subversion can be only successful when the initiator the actor, the agent of subversion has a responsive target. It's a two-way traffic. The United States is a receptive target of subversion.

ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate overt and open. [...] in reality the main emphasis of the kgb is not in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion and opinion of many defectors of my caliber only about 15 % of time money and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other eighty-five percent is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures or psychological warfare. What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of the abundance of (...)

[Ideological subvertion] It's a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow and it's divided in four basic stages. The first one being „demoralization” it takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. (…) the next stage is destabilization. This time subverter does not care about your ideas and the patterns of your consumption.(...) the next stage of course is crisis. It may take only up to six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis. (...) And after crisis with a violent change of power structure and economy you have so-called the period of normalization, it (...)

The first one being „demoralization” it takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which requires to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of the enemy. in other words Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or counter balanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism. The result you can see most of the people who graduated in 60s - dropouts or half-baked (...)

what subversion is basically consists of four periods (…)
The first stage of subversion is the process which is called basically demoralization. Says for itself what it is. It takes from say 15 to 20 years to demoralize a society. Why 15 or 20 years? This is the time sufficient to educate one generation of students or children. One generation, one lifetime span of a person, a human being which is dedicated to study, to shaping up the outlook, ideology, personality. No more or less. Usually it takes from 15 to 20 years. What it includes? Influencing (or by (...)

As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore a person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents with pictures, even if I take him by force to the soviet union and show him concentration camp - he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom. When the military boot crashes him then he will understand. But not before. That that's the tragic of the situation of demoralization.

The moment you bring a country to the point of almost total demoralization, when nothing works anymore, when you are not sure of right or wrong, good and bad, there is no division between evil and good. When even the leaders of church sometimes say „well violence for the sake of justice, especially social justice, is justified in countries like Nicaragua and Salvador, well maybe Rhodesia”. And we listen to them and say here „probably it's true”. Is it true? No. It is not true. Violence is not justified. Especially for the sake of „social justice” introduced by Marxist Leninist (...)

the next stage is destabilization this time subverter does not care about your ideas and the patterns of your consumption. whether you eat junk food and get fat and flop it doesn't matter anymore this time and it takes only from two to five years to destabilize the nation. it's what matters is essentials economy, foreign relations, defense systems. And you can see it quite clearly that in some areas, in such sensitive areas as defense and economy the influence of Marxist Leninist ideas in the united states is absolutely fantastic. I could never believe it 14 years ago when (...)

next step is destabilization. again this word says for itself what it is: to destabilize all the relations, all the accepted institutions and organizations in a country of your enemy. How you do it? You don't have to send up a battalion of KGB agents to blow up bridges. no! you let them do it themselves! the area of application is narrower now. not like the previous case the overt legitimate actions of the KGB in this case would be hardly noticeable. there is no crime if a professor who recently went to USSR introduces the course of Marxism Leninism (...)

On that stage the sleepers (the students (…) are being sent back from the Soviet Union here or if they were already in the United States in the country which is the object of subversion) they spring to action. The sleepers go up. They slept for 15 to 20 years. now they become leaders of groups, preachers, I don't know… public figures. They actively include themselves in the political process. All of a sudden we see a homosexual - 15 years ago he did his dirty job and nobody cared. Now he makes it a political issue. it's a political (...)

the next stage of course is crisis it may take only up to six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis. you can see it in in central America now.

Destabilization process usually leads directly to the process of crisis. (…) The process starts when the legitimate bodies of power, the social structure, collapses. It cannot function anymore, so instead we have artificial body injected into society, such as non elected committees: (…) social workers who are not elected by people, media who are self-appointed rulers of your opinion, some strange groups which claim that they know how to lead society forward (they don't usually, only care how to sell their own concocted ideology mixture of religion and ideology). Here we have all this artificial body claiming power. If the (...)

Crisis is when society cannot function any more productively. It collapses. Obviously that's the word for crisis. So, therefore, the population at large is looking for savior. The religious groups are expecting a messiah to come. The workers say „we have family to feed, let's have a strong government maybe socialist government - centralized. Where somebody put their employers on their place and let us work. we are sick and tired of going on strike and over time and all that stuff. We need some strong man, strong government and a leader a savior is needed.” Population is sick and (...)

the next stage is normalization. normalization is a very ironic word, of course. it is borrowed from 1968 situation in Czechoslovakia when the Soviet propaganda and after them New York Times declared the country is normalized - the tanks moved into Prague so there is no more Prague Spring there is no more violence - normal, normalization.

At that stage the self-appointed rulers of the society don't need any revolution anymore. They don't need any radicalism anymore. So this is the reverse from the destabilization. Basically it is stabilizing the country by force. so all the sleepers and activists and social workers and liberals and homosexuals and professors and Marxist Americans are being eliminated - physically sometimes - they’ve done their job already. they are not needed anymore. the new rulers need stability to exploit the nation, to exploit the country, to take advantages of the victory. No more revolutionists, please. (…) so no more revolutions please. (...)

