I'm surprised that the main point you seem to get from the article is something it doesn't even state. it looks like you're not trying really hard to understand what it says about resisting infiltration attempts and maintaining integrity in the face of frequent attacks from various kinds of opponents.

your frustration seems to suggest that you want the organization to be vulnerable to this sort of attacks, and that we're to blame for not opening our flanks to opponents. how would that even make sense?