From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 01:10:11 MDT
Ramez Naam writes:
> From: Lee Corbin [mailto:lcorbin@tsoft.com]
> > The question is, how accurate is his worry that by
> > "playing along" with the system for two more years,
> > he will compromise his own resistance?
>
> Surely this is a judgment call based on the strength of
> conviction of the individual and just how large the gap
> is between his beliefs and the beliefs he would pretend
> at.
>
> I think a good place to search for past examples of this
> is in espionage. What little I know of the field leads me
> to believe that a great many spies have been in "deep
> cover" for years at a time without switching allegiances.
> Or at least, that's how it is in the spy movies and books.
> :)
Good point. There was a recent mini-series here in OZ
based on the Cambridge spies, Burgess, Philby, McLean (?)
and I forget the last. Point is though that this was not
*just* fiction. These guys were in deep cover and managed
to get to the highest levels of influence.
Perhaps significantly though there were four of them
in allegiance, they did not have to keep a secret alone.
At least periodically they could get together and share
some angst and reassure each other that all was for the
greater good (as they saw it). And also significantly
when one of then fell the others were well aware that
all of them would almost certainly fall quickly afterwards.
- Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 01:15:26 MDT