The ideas are moving society and keeping mankind as a society of human beings. intelligent moral agents of God. The facts, the truth, the exact knowledge may not. All the sophisticated technology and computers will not prevent society from disintegrating and eventually dying out. Have you ever met a person who would sacrifice his life, freedom for the truth like that? This is truth. I never met the person who said „this is truth and I'm ready to shoot me, to defend the truth”. Right? But millions sacrificed their life freedom, comfort, everything for things like God. Like Jesus Christ. (...)

So the answer to ideological subversion strangely enough is very simple you don't have to shoot people you don't have to send missiles and Pershing's and cruise missiles at Andropov’s headquarters. You simply have to have faith and prevent suppression. In other words not to be a victim of subversion, don't try to be a person who in judo is trying to smash your enemy and being caught by your hand. don't strike like that. strike with the power of spirit and moral superiority. If you don't have the power it's high time to develop it. and that's the only (...)

Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity… In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.

The development of a radical political consciousness among the masses is conceivable only if and when the economic stability and the social cohesion of the system begin to weaken. It was the traditional role of the Marxist-Leninist party to prepare the ground for this development. The stabilizing and integrating power of advanced capitalism, and the requirements of “peaceful coexistence,“ forced this party to “parliamentarize“ itself, to integrate itself into the bourgeois-democratic process, and to concentrate on economic demands, thereby inhibiting rather than promoting the growth of a radical political consciousness.

Indeed, such a redressing seems to be tantamount to the establishment of a “right of resistance“ to the point of subversion.

Triumph and end of introjection: the stage where the people cannot reject the system of domination without rejecting themselves, their own repressive instinctual needs and values. We would have to conclude that liberation would mean subversion against the will and against the prevailing interests of the great majority of the people. In this false identification of social and individual needs, in this deep-rooted, “organic“ adaptation of the people to a terrible but profitably functioning society, lie the limits of democratic persuasion and evolution. On the overcoming of these limits depends the establishment of democracy.

The result would be a spread, not only of discontent and mental sickness, but also of inefficiency, resistance to work, refusal to perform, negligence, indifference - factors of dysfunction which would hit a highly centralized and coordinated apparatus, where breakdown at one point may easily affect large sections of the whole. To be sure, these are subjective factors, but they may assume material force in conjunction with the objective economic and political strains to which the system will be exposed on a global scale. Then, and only then, that political climate would prevail which could provide a mass basis for (...)

There is no reason why science, technology, and money should not again do the job of destruction, and then the job of reconstruction in their own image. The price of progress is fright-fully high, but we shall overcome.

Dare we conspire to create a critical pedagogy that is able to provide conditions for students to reject what they experience as a given; a pedagogy that includes a sharpened focus on the relationship among economies of capital investment, political economies, moral economies, economies of “free” expression, sexual economies, economies of belief and identity formation and the construction of desire and formation of human will; a pedagogy of discontent and of outrage that is able to contest the hegemony of prevailing definitions of the everyday as the “way things are”; a pedagogy that refuses the hidebound distinction between lofty expression (...)

We also need to construct new narratives - new “border narratives” - in order to re-author the discourses of oppression in politically subversive ways, as well as create sites of possibility and enablement.

We need to infuse critical pedagogy with a subversive power that is able to effect new cultural transgressions and that cannot be brought within the fateful orbit of commodity exchange.

This paper argues that one future pedagogical priority of women’s studies is to train students not only to master a body of knowledge but also to serve as symbolic “viruses” that infect, unsettle, and disrupt traditional and entrenched fields. We explore how the metaphor of the virus - its structure and its potential for unsettling and disrupting the everyday processes of its “host” - exemplifies a compelling model for feminist pedagogy (minus, of course, the killing of the host). We then turn to the affective experiences of viruses and the sorts of emotional responses they typically produce both in individuals (...)

Inherently opportunistic, viruses exploit the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of the systems they attack (Nathanson, 2007). Similarly, women’s studies programs are allowed to settle into corporate universities and regenerate themselves through the education of students and by manipulating portions of the academy under their control. Using interdisciplinary women’s studies coursework as a springboard, women’s studies students are then “set loose,” much in the same way that lytic replication (wherein cells reproduce viral components until the cell walls rupture) causes a burst of new viruses into the system that then infect other cells (Nathanson, 2007). Note that this model also assumes that (...)

The changes necessary to bring about that equality were, and still are, very revolutionary indeed. They involve a sex-role revolution for men and women which will restructure all our institutions: child rearing, education, marriage, the family, the architecture of the home, the practice of medicine, work, politics, the economy, religion, psychological theory, human sexuality, morality, and the very evolution of the race.

These accounts also produce the perhaps surprising insight that there should not and cannot be only one science around the globe. Rather, economic, political, social, and cultural differences between societies insure that each will develop distinctive bodies of knowledge that, they hope, best enable them to flourish in the particular parts of the natural and social world that they occupy. Apparently such differences between scientific traditions extend into their ontologies and epistemologies. We do, and in principle must, live in a “world of sciences.” The next argument brings such a conclusion into conflict with an otherwise illuminating recent philosophy of (...)