aligned with this same ultra paranoid worldview but has nothing to do with actual professionals.