3 ms·

Nitpicking over nomenclature is petty. Other applicable descriptions might be "asset", "tool", or "useful idiot". One of the keys of tradecraft is to convince

Nitpicking over nomenclature is petty. Other applicable descriptions might be "asset", "tool", or "useful idiot". One of the keys of tradecraft is to convince people to assist a specific contracted officer (that is, a direct employee of an intelligence service) without necessarily being part of the service, or even aware of doing its bidding. On usage within the CIA, specifically between "agent" and "asset": An intelligence asset is an individual who provides information and services to the CIA but is not officially paid or technically controlled by them. An agent, on the other hand, is someone who officially works for the CIA. They are paid by the CIA and are under their relative control as an employee. <https://rdctd.pro/cia-agents-versus-cia-assets/ https://rdctd.pro/cia-agents-versus-cia-assets/> Interestingly enough, the CIA's own nomenclature is ... less clear: Asset: a clandestine source; an agent. <https://www.cia.gov/resources/spy-glossary/ https://www.cia.gov/resources/spy-glossary/> Either way, the relevant discussion is whether or not the subject is, knowingly/intentionally or otherwise, assisting a hostile power. And there's strong circumstantial evidence that this is the case, sufficient to be the topic of international chatter, e.g., "Tory MP: Trump is a ‘Russian asset’" <https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tory-mp-trump-is-a-russian-asset/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tory-mp-trump-is-a-russi...> Paywall: <https://archive.is/k8Dr2 https://archive.is/k8Dr2>

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tim333 2y ago
Though agent/asset is fairly clear. Trump isn't "someone who officially works for" the Russians. I think it's good to try to be clear about Russian influence because they are so sneaky with it. Like with Brexit - the leave campaign was basically funded by the Russians but how it was done, probably is there was a businessman, Banks with a struggling business. He got befriended by the Russians and someone connected to them put tens of millions of investment into his business. He then funded leave and can claim it's all his UK sourced money. The actual money came through an opaque offshore trust in a secrecy enforcing tax haven so you can't prove it. Probably Trump's dealings are similar - he has business issues which were sorted by Russian investment in an opaque way with favours down the line. Banks wife it seems by the way was an actual Russian agent ie recruited and paid salary by the Russian services.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  A key success factor to various informational influencing techniques, whether state-sponsored intelligence, marketing/advertising, targeted manipulation, or other, is that often vagueness and deniability are core intentional methods deliberately employed. That's not always the case, and omerta, (virtue/loyalty) signalling, and the like, also have value, but those most often move up, from lower ranks to higher. That is, it's the lower ranks which are interested in signalling virtue, trustworthiness, and/or loyalty to some boss. A centralised intelligence service, state or otherwise, tends to operate clandestinely (often represented in name or descriptions, e.g., "clandestine operations" or "clandestine agency", etymology "secret, hidden", see: <https://www.etymonline.com/word/clandestine https://www.etymonline.com/word/clandestine>). These also operate within existing control centres (hence, the everlasting problem of determining trust and institutional loyalty within government and other organisations, and the problem of moles or turncoats), and along existing social fracture, ideological, or affinity points (e.g., racist or nationalistic rhetoric, claiming religious preference, or narratives which people both want to believe and which act as "cold readings" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading) or "dog whistles" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)), where meanings may be fluidly interpreted according to audience background (this has long been a staple of Middle Eastern rhetoric, from both Israeli and Arabic camps, as well as of course numerous others), or where the actual meaning is, again, covert and clandestine, but apparent to the intended audience. Of course, apologists for a side employing these tactics will point to all these obfuscations as proof of innocence, when they are in fact key elements of the offensive. What often reveals this is leaks of internal discussion which emphasise such points, or of words and deeds at odds. History of corporate disinformation (lead, asbestos, mercury, pollution generally, CFS/ozone depletion, cigarettes, alcohol, automobile safety, fossil fuels/global warming) reveal many such cases, see Oreskes and Conway's Merchants of Doubt for numerous examples and tells: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt>. Awareness of such methods dates back to Aristotle and his Sophistical Refutations, essentially a guide to identifying and combatting bullshit: <https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.1.1.html https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.1.1.html>.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tim333 2y ago

Though agent/asset is fairly clear. Trump isn't "someone who officially works for" the Russians. I think it's good to try to be clear about Russian influence because they are so sneaky with it. Like with Brexit - the leave campaign was basically funded by the Russians but how it was done, probably is there was a businessman, Banks with a struggling business. He got befriended by the Russians and someone connected to them put tens of millions of investment into his business. He then funded leave and can claim it's all his UK sourced money. The actual money came through an opaque offshore trust in a secrecy enforcing tax haven so you can't prove it. Probably Trump's dealings are similar - he has business issues which were sorted by Russian investment in an opaque way with favours down the line. Banks wife it seems by the way was an actual Russian agent ie recruited and paid salary by the Russian services.

dredmorbius 2y ago
A key success factor to various informational influencing techniques, whether state-sponsored intelligence, marketing/advertising, targeted manipulation, or other, is that often vagueness and deniability are core intentional methods deliberately employed. That's not always the case, and omerta, (virtue/loyalty) signalling, and the like, also have value, but those most often move up, from lower ranks to higher. That is, it's the lower ranks which are interested in signalling virtue, trustworthiness, and/or loyalty to some boss. A centralised intelligence service, state or otherwise, tends to operate clandestinely (often represented in name or descriptions, e.g., "clandestine operations" or "clandestine agency", etymology "secret, hidden", see: <https://www.etymonline.com/word/clandestine https://www.etymonline.com/word/clandestine>). These also operate within existing control centres (hence, the everlasting problem of determining trust and institutional loyalty within government and other organisations, and the problem of moles or turncoats), and along existing social fracture, ideological, or affinity points (e.g., racist or nationalistic rhetoric, claiming religious preference, or narratives which people both want to believe and which act as "cold readings" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading) or "dog whistles" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)), where meanings may be fluidly interpreted according to audience background (this has long been a staple of Middle Eastern rhetoric, from both Israeli and Arabic camps, as well as of course numerous others), or where the actual meaning is, again, covert and clandestine, but apparent to the intended audience. Of course, apologists for a side employing these tactics will point to all these obfuscations as proof of innocence, when they are in fact key elements of the offensive. What often reveals this is leaks of internal discussion which emphasise such points, or of words and deeds at odds. History of corporate disinformation (lead, asbestos, mercury, pollution generally, CFS/ozone depletion, cigarettes, alcohol, automobile safety, fossil fuels/global warming) reveal many such cases, see Oreskes and Conway's Merchants of Doubt for numerous examples and tells: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt>. Awareness of such methods dates back to Aristotle and his Sophistical Refutations, essentially a guide to identifying and combatting bullshit: <https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.1.1.html https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.1.1.html>.